CIHM Microfiche Series (IMonographs) ICIMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroraproductiont / institut Canadian da microraproductions hittoriquas Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faatures of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual method of filming, are chackad below. L'Institut a microfilma le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ate possible da se procurer Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont paut-^tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m«thoda normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagia |~~| Coloured pages/ Pages da coulaur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees I j Covers restored and/or laminated/ I— 1 Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couvertui D couverture manque pn Coloured maps/ n n Cartas gAographiquas en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encra de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noirel I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion la long da la marga intiriaure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors dune restauration apparaissant dans la taxta. mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M filmAas. □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolorees. tachetAes ou piquets Pages detached/ Pages detachees □ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualite inAgale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplamentaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc . have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure. etc.. cnt ite flim^es i nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: There are some creases in the middle of the pages. II y a des plis dans le milieu des pages. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. ^OX 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 1SX 20X /I 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed h«r« has b—n r«produc«fi thanks to tha ganarosity of: ArchivOT of Ontario Toronto L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica k la gintrosit* da: ArchivM publiqutt d« I'Ontario Toronto Tha imagat appaaring hara ara tha baat quality postibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Original eopiaa in printod papar covars ara fllmad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- •ion. or tha aack covar whan appropriata. All othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Laa imagas suivantas ont At* raproduitas avac la ptua grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditiona du contrat da fiimaga. Laa axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast imprimAa sont filmAs an commancant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darniAra paga qui eomporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par ia sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous laa autras axamplairas originaux sont filmis an commandant par la pramiira paga qui eomporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darniAra paga qui eomporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol ^^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whichavar appliaa. Mapc. platas. charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant reduction ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba entirely included in one expoaura ara filmed beginning in the upper left hend corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrama illustrate the method: Un dea symboles suivanta tpparaitra sur la darniire image do cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbole V signifie "FIN ". Les cartas, planchea. tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtra filmAs A das taux da reduction diff Arants. Lorsqua le document est trop grand pour Atra raproduit en un seul clich*. il est filmi A partir da Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche i droita. at de haut en bas. an prenant le nombre d'imeges nOcessaira. Las diagrammas suivants illustrant le mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MKMCOPT nSOWnON TBT CHART (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) /1PPLIED IN/MGE I ■ 653 Eos! Hcin Street Rochester. New Yorti 14609 USA (716) 482 - 0300 - PhOfie (7I«) 288 - S98« - Fo. 'wm ■^w' ^i^^^^^^^^^ nt T>(o Motist of Commons Bebat^s THIRD SESSION— ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT. SPEECH BT MR LLOYD HARRIS, M.P. OH RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES OTTAWA, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1911. Mr. LLOYD HARBIS (Brantterd). Mr. Chairman, I think that the question before the House and the country is perhapa the most important queetion that we have had to consider in. Canada eince confederation. I have one of the hardest taaks of my life allotted to ' e to-night, for the simple rea- son that I find I am not able to support the government on this important proposal. I have reachiid this conclusion with very considerable regret. It is not easy. I think every one will admit, to cast oS paity ties on an important issue of any kind, and I deeply regret the fact that I have be«n forced to the conclusion that I cannot sup- port the government in this proposal, be- cause I do not think the proposal is in the best interests of Canada. Ever since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made his announcement in this House, I have hpen endeavouring to get a sane and safe view from a -Canadian standpoint as to the effect of this proposal on our present na- tional life and on the future development of the national life of Canada. When the announcement was first mado, I had a very strong impression that it wa«j.a departure from a policy which I had thought had 223—1 been the policy of the Liberal party, but 1 also thouf-ht that it wa« a departure which would lead us into ways and In directions which would not be for the futtwe best welfare of Canada. At that time I w«« apparently alone on this side of the Houae because Ihe announcement was greeted, I thought, with considerable enthusia8m_ on the part of members on this side, but since I find that the viewa I formed at that time are shared very largely by very man; peo- ple throughout the country. I do not c«n- sider that all the brains of Canada are confined within the four walls of this room. I think there are men engaged in large un- dertakings who are just as good Canadiana, who have just as good, and perhaps a great deal better opportvwjtiea of sizing up tiio real conditions in Canada and the real facts of an issue of this kind as we have In this House. I have purposely refrained from making any public utterance on the question ootil 1 had an opportunity of listening to the right hon. the Prime Ministeor (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I listened to him yeateida? with a very great deal of interest and with • very great deal of plea«are. I think I migbt My that I have always been an ad- mirer of the right hon, the Prime Minister. I have been very ?lad indeed to eerve un- der him, because I thfaik that he haa done at moch for Canada a« any man whom we have ever had here, and I listened yeater- day with perhaps more admiration than I have ever had tot him before for the sim- ple reason that he made certainly a ma^i- flcent speech; he aroused the enthusiasm of our friend* on thia side of the House. He covered every aspect of the subject, ex- cepting the one important one. I was glad to see the right hon. the Prime Minister very frank about this, because he frankly admitted that he was not a business man. I n»uM confess that the only training I have ever had has been along business lines and perhaps I look at thingis from too prac- tical a standpoint, there may not be enough sentiment in my makeup. However, I think what we need in this country i» a good practical business consideration and dia- cuasion of a measure of thia kind before we allow it to become law. I had intended saying a few words on the amendment, which wa« iMroduoed by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) be- fore the recess; I thought an opportunity would have been given for the members to spe&k on that after dinner. Apart entirely from the economic features of this case, I have four good and sufficient reasona, at least they are sufficient for me, for opposing thia measure. First of all I do not think that this government has any mandate from the people. The main argu- ments that have been advanced in favour of this measure have been the fact that this is an historic policy, a policy of both parties in Canada for the last 50 or 60 years, •nie Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in making his announcement reviewed the his- tory of the different negotiations which have taken place between Canada and the United States with reference to reciprocity between the two countries. Other speak- ers have done the same thing. I am not going to weary the House by going into the details of these different negotiations, but all the speakers who have touched up- on the subject, have brought down the his- tory of these negotiations from 1854, the time of the first treaty, to 1896. Since 1896 I do not think that any case has been made out. For my own part, I can only say that unfortunately I was absent from Can- ada from 1889 to 1900 an<: have only been familiar with Canadian conditions and poli- tics in the last 11 years, and I know posi- tively that in that 11 years reciprocity has not been an issue with either party in this country. I have no mandate from the peo- ple of my own constituency to support this measure. If I go back to my own constitu- ency and tell the pe' .xactly what I think of the effect th eioing to have on that particular const ..