July 26, 1911


*dian wheat should come here, unless it he that a mixture of Canadian and American wheats may be desirable on the part of our milling exporters, and our millers may find it profitable to handle the Canadian surplus. But the price to the Canadian for his surplus wheat will be substantially the same whether sold in Europe or the United States. However, if the hauling of Canadian wheat by the United States railroads, merchants and mills, has a tendency to reduce the price, it will be reduced to Canadians. The balance of trade as between Canada and the United States.in regard to the important products of butter, cheese and eggs has been against Canada to a very large extent, showing that the United States people ship more of these commodities into Canada by far than we ship into the United States. Taking the total dairy imports from the United States, we find that in the years 1906 10 they amounted to $745,545 worth, while the exports of Canadian products to the United States amounted to $513,951 worth, an excess of imports from the United States into Canada over exports from Canada to the United States of $231,594 worth. The total value of eggs imported from the United States from 1906 to 1910 was $869,568. The total value of eggs exported to the United States from Canada fox the years 1906 to 1910 was $59,665, an excess of imports from the United States over exports to the United States of $809,903, showing that in the commodities important from the point of view of the Canadian farmer, the United States, notwithstanding our duty, has an immense advantage over the Canadian exporter. Another economic disadvantage of this agreement arises from the fact that not only the United States and the British Umpire are free to enter into our markets and compete with our home producers, hut twelve other countries, known as the favoured nation countries, may also compete with our farmers. I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that neither of the. Canadian plenipotentiaries is in his seat listening to the discussion. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) is leading the House or whether he is taking the place of the minister of the 'Crown. _Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.


CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).

Australian farmer in raising sheep and cattle owing to the conditions in that country. He said:

My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the number of sheep have decreased in Canada, but when he compares that with the increase in Australia, Argentine, South Africa and other countries, he is drawing a comparison with countries in which the climate and other conditions are entirely different.

Australia, both as regards sheep and cattle, is a ranching country. The cattle there run wild over enormous areas and are not taken care of at all. Sheep are in the same position. They have illimitable expanses for pasturing, which we have not, and they have a climate more suitable for that kind of wild life than ours. Therefore, a comparison between Canada and Australia in this regard is not a fair one.

I venture to express the opinion that the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance when they journeyed to Washington to negotiate this treaty had not the slightest conception that the favoured nation treaty clause would be operative in connection with this agreement. The matter was finally investigated, and when the leader of the opposition extracted from the Minister of Finance the facts in regard to this feature, the sentiment of the whole country in regard to this reciprocity agreement changed. It is absolutely unfair and illogical of the ministers to negotiate a treaty of this kind which will open the home markets where the prices are high to these competing countries where the conditions are so different, and this illogical position has brought on the ministers the condemnation of the farmers all over the country. I cannot conceive that the ministers had in their minds that this favoured nation clause would be operative or they would have^ hesitated about putting into effect this illogical, unprofitable and unfair agreement.

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

I am inclined to believe that it was not present to the minds of the ministers when they negotiated the treaty, basing that view as I do on the lack of information the ministers had in regard to these matters, and their reluctance to disclose this phase of the question. It showed that their consciences bothered them in connection with this matter, and that they were trying to conceal the import and effect of this agreement as they knew it would be a serious matter to the farmers of this country to subject them to the competition of the twelve favoured nations in addition to the farmers of the British Empire, and those of the United States.