^cy, and aay that I have supported it, I do not think iJiey will have any use for me In fatmre. Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigoniah). Have yod a mandate to oppose it? I Mr. HARRIS. That is an easy question to answer. A man always has a mandate [to oppose anything he has not a mandate to vote for. I have been a little surprised that no authorities have been quoted on this subject. I have been looking up the ques- tion, and I find in a work entitled ' The Government of England,' by Lovell, who. I believe, is a recognized authority, under Uie head, ' The Doctrine of Mandate,' the following: Another sign of the times is found in the dcotrine, now 8anctioned by the haghest au- thority, that parliament oannot legislate on a new question of vital importance witboat a mandate from the nation. The theory that the individual representative is a mere dele- gate of his constituents, so that he is bound to resign and submit to re-election if he changes his views, has long been a subject of diMossion: but the idea that parliament as a whole exercises a delwated authority in the sense that it is moraUy restrained from dealing with questions that have not been laid before the people at the preceding gen- eral election would formerly have been re- gaided aa a dangerous political heresy. Yet dnnng the recent agitation in regard to Bscal policy. Mr. Balfour, while repudiating the suggestion that the existing parliament, hav- ing been elected on the single issue ot the South African war, ought to be dissolved when peace was made, refused to grant time for a debate on free food or. the gronnd that It would be constitutionally improper for parliament to act on the question until it had been submitted to the people at a gen- eral elertion, and that it would be unwise for the House to discuss a subject on which It could not act. I think we are wasting time in discussing this question, because we have not any mandate from the people of this oonwitry with regard to it. My second reason for opposing it, is the method of doing it. If the government had a mandaite, the method would have been quite correct, but the government having no mandate, the very fact that we in this House, who have been elected by our sev- eral constituencies to represent the people of this country, have never even been called into consultation, Uiat we have never been asked to express our views oi a measure which is perhaps the most radical departure in policy that we have ever had in this country, amd the fact that two men went to Washington and made thia arranf«ement and have come back to this parliament and are practically trying to force this measure through the House, is a method which I. '■WK^^^-,V iP peraonalljr, cannot cupport. Let ua con- sider (or a minnte the pcooedura la the eaie. It haa not been brought out in the if you wanA to penalize us. we ■'•■ .ulize you, which we did; and I t! it action had the support of every- bt .y in this country. And when the United •jtatt'« made representations that it was necessary to have legislation put through at Ottawa to save the president of that coun- try, I think we should have given them the same answer that we gave to Germany. Now, what consideration has been given to this arrangement? I have been very much interested in these negotiations ever since they commenced; and as far as I can find out, the two ministers returned from Washington on a Wednesday, and at that time apparently the other members of the cabinet, or at least those that I spoke to, knew no more about the conditions of this compact than I knew myself. The council evidently met on Thursday for an hour— if I am wrong in this, I hope I shall be cor- rected; this proposal was evidently consid- ered by the council for one hour, at three o'clock this House met, amd at 3.30 the hon. Minister of Finance came in and laid the agreement before the House. •! am. only speaking for myself, but personally, I do not think that any man should be asked to support a measure which is forced through in that way, and which means so much to this country. The third reason which I have for oppos- ing it, is the one to which I attach the most importance. No doubt all of the hon. members of th'-" House have had the sanu' experience tha I have had while these m- gotiations were in progress. I had letter? and interviews, and when I went to west- ern Ontario, I met a great many people who expressed their anxiety that somethinc might happen which would effect them or their interests adversely. To one and all 223—11 of tueh requeata for intormaitioa, I said: You need have no fear whatever, becausa tiiere will be no revision or alteration of the tariff of thi* oountry without a thorough investigation. I want to state my reasons for having given that answer, and if I make a longer quotation from ' Han«ard ' than 1 would like to do, I hope the Houae will bear wiUi me. The right hon. the Prime Minister, on the second day of this session, speaking in the Dobote on the Aildress in reply to the speech from thi; Tiirone, re- ferring to his visit of liii>t suimncT to the west, made this statement: The people of the w> have a revision of the tariff periodically, but not year after year. I stated to the peo- ple of the northwest during my recent trip that li would be our duty to consider their requests and to deal with them in the spirit ia which we have always dealt with requesti frcm the people. And I repeat that now. I stated, and my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) quoted my words, that we would have a crm mission of investigation before we under- took a revision of the tariff. I noticed that that evoked a cheer on the part of hon. members on the other side of the Home. And may I be permitted to say without ofiendinK my hon. friend, and with every hope that he will pardon my pride in the matter, that the parts of his address that were moat applanded were his qnotations from my speeches. I trust that this flattery will not n.ake me vain ; I mention it only as a fact which is within the knowledge of all who heard the hon. member's apetch. The state- ment made by myself and quoted by the hon. KCi'tleman that we would nave an investiga- tion by commission before we altered the taiiff called forth a special cheer from hon. members opposite. Does any hon. member .111 the other side take issue with the promise I made? Would any f them advocate msh- inj; into a revision <> the tariff without pre- ricus investiKation? That I consider a atateamanlike utter- nn-ce. I was perfectly siatisfied with it. I took it as a distinct and definite promise, and I made other promises on the strength of it. The fourth reason that I have, is one which may not perhaps appeal to some members of the House, but I do not think we ahould look upon Uiia reaaon ki too light a way. It ia ibat it haa hurt the prida of CaoadUna. Some ot my bon. ffieoda laogh. I think a glance over the history ot Can- ada since confederation will proTe my point. For many years we felt that we were absolutely dependent on the United States, and we had these pilgrimages to Washington, for the purpose of negotiating free trade relations. But every time that we went wearing out our shoe leather, as one hon. gentleman has put it, what was the result? We simply met with one rebuff after another. Every time we knocked at their door, we were refused admittance: and the load we had to carry in Canada for a great many years seemed greater than we actually could bear. Hrd we got. however, what we wanted at that time, the whole course of Canadian history would have been changed. We would not have had a country such as we now have. Our maritime provinces would have been connected by trade and com- m€rce with the eastern states; Ontario would have been dealing entirely with the state of New York and the adjacent states and in the Northwest of Canada. I doubt if we would have built a railway around the north shore of Lake Superior. But not hav- ing been able to get what we wanted, we were forced to initiate a policy of our own, and that was to take off our coats and seek to bind this country together and create a nation. We have done this. We have done perhaps what no other country in the world has accomplieh( es of lapply. What is one of the meet eieetive weapone in combating that inflntoeer It is the opening of new markata, the giving ce tbcee who have prodnota to sell other aad wiaer markets in which to make their sales. I wonder if the so caUed Canadian truit was responsible for the unanimoua reaols- tion of the Berlin Board of Trade condemn- ing the proposal. Mr. KING. Will my hon. friend permit me to say that the Berlin Board of Trade did not pass the resolution attributed to it. according to a statement made subsequent- ly by the secretary of that board. Mr. HARRIS. I think I got tiie informa- tion in both cases from the Toronto ' Globe." I did not read that, how- ever, to in any way belittle my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. What I read it for was to contrast the utterances of one of our Canadian ministers with those of one of the American ministers, which were de- livered a ftw days ago at a public meeting in Chicago. At a dinner given by the Chi- cago board of commerce on the I5th Feb- ruary, at which one of the speakers waa Mr. James J. Hill and Mr. Knox, Secretary of State for the United States, the latter spoke to this large and important gathering of Chicago's best business men on the ques- tion of reciprocity as follows: BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS BECIPBOCITT. This function conld oeaae now and here vathont a moment of apeech, and etill go down in history aa almoat epoobal, beoanse when baa it occurred that a matter of each grave economic significance aa the one which 19 now not only being considered by the Con- gtesi, but by the people. Iws ga!Uiered te- sether each an assemblage aa thia, men who« bands are upon the throttles of great enter- prises for the development of our oonntry, and whe are worth more to its nltimate and its present proeperity than a thonaand timea as many politicians going up and down Hie land demandina that something shall be dona for fear something wiU happen. W^-w'%' Tha point I wu maklnc wu tbla. that then is a great deal of oppoaition to thU meaanre thraafhont tha countTT. not oon> fined to any partienlar elaaa. The oppoai- tion to it ia not reatricted by any meana to the bneineia, manataeturing, financial and oommercial iiitcreata, but it alao ex* tenda to the farmera. Some hon. MEMBEB8. Hear.' hear. Mr. HARRIS. I have been Intereated in following aeveral of theae ballota which have been taken by different newapapera. In one Canadian Agrieoltural Journal which I was reading to-night, I find that the num- ber of votea throughout Canada apparent- ly in favour of thia meaaure waa about I.OOO and against it 000, ao that the oppoaition to it ia not, aa aome hon. membera would have ua believe, coming from the one quar- ter. But even if it did come from one clasa, every Canadian haa the right to make up hia mind on any important Queation, and in ao doing he ahouUd not be subjected to the imputations cf unworthy motives. We have in Canada all classes of people. We are not purely and aimply an agricultural country. Manufacturing is a necessity. At leaat I think that we require manufac- turing induatriea, but if it be not the policy of the Liberal party to have manufacturing, I auppose I shall have to remove myself from Canada. But I aubmit that one man in one industry in Canada is just aa good aa a man in another in- dustry. We are - all Canadians work- intt toRether for tiie Reneral benefit. I have liatened with a great deal of in- tereat to all the argi lenta which have been put forth in defe. ' of thia measure. I liatened with great pleaaure to mv hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the other night— I alwaya listen with pleasure to the hon. member because he alwaya aaya something good, something of interest. But, in reading hia speech next day, I found ttiat it waa one of hia characteristic speeches. He quoted Peel, and Cobden and Gladstone. I am inte?eBted, aa much aa anybody possibly could be, in the free trade history of England. The men who inaugurated the policy of free trade in England were doing exactly what we at the present time in Canada are trying to do. Thev were trying to frame a policy which will make England a great country. Their policy, I believe, was the best that oonld posaioiy be pursued for that country at that time. But the fact tiiat that policy waa a good thing for England aeventy or eighty years ago is no reaaon why we should accept it as the policy fot Canada la 1911. We have to stud} the conditions of our own country. I have given a great deal of thought to what I suppoae ia the real poliay f 'he Liberal party. When the present govern- ment came into power, the exlatint policy waa one of proteetion to all induatriea. That policy, I think all will utp». haa been retained. It haa been changed to ault the oondltions arisinc from time to tim^— I do not b*> lieveln a hard and faat policy of any kind. Added to that flacal policy, how- ever, the government immediately inapir- ed a new faith in the future of Canada. They undertook a vigoroua programme of development of our natural reaourcea. We advertiaed in a large and eomprehenaive way, and iu the proper placea, our poten- tialitiea. We undertook in a large way addiUona to our tranaportation faeilitiea. We have followed a policy of encouraging agriculture, the growing of producta for our available marketa; an*!, what waa more important, a policy of transportation facil- ities which would carry our surplus pro- ducts to the best markets of the world in the best possible condition. The govern- ment granted the imperial preference. They made very large expsnditurea on agriculture, in order to give information to the farmera of this country of the best methods of growing and putting up their producta so that they might command the highest price. This, I consider, has been the policy of the Liberal party, and that policy has been eminently successful. I can remember twenty.flve or thirty yeara ago— though I am h young man yetn- when the farmera came on our market in Brantford and sold chickena at 10 cents each; to-day they are getting in the neigh- bourhood of 75 centa. They would sell butter nt 10 cents to 12 centa a pound, we are paying 30 cents to 40 centa per P^nd to-dav on the Brantford market. Egga werw'sold in those days from 8 cents te 10 cents a dozen ; now we are well off if we get them at 80 centa to flO cents at certain seasons of the year. What ia the reaaon of this? The first reaaon is that we have built up a consuming population in Canada which ia the fceat market our farmera have, and any surplus products can be shipped and delivered and sold in the best markets of the world where they will com- mand the highest prices. We have done all thia without any assistance from the United Statee. We were foreed to do it on our own account. Now we have got the home market, and, what I have always felt as to the future policy of thia country— and this is the crux, I think, of the economic situation in connec- tion with this meaeuTe— 48 that our agri- culture should be put in soch ehape that nothing should go out in ita crude condi- tion. I do not want to see the wheat of our Northwest go through United States channels. If it must go out of Canada in its raw cta*e, I want to eee it go through Canadian ohannela. But I want to aee a» l*._..a._ "^p maoh of it millMi In transit m poMiblo. That i buildinir up our own country. I do not want to ft that Moood grade wheat thnr hare in the weit sold on the market at all —it ii not g«ing to give ua a good name lor our Canadian wheat. I want to sea the meat indu*try <>«tablishrd in such * way that sucii wheat should go out of the coun- try in the ihape of dretsed meat, bacon, hame, and other similar products. In the province of Ontario, where we are at pre- sent growing 1200.000,000 worth of field crops,— first. 1 want to si>e that raiaed to $1,000,000,000.-1 do not want to see one dol- lar's worth of it jto out of Ontario tai ita crudo state, but in its most highly flniahe'l condition. And that, I think, is an Ideal worthy of any Canadian, and a policy that any party should be glad to maintain. A great deal has been said to prove that tht! effect of opening up our market In this country to ninety millions of people in the United Sta.tes and to other nations which can send in their products here on the same terms as the Americans can, will have no effect on the farm produce of this country. First, I wish to take up the ques- tion of our own prodaction and export. Many hon. members who have spoken on this subject, ridicule the home market. They want to know what the home market is worth anyway. Well, here are some fig- ures which I think will be of 'nterest to the members cf the House. In the year 1S08 the estimated value of the field crops of Canada was $432.5-34.000. In the Trr.de and Navigation Rrtums for the year end- inc March 31. 