As I have pointed out the object of this agreement, as announced by the govern-Mr. SHARPE (Ontariol.

ment, was to secure a market where there w'ere higher prices, but it is shown conclusively that the average prices for the majority of the staple products of the farm are higher in Canada than in the United States, and consequently the whole purpose and object of the agreement falls to the ground. This is the strongest economic objection to this agreement. This information was not present to the ministers because they had not taken the trouble to secure information, they had not sent experts around the country as the United States did. The United States took time by the forelock and sent out experts to prepare lists of comparative prices on the two sides of the line. The United States did not publish these lists until after they had got the two representatives of Canada to sign and attach their signatures to this agreement. If they had done so, these gentlemen would not have signed the agreement because the disadvantage of the agreement from the point of view of the Canadian farmer would be thus shown. We have been unable to extract information from the ministers. Either the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance had not the information when they went to Washington or if they had they were afraid to produce it to the House because it would conclusively prove that the prices of Canadian farm products are higher than the prices on the other side. What a parody on the quality of Canadian statesmanship, and the manner in which this treaty was negotiated by our representatives ! Let me read an extract to show how carefully and diligently the plenipotentiaries on the American side, how President Taft zealously sought information before attempting to negotiate a treaty of this importance and magnitude.

On page 113 of the document No. 849 on reciprocity with Canada that was issued by the experts of the United States government, speaking on the importance of the sheep industry, they say:

Coming to sheep we approach a phase of agricultural production that has for several months past been the subject of a painstaking inquiry at the hands of the Tariff Board. Representatives of the hoard have visited some 700 typical farms in the leading sheep-tieeding sections of Ohio, Southern Michigan, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Vermont, obtaining facts and figures concerning cost and prices. The method pursued in obtaining first-hand information as to the cost of keeping sheep was through schedules filled out by expert agents who personally visited the farms studied.

Will the Minister of Customs give the House the names of the experts who were sent out by the Canadian government to ascertain the comparative prices of farm products in Canada and in the United

States? The minister does not answer. They never sent out an expert or an official to ascertain whether the prices of sheep on the Canadian side were , higher or lower than the prices on the American side. What a parody of statesmanship is exhibited by the gentlemen who negotiated this treaty on behalf of Canada as compared with the statesmanship and foresight of the President of the United States! The latter says that for several months past the raising of sheep has been the subject of a painstaking inquiry at the hands of the Tariff Board. Representatives of the board visited 700 representative farms to inquire into this industry. I would like to ask the Minister of Customs whether any of our representatives visited farms to ascertain the cost of raising sheep in order to compare it with the cost of raising sheep on the United States side?

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

I am asking the hon. gentleman for certain information in regard to this treaty.

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
LIB

William Paterson (Minister of Customs)

Liberal

Mr. PATERSON.

The hon. gentleman says he has got the information.

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

I am asking the hon. gentleman if the government had any officials of the department or any experts visit any farms to ascertain the cost of raising sheep or other live stock in Canada?

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
LIB

William Paterson (Minister of Customs)

Liberal

Mr. PATERSON.

I am not playing the obstruction game.

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

If that is the best information the Minister of Customs can give the House, I will leave it to the House and the electors throughout the country to judge as to his course.

I desire now to deal with the separate commodities that come within the purview and operation of this treaty. We have heard a great deal on the subject of wheat. When discussing this subject we should remember that there is a difference between winter wheat and spring wheat. I represent an Ontario constituency, in which the farmers are more interested in the production of winter wheat. On page 94 of the book prepared by the experts of the United States government, I find the following comparison of the production and price per bushel of wheat in the United States and in Canada in 1910:

. - Sprino Wheat. Winter Wheat. Production. Bushels. Price per bushel. Production. Bushels. Price per bushel.231,399,000 133,379,600 2,129,000' $0,898 .738 .891 461,041,000 16,610,000 15,376,000 $0,891 . 87 .882

The difference in price between the fall wheat sold in the United States and the fall wheat sold in Ontario is so small that we are not vitally interested in obtaining the American market for our fall wheat. The prices in the two countries are practically the same. In regard to spring wheat, it has been said, and I think it cannot be contradicted, that the surplus price is fixed by the price in Europe, and if Canada has any surplus it should be ground into flour within our own borders and not shipped to the United States in order to elevate the grade of their wheat and employ their mills and labourers. Prices in the different States vary greatly, and hence the duty does not account for the difference in prices. For instance, in Washington state the average price is 78 cents; in Kansas, 84 cents; in Montana, 86 cents; in Wisconsin, 92 cents; in Vermont, $1.03, and in Maine, $1.02, a difference ranging up to 24 cents between the various States. The average price of fall wheat in Washington state is 78 cents, in New York, 96 cents, a difference of 18 cents.