1909. the total exports of field products from Canada for the year— which would be the crop to which I have just referred— were $B:. 718.926, leaving a total of $.349,815,074. which was consumed in Canada. In other words, for every $1 of field produce raised in Canada, 80 cents worth was consumed and only 20 cents worth exported. That is what all this noise is about— to get markets for that JM cpnts worth. Now, included in the exports are the following which have gone through o process of manufacture— I wish to show how clos«^Iy agriculture and manufacturing must come together in this or any other acrricultairal country: Flonr.. $7,991,517 Indian meal Oatmeal All other meal Cereal foods. . Bran Canned berries 4,818 535,863 58,104 1,380.507 858.900 204,246 Total $11,064,0.W Those products all went through tain form of manufacture. I use the igures for comparison. In the following year, 1910, the amount was much larger in every way so far as crops in Canada were con- cerned. The total value o( the sropa _ $S31,e90.o ed state, was $19,86e,6fi3 aa against $11,000.. 000 the year before. That is what our homo market consumed in field crops alone. Now in animala and their producta. in 1900, tha exports were $aa,09e,7l0, and of that sum $38,144,107 went out of this country in tha form of finished products, leaving only $14.- 000,000 which went out in the raw condi- tion. I will submit the following tables in support of the remarks which I have Just made: EEPORT OF TRADE AND NAVIGATION FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH Slsr, 1916. Exports. ' 190V. Animals and their pro- ducts $ 52.028.710 Agricultural product).. 82.718,926 Minerals 37.257,699 Fisheries 18,382,871 J'orest 39,887.387 Manufactures 28,711.914 1910. $ 54,«96,636 102J47,69« 40.528,996 15.760,391 47.688.256 W,S31,467 Totals.. ..$253,915,537 $301,353,436 In the item ' animals and their products are nc! 'ed many articles which have gone throii),'h a process of manufacture, vi*. : 1909. Butter $1,575,877 Clifese 20,398,482 Furs, dressed 69,077 Furs, undressed 2,504,878 Urease 197,299 Glue stock 7.239 Hair 147.407 Hides 4.034,343 Horns and hoofs 5,459 Honey 1,188 Lurd 35,883 Bacon 8,415,247 Hums 422351 3,330 . .. 3.356 . .. 195,917 . .. 91.388 34,886 Game. Tongues Canned meats .. Condensed milk. Tallow 1910. $ 1,010,274 21,607,682 35,371 3,680,949 171,363 8.872 1?2.58S 5,430,591 8,924 621 133,268 6.431.859 416.886 6.244 264 193.479 541,372 16,279 Totals $38,114,107 $39,886,391 It has been stated that the favoured nation clause would have no effect on prices in Canada for farm produce. It is a very peculiar thing, but it is a fact, that every country in the world with the ex- ception of Denmark, which is known as an agricultural country, has high protection. I have schedules here showing ' r sever^ of these countries the duties on I'.e different article:* of produce going into them. A« 1 interpret the Act, Australia is not a favour- ed nation country, I do not think they get {ftToured nation treatment that other Brit- ish colonies get. An hon. MBMBEB All Britiih ooatea- «ioni. Mr. HAtUtlS. Ai 1 inte . 5 each. <..'alvi>ii, $1.02 ' SA'inc — Weigl'iug up t kiluKs.. 30.5 cents each. Weigl iuk; imi lu i20 kilugsi., $2.44 each. \7i'iirhiiitf ver 120 kilugs., $4.47 eaoh. Sheep, . 1.8 cents each. Lambi '0 5 ^ectg eoch. Wheut, > ^a'a per 100 pounds, liurky, .2.'' B (.'ents per 100 pounds. Ueaus. Zi.l cents per 100 iiounds. Potatoes, free. Butter, untural, fresh, $2.21 per 100 lbs. Butter, naturnl. salted, $3.22 per 100 lU. Cheese — Stracchino, Uorgonzola, fontina, montasio, and grana (Parmesan, lodiRinno, re- giano) ; also sbrinz cheese?: in the shape of millstones, $1.11 per 100 pounds. Other fine cheese for the table, $5.58 per 100 pounds. Hard cheeses in the shape of millstoDes — Weighing each 50 kilogs. (110 lbs.) or more, $1.11 per 100 pounds. WeiKlung lew than 50 kilngo.. $1.29 per 100 pounds. Other hard cheese, $4.t)0 per 100 pounds. Fkks /ree. liny. free. Then I come to Denmark. DiK.nark is practically the only agricultural country which admits agricultural products free. Probably Denmark is the moat highly edu- cated country agriculturally in Europe, or possibly in the world. Their agriculture is carried on under the moat perfect system. The Technical Educa- tion Commission propose to visit Denmark and they will find so much of interest and i gain so much information that will be of importance to Canada that I hope that when they come back with their report the people ■ ' Canada, the government, and this parliament will recognize the necessity, up to a ceitain point, until we get our agricul- tural and technical education thoroughly well established, of protecting the agricul- tural industry. With the permission of the House, I will submit the following tables: BATES OP DUTY ON CANADIAN PBODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO DENMARK. Articles tni tariff rates of duty. Cattle, swine, sheep, wheat, barley, beans, potatoes, butter, free. Batter in hermetically sealed Teasels, $4.86 per 100 poands. Cheese, $2.43 per 100 poands. Eggs and hay, free. BATES OF DUTY ON CANADIAN PBODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO FRANCE. Articles and tariff rates of duty. Cattle (fat cattle excladei)— Oxen, cows, bulls, steers, bullocks and heifers (live weight), $1.75 per 100 lbs. Calves (live weight), $3.51 per 100 lbs. tSwine— Pigs (lire weight), $2.20 per 100 lbs. Sucking pigs weighing 15 kilogs. or less, 77 cents each. Sheei>— Bams, ewes and wethers (live weight), $3.51 per 100 lbs. Lambs, weighing 10 kilogs. and less, 77 cents each. Wht^at. 61.4 cents per 100 lbs. Barley, 28.3 cents per 100 lbs. Beans, 26.3 cents per 100 lbs. Potatoes, 3.5 cents per 100 lbs. Butter- Fresh, $2.63 per 100 lbs. Salted. $1.75 per 100 lbs. CheeM— Hard, known as Dutch or Oruyere. $1.05 per 100 lbs. Fine (alfine) soft, $1.75 per 100 lbs. Medium hard (demi dure) and other, $1.32 per 100 lb*. Eggs, 52.7 cents per 100 lbs. Hay, 4.4 cents per 100 lbs. BATES OF DUTY ON CANADIAN PRODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO ITALY. Articles and tariff rates of duty. Cattle- Oxen, $7.33 each. Cows, $1.93 each. Bullocks and caWes, $1.54 each. Bulls, $3.47 each. Sheep and lambs, 58 cents each. Swine- Weighing up to 20 kilogs., 58 cents each. Weighing over 20 kilogs., $1.93 each. Wheat, 65.8 cents per 100 lbs. Barley, 35 cents per 100 lbs. Beans, 10.1 cents per 100 lbs. Potatoes, free. Butter- Fresh, $1.32 per 100 lbs. Salted, $1.75 per 100 lbs. Cheese- Hard oheeaes— Formaggio dolce, formaggio dell delta paglia, also Emmenthal, Oruyere, Ber- nese, saanen. sbrinx, spalen, K cents 100 lbs. Other hard cheeses, 87.7 cmts per 190 Iba Soft cheeses, $1.32 per lOO lbs. Eggs and hay. free. BATES OF DUTY ON CANADIAN PBODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO JAPAN. Articles and tariff rates of doty. Cattle. 10 per cent. Swine, 25 per cmt. Sheep. 25 per cent. Wheat. 21.46 cenU per 100 lbs. Barley. 16.94 oenU per 100 lb*. Beans, soja, 16.18 cents per 100 lbs. Beans, red or white, small, 16.94 cants per 100 lbs. Beans, (vicia faba), 13.93 cents per 100 lbs. Potatoes, 43.29 cents per 100 lbs. Butter, $10.02 per 100 lbs. Cheese, $6.40 per 100 lbs. Eggs,- $2.18 per 100 lbs. Hay, 6 cents per 100 lbs. BATES OP DUTY ON CANADIAN PRODUCTS ON IMPORTATION INTO NEW ZEALAND. Articles and tariff rates of duty. Cattle, $2.43 each. Swine and sheep, free. Wheat, 18.2 cents per 100 lbs. . Barley, 48.6 cents per 100 lbs. Beans, 18.2 cents per 100 lbs. Potatoes, 21.7 cen£s per 100 lbs. Butter. 20 per cent. Cheese, 20 per cent. Eggs, 30 per cent. Hay. 20 per cent. I have a few figures Bhowins the exports in 1906 of domestic produce irom the fol- lowing large exporting countries: Exports for ^ear 1908 of Domeatio Produce from foUowintr Countries: Argentine Republic $3534(5,154 Imolnded in aiboTe— Wheat $124,338,118 Floar 4,953,668 United State»- Animals $34,101,269 Animal prodaots 186,915,293 Breadstuffs 816,494,100 9407,510,682 Lumber (unmanofactared).. .. 9 87,043,960 Denmark — Butter 9 48,(00,000 Egca 7jm,Wt Dressed meats 91,500,000 9 87400,000 New Zealand- Meats (froaen) 9 1S,517,440 Wool 95,(01,868 Butter t,69(,7S8 Cheese 3,812,888 9 M.(Bt,755 Australia — BreadstuSs 9 ((.296,3(8 Animal prodnots (S,M(,8(4 Wool m.81(,14« rTT" 9151.4(8,371 I Fri Aaimkb $ S;6Se.l8S Bytttr U,6MJtl Ch«we 4,1«S.7M Hm S4M4M ^to«-- , «.e7B.9M Wool (r*w) 4S.7W.7M Fkh 7.sai.960 B*w UdM ai,S07.771 tll0.6U.7St The United States are producing exactly the same class of agricultural products -Oi*t we produce, and in 1908 they pro- duced over 1400,000,000 worth. I do not think the area of Denmark ia as great as that of our maritime provinces. With refer- ence to Australia, included in the item of animal products is |5,g32.9e? which is the value of the frozen mutton wuich was ex- ported during that year. In Australia sheep are grown for wool and not for meat. The meat is really a waste product. In so far as the sheep industry is concerned, with our farmers trying to grow sheep for the wool and the meat as they do in this coun- try, the sheep industry would be wiped out of existence. It may be said that the sheep industry does not amount to anything any way. I know it does not at the present time, but I would like to see it properly developed as well as other branches of agri- culture. France is not regarded by us as an agricultural country, but it really is one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world. I have only given these figures to show the competition that we will have in agricultural produce, not only from the United States, but from a great many other countries. At the present time New Zea- land buttter is finding its way to this mar- ket, and if the duty should be oS New Zealand butter I am thoroughly satisfied it will reduce the price of butter in Montreal by at leaet four cents a pound. The price of New Zealand and Danish butter in Eng- land at the present time is from 21 io 22 cents a pound, and in Mon- treal it is from 26 to 27 cents a poimd. It can be brought over here for about one cent a pound. Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds). Has my hon. friend a table showing the imports into Canada from these countries for the last year, of butter and eggsP Mr. HARRIS. No. I have not. I cannot prophesy what will really happen from al- lowing ninety millions of people access to our market, but if it does not mean very strong and keen competition with the farm- ers of this country I do not know anything about the business. Then, there is another point. The treat- ment we have had from the United States in fiaeal matters has been of such a char- acter that we have resented it at different times. I think, of course, that they were doing exactly as they had a right to do. They were engaged in exactly the fame problems that we are engaged with at the present time. From the time they started in the development of their country un- til they reached what is practically at the present day their maximum development they brooked no interference from anybody, they allowed no one to come into that coun- try and have their markets, they insisted that the people of the United States should have the markets themselves. As a matter of fact, the home market is the only mar- ket that any nation has absolute control over. We have not any control over the United States market. Now, when they come to a point in their development when it is to their interest to allow Canadian goods to come in they are willing to let us come in. But, we are in the same posi- tion tha'. they were in— I do not know just how mauy years ago it would be— but we have - ' s'arted in our development, we have ' reached our maximum develop- ment, i--' will not reach it for a great many years to come. I have the highest kind of regard for my United States friends, I^have a great many friends over there, and I have had a great deal of buEiiii«s to do in that country. An hon. MEMBER. You are still loyal? Mr. HARRIS. I am still loyal. I am not dealing with the loyalty feature of thia question; I am dealing with it from the business stendpoint. I think our best plan is simply to keep as closely as we possibly can, and as closely as we dare to the plan that they themselves have laid down. While they were developing they would brook no interference from us; while we are developii\g we do not want them to come in and interfere with us. When we get to the state of development in this country where we have given our agricultural population and the people generally every facility to acquire the best, the most scientific and the most intelligent methods of agricultural production so as to enable them to turn their products out in the most highly fin- ished condition. I am perfectly willing that we should trade with the world. Mr. TALBOT. How long wUl that be? Mr. HARRIS. I do not know, but we cer- tainly are not there yet. My hon. Itimd the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fish^sr) made a very excellent speech the other evening, and I think he has been the only speaker on this side of the House who haa attempted at all to touch with any detail on the economic feature of the diS^rout arti- cles which would naturally piss from one country to the other. The minister in his statement the other night said that the farmers will get the American price for wheat. What is the American price? I have here an extract from a speech made by Mr. J. J. Hill, in Chicago, the other night 10 at the Chicago Chamber of Commerce dinner. He said: Th« price of any oommodity of which a ocnntry produces a svrplaa for export ia fix- ei in the market where it must be sold. The demand of the whole world for wheat meets the supply of the world in the Iiiverpool market. To that, Russia and Argentine and Canada and the United States all send their surplus. The visible supply is noted, the piobable demand computed, the prospects af growing crops taken into account, and these automatically determine the price. The Farmer Gains Either Way. This Liverpool quotation regulates wheat prices in all the markets of the world. It is cabled daily to New York, Chicago, Minne- apolis, Duluth, Winnipeg and the other pri- mary markets of wheat-exporting countriea. The price in each of them varies daily with the Liverpool advice. It is, therefore, im- possible that this price should be affected by thp trade relation of any two of the coun- tries to each other. It can make no differ- ence in the total stock of wheat for sale, which fixee the price, over what route it goes to market. The quotations would not be changed by the fraction of a penny if all the wheat of Canada went abroad by way of Minneapolis, Chicago, Duluth and New York Which Heaven forbid. — instead of by way of Winnipeg, Port Arthur and Montreal. But every bushel mill- ed in transit helpe the price, b^ withdrawing from the visible supply, on which prices are based, the wheat that has been turned into flpnr. That is exactly the situation so far as wheat is concerned. Everybody knows that, so that any advantages that our western farmers may eain in price of wheat are purely imaeinarv. I wish to emphasize the point that I want to see every bit of wheat exported from this country sent out in no form less crude than flour. I now cone to barley. The minister stated that on account of the McKinley tariff our farmers lost a great deal of profit. He quoted the amount of profit they have lost by taking the fifrures that they had received in a certain number of years for their barley. I know something about the barley country in Ontario; I know that when the McKinley tariff was put into effect the farmers alone the north shore of Lake Ontario were almost stunned, the blow had been so heavy. But I also know that since that time those same farm- ers have changed their methods of farming and are producing crops at present which give them more money than they got for their barley, and in addition their land is in much better condition. Now the meat trade. The minister ap- parently ■would be glad to see the whole of our meat trade thrown over to the con- trol of the United States packers. I do not take this view of it at all. I want to quote a resolution which was presented to the government by the faarmera' deputation in December on the chilled meat industry: • Whereas it is of very great Importmnee U> the whole of Canada that prompt ffovemment action be taken towards estabUshing a com- plete chilled meat system on a sound and permanent basis, with the interests of the prcdncera adequately protected ; and Whereas, the live stock indnstry of Canada hao been neglected, and if the neglect ie con- tinued it will soon result in impoverishfi farms, and the live stock indnstry of the country will make no headway until it is made worth the farmere' while to iroduce and furnish more and better stock ; and Whereas the farmers are on account of the unsatisfactory market going out of the meat producing business, and will not again take it up until the market is placed upon a stable basis, and further that under the .present system of exporting there is always a danger of the markets of the world being closed to us. which would reeult in ruin to many; and Whereas on account of the danger of en- couraging monopoliee the farmers cannot be satisfied with anything short of a meat cur- ing and chilling process inaugurated by the Dominion government, and operated in such a way tiat will guarantee to the producers