I might point out that the price of wheat to-day in Winnipeg is higher than the prevailing price in the United States, which, I believe, is accounted for largely by the dread of reciprocity coming into effect. The mere prospect of reciprocity coming into operation has had that result.

It is a matter of importance to ascertain why the people of the United States are so anxious for our wheat. I have in my hand an extract from the Northwest 'Miller,the chief organ of the United States flout and milling trade, published in Minneapolis, and it is very illuminating on this subject. It says:

The future of American milling with Canadian wheat is a grand one. With this enormous and steadily increasing crop flowing into the mills and elevators of the states, a splendid tide of activity and prosperity should follow in its wake. Assured of their future supply of raw material, the mills of America could go forward on their developing course, continuing the march of progress which has brought them to the front.

Topic:   EXPORTS OF UNITED STATES, 1908.
Permalink

CHARLES H. BELL.


That throws a flood of light upon the competition that our farmers are being subjected to under existing conditions. I ask, in the name of common sense, what severe competition will they be subjected to if the duty is entirely removed? Now I have in my bands some figures with regard to the butter and egg industry, very important industries, although the Agricultural Department has not encouraged them to any extent. It has neglected that important industry that pays off so many mortgages on farms, and buys so many farms in the province of Ontario. The extract is from the Buffalo and New York 'Commercial,' February 14, 1909. Speaking of the butter and egg industry, it says: The total exports of butter from Canada to Great Britain in 1909 were 5,353,770 pounds, and to the United States 92,468 pounds. The latest available figures for the United States are contained in the census reports for 1900, when New York state alone produced upwards of 70,000,000 pounds, and the aggregate production of the entire United States was more than a billion pounds. In the year 1909 we imported from Canada less than 100,000 pounds of butter, Canada imported from this country 473,805 pounds. Now when Canada removes her 4 cents a pound duty upon this product who can measure the amount of butter that this wider market will create for our own farmers? It will be our butter that will be flooding the Canadian market instead of this country being overwhelmed with the Canadian articles. . . The egg statistics are equally illuminating. In 1909 Canada's total exports of eggs amounted to about 52,201 dozen. In the same year her imports of eggs aggregated 1,136,120 dozen, so that it appears the country bought twice as much as she exported. The Canadian duty on eggs amounts to 3 cents a dozen, and with this duty removed the burden is on the political farmer to show why be would not be benefited by this greater market instead of being injured by competition. All the eggs that Canada exports in a year would, if sent in'to Erie county, give every inhabitant just about 12 eggs a year or one a month, lhe rest of the United States would depend as usual upon the domestic supply. COMMON^ Now in regard to the egg industry I want to point out that the imports of eggs in the fiscal year 1911 for home consumption were as follows: From the United States, 2,201,727 dozen; from Great Britain, 12,040 dozen; Hong Kong, 62,012 dozen; other countries, 91,861 dozen. The total quantity of eggs imported was 2,378,640 dozen, with a value of $439,066. What would be the importations into this country if we had no duty at all on these articles? In connection with these various commodities I desire to place upon ' Hansard ' a table that has been prepared by experts of the United States in regard to horses, dairy cows, other cattle, sheep and swine. I presume, as the hour is late, there will be no objection to the table going on 'Hansard' without being read. The table is as follows1: - Horses. Dairy cows Other cattle. Sheep. Swine.Number of live stock on farms (in 1909)- United States . Canada , ., Average value per head (in 1910) United States- Maine New Hampshire Vermont New York Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa North Dakota South Dakota Texas Montana Idaho Washington Oregon Average Canada- Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick ,. Quebec Ontario Manitoba . . Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia 21,010,000 2,132,489 21,801,0h0 2,849,306 47,279,000 4,384,779 57,216,000 2,705,390 47,782,000 2,912,509$ cts. 125 00 106 00 106 00 125 00 122 00 124 00 126 00 121 00 111 00 120 00 114 00 105 00 73 00 80 00 102 00 108 00 103 00 $ cts. 33 00 36 20 34 20 39 50 41 00 42 80 39 50 36 60 33 00 36 00 33 90 33 00 29 £0 46 50 41 40 41 80 39 60 9 cts. 1C 90 20 30 14 40 18 20 24 50 - 26 40 18 50 16 40 14 30 22 20 20 50 21 50 15 30 27 40 21 40 19 90 18 50 $ cts. 3 70 3 70 4 00 5 00 5 20 5 30 4 70 4 50 4 00 5 30 4 00 4 00 2 90 4 20 4 70 3 90 3 70 $ cts. 11 50 11 50 10 00 11 50 10 00 10 90 10 50 11 80 11 50 11 30 11 00 11 10 6 00 10 10 8 70 9 40 8 20108 19 35 79 19 41 4 08 9 14107 00 113 00 131 00 139 00 133 00 107 00 156 00 126 00 32 00 37 00 34 00 31 00 48 00 40 00 41 00 39 00 23 00 29 00 28 00 31 00 34 00 23 00 31 00 30 00 6 00 4 00 5 00 6 00 7 00 7 00 7 00 6 on 10 00 11 00 12 00 13 00 10 00 13 00 13 00 12 00Average 133 00 43 00 31 00 6 00 11 00