the value of the animals they produce. Of all the memorials they presented, I was most in sympathy with that one, be- cause if we are to build up a big meat in- dustry in the west and assist the farmers in getting the prices they should it is necessary that this industry should be carried on by either private enterprise or government assisted enterprise. I do not believe in the government going into the meat business, but "no private company or firm or individual can attempt to establish a meat industry in the west at the present time on account of the enormous amount of capital it would require. I think it is an industry that we should encourage, and it should be under Canadian and not under -American control. Now take the packers. They came to Ot- tawa, they presented their memorial. They were practically told that they did not know what they were talking about, that thev would not be hurt. I do not know much about the packing business. I did have a large investment in a packing house once, and lost it all. But the packers of Canada have done good service. They have spent large sums of money in good faith, they have done as much as anv other class of people to make a name for Cana- dian farm products, and they should be considered; they should not be left in such a position that their business is going to be ieopardized. The present situation, if this goes through, is that the American packers can come to Canada and get all the hogs they want, while our packera can- not bring over a single American hog, as every hog coming to Canada must be held ■iiiililillH K. 11 at least 30 days in quarantine and must be accompanied by a certificate. The minister also mentioned hay. I quite aicree with him that it ig Kood farming to Krow hay on certain kinds of land, just as it is eood farming to grow wheat on certain Icinds of land, but I do not think it is nood KusinesR to erow hay and ship it out as hay. I think it is better to encourage the farmers who do fcrow hay to feed stock and ship it out in a finished state. That is the argument I am tryinx to make all the way through. This question of competition is also dealt with by Mr. Knox in that same Chicago speech. He says: In making a reciprocity agreement it it ptoper and ri^ht that we aboald oonuder the market which oar neig'hbonr has to offer us as well as the market wbiich we offer her. Thas, we provide that the a«riciiltQral«la8Be8 of a great section of our country should have tb<» benefit of the free admission of cotton seed oil into Canada. We also obtain the exemp- tion from duty of all fruits and vegetables and various other agricnltnral products of which some sections of the country as widely separated as California and Florida have a surplus at certain seasons, while we are not unmindful of the producers of the border states who at times have large quantities nf surplus products which wHI be benefited by free entry into the Canadian market. Mr. Knox himself thinks that this will be of assistance to the American farmers alone that side of tlie line. He also says: The free admission of grain from Canada this meets the present situation and pro- vides against contingencies when the Cana- dian surplus becomes greater by placing the control in the hands of our own grain grow- ers. In the hands of our own prain prowers ! They have no cause to fear a demoralizing influx under the conditions whioh result from tbo reciprocity agreement. The propoeition with which we have dealt is economic, not political. The horse industry is a very important industry. Every farmer in the province of Ontario at the present time is following the system of mixed farming. Every farmer is raisins: one or two colts every year, and they hrin.'r a good price in the Toronto market, which, I believe, is the best mar- ket for hoirses on this continent. We have greatly improved the breed of horses in the province of Ontario, and our horses are very much superior to those we would naturally get from the south. The horses we would net from the south would have a deterioratinR effect on all Canadian horses in the west if they were allowed to come in free. Now, to sum up the result of this change of policy, as I see it, so far as agriculture is concerned. It causes us to send out everything in the crudest possible state in- stead of in the most highly finished state. It is a serious blow to several important branches of agriculture. It seriously in- jures the hog industry. It prevents the development of the chilled meat industry under Canadian control. It gives a premium to the farmers to export hay instead of sending it out in the finished product. It bonuses the cheese factorits and errameries to close up. It causes the farmers to send out their cattle in frames rather than finished. It kills incentive to more intensive farming. It puts a premium on the mining of the lands of the west rather than farming it. It destroys our hopes and ambitions for bet- ter t<'chnical agricultural training. It destroys the salt industry. In other words, I look upon the whole measure as a raw deal for Canada -we get the husks and they net the substance. Conservation has not been spoken of very much during this debate. I was reading the other day in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' a report of a speech which had been made by Professor Robertson before the Canadian Club of Ottawa, and some of the things that he said placed this conservation question, so far as farming is concerned, in a much better light than I could do it. We have heard of conservation of our natural re- sources, but there is con.servation of farms as well. Hon. members may not know that there is a department of our Conservation Commission which deals directly with farm conservation. Profe.ssor Robertson said: F.4RM CONSERVATION. I happen to serve as chairman of the com- mittee on lands. Let me tall you of two in- stances that came out in our investigationj. On 100 farms surveyed in Manitoba, every n.ari reported that the wild oats were bail and getting worse. There is a how-d'ye-do- wild oirts in the land where grain growing is the staple occupation of the people. Tou must conserve the land by intelligent methods. I offer two instanceo of conserva- tion. One farmer eame before our commis- sion who was working a farm settled from 68 to 72 years ago under 'old Col. Talbot. He tdd us that he had 103 acres which he ha;! been farming for 23 years, and his crop new was more than twice as much in a year as when he began. He told us, if he could get the right kind of labour, he could again double the production in ten years. There is conservation. (Applause). Then in Prin:e Fklward Island a farmer from near Summer- side testified. We aaked this farmer how Irng he hai been on the place he then hrfd. Twenty-two years. He had 97 acree. Twenty years ago he had a mortgage of $1,160 on the faim. For ten years he just held his own. Then he learned to grow clover, keep cows and make butter. There is conservation- land, cftttle and the famiK The previous year, 1909, he had sold $900 w< b of butter and MOO worth of Pprk, and he st>ld a horse every second year. There was no mortgage on hiB farm. That is conservation of the farm. u I do not know anything about the fishing industry, so I am not going to deal with that subject. Much has been said of the fact that this arrangement will change the transportation routes of this country. I think it is abso- lutely necessary that we should have legis- lation which will as far as possible keep the trade and commerce of this count^ within ourselves. I do not mean to say that I would put up a high wall, so that no one could come in ; but we must provide every possible encourage- ment for the people of Canada ;,o trade with each other. I do not know why it should be a hardship to the people of the west to trade with us in On- tario; I do not know why it should be a hardship to the people of the maritime prov- inces to trade with us in Ontario; but ap- parently it does not mean anything to have the pleasure and privilege of living in a country like Canada. I think that all the statements which have been made about the effect which tlie measure will have upon our east and west routes cannot be too lightly put aside. Now, I do not want to conclude my re- marks without touching upon the subject of agricultural implements. Some members of this House attribute my opposition to this measure to the fact that I am unfor- tunate enough to have an investment in a biuiness which manufactures agricultural implements. I hope that the members of this House will give me the credit of not allowing any reduction of the duty on agri- cultural implements to influence me on this matter in any way, shape or manner. The fact that I happen to be interested in the manufacture of agricultural implements does not, I think, make ' me any w^rse a Canadian. Much