CON

LIVE STOCK AND MEATS.


(Prices quoted January, 1911.) Buffalo, N.Y., and Toronto, Canada. Commodity. Price. Producer's Price. Wholesale Price. Highest. Lowest. Highest. Lowest.Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Beef steers and heifers A. $6 20 §4 00 §6 75 §6 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 00Per head. Per head. Per head. Per head.Milkers and springers A. §61 00 §18 00 $70 00 $20 00C. 71 00 26 00 80 00 30 00Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 Ills.Lambs A. $5 90 §4 15 §6 50 §4 75C. 5 70 5 20 6 25 5 75Sheep A 4 00 2 25 4 50 2 70C. 4 15 2 55 4 65 3 00Hogs A 7 75 5 40 8 50 0 00C. 9 30 6 50 10 00 7 15Detroit Mich., and Windsor, Ontario. Commodity. Price. Producer's Price. Commission Price. Highest. Lowest. Highest. Lowrest.Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Beef rteers and heifers A. §5 30 65 §6 00 §4 25C. 5 60 3 95 6 25 4 50Beef cows A. 4 00 3 00 4 50 3 50c. 4 65 2 50 5 25 3 00Stockers and feeders A. 4 15 2 45 4 75 3 00C. 4 90 3 70 5 50 4 25Calves A. 8 75 3 40 9 50 4 00C. 7 25 2 50 8 00 3 00Per head. Per head. Per head. Per head.Milkers and springers A. §47 00 §20 00 $55 00 §25 00C. ' 70 00 §25 00 §80 00 30 00Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Lambs A. §5 60 §3 90 $6 25 §1 50C. 5 65 5 15 6 25 5 75Sheep A. 4 71 2 00 4 25 2 50C. 4 15 2 55 4 65 3 00Hogs A. 8 40 5 50 9 15 6 25c. 9 20 6 50 10 00 7 15 LIVE STOCK AND MEATS-Contmurd. 1 Ogdenkburgh, N.Y. , and Prescott, Can. Commodity. Price. Producer's price. Wholesale. Highest. Lowest. High. Low.Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Beef Cows A. C. A. C. $ 5 00 4 50 *4 5 00 $ 3 00 3 00 .50 3 50 $ 5 60 5 00 $ 3 50 3 50Calves 5 60 4 10Milkers and springers A. Per head. $ 60 00 65 00 Per head. S 28 00 25 00 Per bead. 8 75 00 75 00 Per head. $ 35 00 30 00c. Lambs Sheep A. C. A. C. A. C. Per 100 lbs. $ 5 60 6 60 4 00 4 25 8 00 8 50 Per 100 lbs. $ 5 00 5 50 Per 100 lbs. .? 6 20 7 25 Per 100 lbs. $ 5 50 6 00Hogs 3 75 4 60 4 257 00 9 20 7 60Burlington, Vt., and Montreal, Canada.Commodity. Price. Producer's. Wholesale. High. Low. High. Low.Per head. Per head. Per head. Per head.Milkers and springers A. C. S GO 00 63 00 $ 25 00 30 0025 00 rfl) tO UU 75 00 Lambs Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 1,00 lbs. 8 6 50 6 25 4 75 4 75 Per 100 lbs. $ 4 75 6 00 2 75 4 50Sheep C. A. C. 6 GO TC 1 0 5 40 4 20 4 00 Commodity. Total number of Comparisons. Times Canadian price equal to or above American price. Producer. Wholesale. Producer. Wholesale.Beef steers and heifers Beef cows 1Stockers and feeders 1Calves 2Milkers and springers 3 1 1Lambs.... Sheep 3 2Hogs 43 3 'Average.



DRESSED MEATS. [February, 1911.]


WHOLESALE PRICES PER 100 POUNDS.


- Chicago, 111. Toronto, Canada. Montreal, Canada.S9 50 8 00 $8 50-9 00 6 00 10 00-12 00 $9 50 9 00 12 00 9 00 10 50 $9 50-S10 75 8 00- 8 50 12 00-13 00


RETAIL PRICES PER POUND.


- Buffalo, N.Y. Toronto, Canada.Beef- Cts. 14-18 12-14 Cts. 15-25 19-1518-24 2518-20 18-25Lamb- 1^®? [DOT] [DOT] * * 12-16 20-2514-32 20-2218-22 50Pork-_ 16 17-201* ii 12 11 Consequently you will see, Mr. Chairman, | by the report issued by the United States government, based on information collected by the experts that were sent out for the special purpose of ascertaining prices in Canada as compared with prices in the United States, that all these commodities have a higher price in Canada invariably than they have in the United States. Therefore, I ask upon what ground do the representatives of Canada undertake to negotiate this agreement and designate it as an agreement in the interest of the Canadian farmer. Now, I come to an all important commodity that is raised on the farm. I refer to horses. The county of North Ontario the north riding of which I have _ the honour to represent is distinguished for many things, generally, but there is one particular industry in which the county of Ontario stands foremost amongst all other counties in the Dominion of Canada, and not only is it foremost amongst all other counties but it stands ahead of every other section of the North American continent as breeding the best quality of farm horses. By way of proof I desire to quote from a paper read by Dr. Rutherford, Live Stock Commissioner, and head of the veterinary department of the Liberal government here at Ottawa. Speaking at the Fairs Association in Toronto in February, 1911, he said: In the county of Ontario we find there were in 1906, 113 stallions, of which 106 were registered, two being passed as unsound, while only seven grade stallions, all passed as sound, were discovered by the inspectors. This shows that 92 per cent of the stallions in the county were registered and sound. No county in the province shows so many stallions and good ones (to say nothing at present of other horses), as does the county of Ontario, which has long been deservedly regarded as the head centre of live stock breeding intelligence oh. the North American continent. Thus the facts, statements and conclusions of Dr. Rutherford prove the high excellency of this industry in the county of Ontario, an industry which has been developed by the intelligence, ability and brains of residents of the county of Ontario and of such men as the following: Hackney class: Hodgkinson & Tisdale Beaverton. Graham Bros * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] Claremont. Standard breed and carriage class t Hodgkinson & Tisdale Beaverton. W. J. Cowan Canmngton. Graham Bros Claremont


July 26, 1911