has been said on the sub- ject of implements, and much has been done that I do not think has been altogether fair to the implement industry of this coun- try. It is strange that any government should pick out one industry and make a political football of it; but I think I have to charge both political parties with having done that with the implement industry. The duty on implements was reduced by the Conservative government from 36 to 20 per cent, and I do not think there was any investigation held. The government simply thought that the reduction was a good thing to catch votes with in the west. Mr. FIELDING mandate? Mr. REID (Grenville). National Policy mandate. Did they have any Yes, they had the Mr. FIELDING. To reduce? Mr. REIB (Grenville). Certainly. Mr. HARRIS. Then, when this govern- ment came into power, they thought they might get some more votes by hitting the implement industry another crack of 2« per cent. Well, I have no objection at all to the government doing anything with th« tariff, provided they know that what they are doing is right ^and proper and just to the thing done. Mr. MACLEAN. And give every one a chance to be heard. Mr. HARRIS. Yes. So far as protection is concerned, I am not a high protection- ist and never was. I do not think any one hsts ever heard me make any utterance in that behalf, but I do think that we require a tariff in this country. I think it is the only practical way of raising our revenue. If any government would even make the suggestion to change our system and raise reven^ by direct taxation, I do not be> lieve it would last 24 hours. We most have a tariff and raise our revenues under it. The agricultural implement industry is perhaps one more indigenous to the soil than many others, and therefore should not enjoy so high a tariff. But the in- consistency of our tariff is this, that when the duty was reduced on agricultural im- plements from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, Uie msnufaetureiB of these implements were still paying as high as 50 per cent on their raw material. When the duty was reduced from 20 per cent to 171 per cent Uie government took the ground that 20 per cent was a revenue tariff and made a concession on the raw materials for im- plements on which the 'ariff was reduced —there were on!/ two or three of them. Binders, mowers and rakes. The govern- ment made a concession in the duty on the raw material of these implements which compensated the manufacturers to some extent fov the reduction from 20 per cent to 17i per cent in the duty. At pres- ent these same implements are being manu- factured, and the manufacturers are pay- ing duty on all the raw materials, with a few exceptions, as high as 50 per cent al- though they only get a protection of 171 per C' ->t. Again, the manufacturers of implements in this country have to pay 27J per cent duty on every bit of machinery which they import for their plant and on all the mater- ials which go into the construction of their plant. About 40 per cen* I think would figure out as duty on their coal because I do not think coal is worth more than $1.10 at the mine mouth; and on their factory supplies, which would amount to a very large aggregate, they pay duties varying from 25 per cent to 35 per cent. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) Introduced a motion this session to which he and some other hen. members spoke. I intended following him if I had had the opportunity, but not hav- m 18 I 4 I ing that mdvantage. I would like to make a few explanations and corrections with regard to the statements he then made, and perhaps I may be able to give my hon. friends on this side a little more satl'^fac- tion than I have given them so far. The hon. gentleman made the statement that under the late Conservative government, the binders imported into Canada came in at a fixed valuation of 180. He quoted the imports of binders in 1897, 1907, and 1910, and taking these three years he made an average valuation of the binders and the average duty. I might say now, for hi^ information, that the statement he made was not correct. The late govern- ment never had a fixed valuation of $80 for bidders iinported into Canada. In 1907 he said the average valuation was 1144.44. The hon. member for ^orth Toronto (Mr. Foster) thought that in this he had made a mistake because he ques- tioned him about it. He evidently did make a mistake in his arithmetic because the figures themselves show that the aver- >age valuation of the binders that year was $109.70. I have gone to the trouble of looking up this question, and I have a statement here showing the average value of binders from 1890 down to 1910. Hi. MEIGHEN. Would the hon. gentle- man be Bood enough to put on ' Hansard ' the total valuation of the imports of bind- ers for that year and the total number of binders so that I can check the figures. Since making my speech, I went to the trouble of rechecking my figures and found them absolutely correct. Mr. HARRIS. here :— I have the statement Statement of Imports of Self-Binders from 1890 to 1910. Fiw«I Ywr. No. of Binders imported. Value. Averap* value. No. of Bindeni entered for oonaumption Duty |iaid. AverageJ duty. 1880 69 302 633 644 761 1,006 1,198 1,946 4,292 6.931 9,038 7,920 9,230 10,878 ;,646 3,067 932 2,878 881 1,267 1,481 S 7,674 35,064 61,23.'. 63,624 75,573 78,208 130,78C 2o:k,537 407,542 664,610 806,979 831,204 894.474 l,053,t»21 751,850 .'«»,864 96,756 31,5,744 85.822 129,965 166.769 9 cts. 109 76 116 07 96 74 98 80 99 38 77 74 109 17 104 69 94 95 95 89 89 29 1C4 ij5 96 91 96 80 98 29 99 20 103 82 109 71 97 41 107 68 111 92 69 216 670 661 756 1,045 1,201 1.943 4.290 6,931 8,918 7,888 9,288 11,002 7,598 3,594 927 2,876 880 1,205 1,483 1 9 cch. 2,650 !« 9,246 65 22,774 51 22,625 40 24,478 60 16,418 80 26,216 7n 40,647 39 81,464 98 132,920 .50 160,860 40 165,623 60 180,035 80 213,056 00 149,378 80 71,510 00 19,169 20 62,9;W 25 14,990 !I5 22,710 71 29,052 34 9 cts. 38 42 42 81 .S3 99 34 60 33 42 15 71 21 83 20 92 18 99 19 18 17 92 21 00 19 38 19 37 19 66 19 90 20 68 21 88 17 04 IK 83 19 60 1891 1892 1883 1894 1806 1896 1897 1898 1899. 190O. . . . 1901 1902 1908.... 1904 1906 ... 1906.... 1907 1908 1909 1910 , Average duty paid per binder for seven years under Conservative rule, $31.! Average duty paid per binder for fourteen years nnder Liberal rule, $19,60. giving the total iniportatiobs from 1890 to 1910. This gives the number of binders imported, their values, the ave- rage value, the duty paid and the average duly. But for the informa- tion of the House I would like to point out the results of t* s statement. The re- sult is this. The -/rage duty paid per binder for 6ev..j y>>ars under the late gov- ernment was $31.39 and the average duty paid for 14 years under this government was $19.60, so that there was q' :te a re- duction. I also want to correct my hon. friend in the statement he made with re- gard to drawbacks. He made the state- ment that the total drawbacks paid to the International Harvester Co., the Maosey Harris Co., Frost and Wood, and Noxon Manufacturing Co., amounted to $217,468.- 99, and then proceeded to work out the drawbacks per machine. But this includ- ed the drawbacks paid on machines manu- factured in Canada for export as well as for home consumption; and in the year ail Mil 14 1909-10— which 1b the year he h»d under feview— the drawbacks paid the imple- ment manufacturer on the machines manufactured in Canada and exported wa^ $128,134, and on the machines manufac- tured for home consumption was $83,689, making a total of $211,703. My hon. friend constituted himself the judge, jury and oounsel, he tried the manufacturers of acricultural imnlements and found them uuilty, but with extenuating circumstances in favour of the plouch manufacturers be- cause 80 per cent of the total imports con- sisteil of plouchs. But the plouph impor- tations into Canada will now be absolute- ly taken care of by the manufacturers with the new plants they are erecting. Mr. HUGHES. In the debates in the United States House of Representatives, the statement has been made over and over again that the American agricultural implement manufacturers do not recog- nize the Canadian manufacturer of agri- cultural implements as a quantity to be considered. They say that they Cin ex- port into Canada against the duty without fear of competition from the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. HARRIS. I was just coming to that. I have been investigating the conditions £ the plough business because I am not interet. ed in that line and have been looking it up more than the others. The American manufacturer of ploughs at the present time, with a duty against him of 15 per cent, is in just about as good a position to supplv the Canadian western trade as will be the manufacturer in Ontario with freisrht and other things against him. I represent a constituency where we have 6.000 men employed in the factories, and. of these, I suppose 5,000 are eneaged in the agriruUural implement industry. These men are the best class of mechanics. _ I believe, that we have in any factories in Canada. This arrangement is going to mean that the development ot the agricul- tural implement business in Canada will 4op. We are not going on to develop the ricultural implement in Canada. The . oncerns I am connected with have found it necessary, on account of the agitation and the trouble which they think will come, to remove part of their works to the United States. They do not want to do that. Mr. MILLER. May I be allowed a ques- tion? Did they remove any part of their Canadian works, or did they simply acquire works in the United States? Mr. HARRIS. They find now, and have known for many years that, for their foreign trade, which i« 50 per cent of their entire trade, they could manufacture in the United States cheaper than in Canada. They have preferred to manu- facture in Canada, and. with th« con- cessions that the government gave in the way of drawbacks of duties on raw material, they have up to the pre- sent time, been able to continue their in- dustry in Canada. But my own conviction is very strong that from now on, the deve- lopment of this particular industry will not take place in Canada, but will be on the I other side of the line. 1 Mr. FIELDING. Did not they secure ithis plant in the United States before this i treaty waa negotiated? I Mr. HARRIS. They did. But they «- cured it because there had been so much agitation on account of the implement duty. I have no objection, if the implement da- ties are too high, that the government should lower them. If the duties are too , high on anything let the government lower i them. I do not believe in a protective tar- iiff that will create conditions under which [One man or group of men can get rich at {the expense of the people. I do not care I very much 9,bout discussing this question, jbut I thought I ought to imt myself on re- cord in connection with it in this debate. Now, Mr. Chairman, my people in Brant- ! ford are in a different position perhaps ' from those in almost any other constitu- ency. We have, as I have stated, lar^c implement industries; we have two flour mills; we have one large pork packing in- dustry. On looking over the list of indus- tries of the town, I find that nine of them are directly affected by this proposed change. Therefore. I do not think that you can expect them to look with a great deal of favour on this agreement. I have had a great deal to do with the getting of Ameri- can concerns established in Canada. I have many friends in the United States, and these men, several of them, at my request, have come over and looked into the condi- tions existing here, and have established plnnts. I had a long letter from one of them early in. November last, and I would like i to read it. so that hon. members will know I what opinion on this question is held by some of our American friends who at pre- sent have interests in Canada: I read newspaper accounts and hear consid- erable talk in Brantford regarding the pro- posed revision of tarifi between Canada aad the United States. We are not students in political economy, but as manufacturers and employers of labour in Canada and also manufacturers of the same class of work in the United States it appears to us that it would be disastrous to our Canadian interests ! to make any change in the tariff. From Bufialo we can reach all the important points that the Brantford plant reaches for a lesa freight rate than from Brantford. We can also manufacture malleable iron very much cheaper per ton in Buffalo than in Brant- tx 18 ford. The sbor* are abMlnto f»ct» relating to our bunneta and it appears to ua that should the tariH on malleable iron • agri- cultural implements be remored it wt^ild ne- cessitate closing our Brantford plant and transferring the business to Bnilalo. Looking at the whole thing broadly Canada 11 where the United States was fifty years ngo. The Canadian farmers can b'jv better implements much cheaper than the" States farmer could when this conntrv was at a correRpondinu period in their development, and thev certainly ran sell their products for more money, making a very attraclive net in- come. On the other hand, if the manufnctur- inj? industries of Cnnadn are given proper support, we foel that it would tend to in- crease rhe population and therebv increase the welfare of the country at large. That is a samile of several letters I have ^ad. This same party sent me a wire on the 27th of January this. I think was the day after the annwincement was made in this Honse of the proposed arrangement: Kindly wire my expense your opinion as to the possibility of the proposed reciprocity agreement going into effect. We have an option to take over property in Canada for our business employing four hundred people. This option expires on Monday. Should not accept if dutjes going to be modified. The courtesy of your opinion will be greatlv ap- preciated. This plant, the purchase of which he had In prospect, was for the purpose of supply- in? implement manufacturers in Canada with parts of their raw m«terial. I had to advise him that, on account of the reduc- tion of duty from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, I thought the government, in justice to the implement manufacturers, would necessar- ily have to make reduoticxns in the steel schedule, and, if they did that, he w'ould have to consider it and deal with it him- self. As a result, he gave up his option. I think the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated that he does not intend to do anything with the duties on manufactured good*. I believe that is his firm intention, but I tell you that no power on earth can keep any gov- ernment from giving the farmers, who are now going to have every vesti^jo of protec- tion taken away from them, their just claims, when they come down here and de- mand that every other interest be put on the same footing. It would not be fair, it would not be right. The farmers are not asking for this reduction in duty on their products. The very class of farmer whom we in On- tario, at any rate, think most of, the peo- ple who have been literally practising the doctrine which we have been spreading throughout this - -.ntry that the man who will make two Aea of grass grow where one grew before, is doing the most for agriculture in this country, come down here, ud what do they demand? They do not come to ask for a reduction in the du- tiM. but to uk the government to give them fair and moderate protection on their investment and on what they are produc- ing. Now, my friend Eugeaie N. Foae is a manufacturer and a very capable, clever business man. He is now governor of Mnssachusetta. Mr. Foss and myself have discussed the question of his establishing a factory in Canada, at different times dur- ing the past ten years, I have done every- thing 1 coulj to get Mr. Foss interested in pstahlishing in Canada a branch of their large works which are situated outside of Boston. I believe that Mr. Foss, at the present time, would not consider for one moment following out that advice, because he knows- and every American manufac- turer knov i— that the government having ^°"f,l''"'i.'"v"« ^°'*"^ t° go further. And Mr. Foss has stated that: .Jnil P""***"' tariff system has resulted in bending approximately $300,000,800 of iumeri^ ctn capital to Canada to ' lild up branlrfn dustries which compete with American fie tori?s in foreign maVkets. It has rei^Uted in stifling the growth of Massachusetts and kept us out of the business and ^mmerce kent the'''^r'''/?. "'>■ ^'^"^ "«ht T'hSS po?t/ Canadian railroads from our That is exactly what I want the Canadian policy to do. I want the American manu- fncturers to be forced to establish plant-^ on this side of the line and provide work for our Canadian workmen if they want to have the advantage of supplying our home markets. Mr. BEST. Are there any producers in Canada to-day except the farmers who have to pay a duty on everything they consume and have no proteotion whalev.T on what they produce? We have to pay a duty on everything. Is that right? Mr. HARRIS. That is absolutely right and that is the point I was trying to make Aow I want to refer to one other memorial which was presented by the farmers' depu- tation in December last. I was acquainted with one member of that deputation a gentleman who came from my own county and I want to place on record my opinion of the memorial which he presented to the government on that occasion, in which he attempted to give the facts existing with reeard to agriculture in Brant county This IS from Colonel Fraser: Treating on ihe question of turnips. I have frt