July 28, 1911


Edward Kidd

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARD KIDD (Carleton, Ont.).

Mr. Chairman, since I have been a member of this House I have not taken up very much time, but this reciprocity agreement is such a very important measure that I feel it my duty to say a few words in opposition to it. I think that the people of Canada regard this as one of the most drastic measures that was ever brought into this House or placed before the country. From what we have heard from the other side of the House we never thought for a moment that this measure or anything leading up to it would be brought before the House, or that we would be called upon to sanction it. We have a very good reason for that belief in the following expression by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) in 1901:

I remember, and you remember also, that since the abolition of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, we have sent delegation after delegation to Washington to obtain reciprocity. We are not sending any more delegations. But I rather expect, and I would not be surprised, if the thing were to take place in a few years -I say-I rather expect that there will be delegations coming from Washington to Ottawa for reciprocity. Having learned from our friends in the south how to receive such a delegation, we shall receive them in the proper manner-with every possible politeness.

In 1903, in proposing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway legislation, the Prime Minister was uncompromising:

I have found in the short experience during which it has been my privilege and fortune to be placed at the head of a Bairs, by the will of the Canadian people, that the best and most effective way to maintain friendship with our American neighbours is to be absolutely independent of them.

Then at the Imperial Conference in 1907, he said:

If we were to follow the laws of nature and geography between Canada and the United States, the whole trade would flow from south to north, and from north to south. We have done everything possible by building canals and subsidizing railways to bring the trade from west to east and east to west so as to bring trade into Brtiish channels. All this we have done, recognizing the principle of the great advantage of forcing trade within the British empire. . . There is no boundary line except a purely conventional one over the whole territory of North America. Their habits are the same as ours, and,

therefore, we are induced, to trade and cannot help it by the force of nature. But so far as legislation oan influence trade, we have done everything possible to push our trade towards the British people as against the American people. . . .

There was a time when we wanted reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside. We have said good bye to that trade, and we now put all our hopes upon the British trade.

Everybody can see from this language that the Prime Minister never thought then of submitting a reciprocity proposition to parliament. At the last three general elections there was nothing about reciprocity, and the Liberal rally was ' let Lauxier finish his work.' I wonder what work he had to finish; whether it was the Quebec bridge that fell down or the Laurier tower that tumbled over in a like manner. We need not wonder at our American friends being very much in favour of this pact. It is worth while to note what was said by Mr. Champ Clarke, the leader of the Democratic party which now controls the House of Representatives. He said:

Therefore, I am in favour of the reciprocity treaty, because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions clear to the north pole. They are people of our blood. They speak our language.

Their institutions are much like ours. They are trained in the difficult art of selfgovernment. My judgment is that if the treaty of 1854 had never been, abrogated the *chances of a consolidation of these two countries would have been much greater than they are now. I do not doubt whatever that the day is not far distant when Great Britain will joyfully see all of her North American possessions become part of this republic. That is the way things are tending now. I do not confine my support of reciprocity Bills to this one. I am in favour of reciprocity treaties with the Central and South American republics, including Mexico. The quicker we get them the better off we will be. Of course, as between the two, if we had to have reciprocity with Canada and not with these countries to the south, or with the countries to the south and not with Canada, I would take reciprocity with Canada.

We know that the reciprocity treaty which was in force between 1854 and 1866, was very favourable to the Americans, because in these years, during which they had their own civil war, they wanted our products, and so they lowered the tariff on them. At the'present time, to show a comparison of prices for agricultural products between Ogdensburg in the United States, and Prescott, on the other side of the St. Lawrence, I take the following from the report of the tariff board appointed by the United States:

Commodity. Price. Ogdensbuhgh, N.Y., a Producer's price. nd Peescott, Canada. Wholesale. H ighest. Lowest. High. Low.Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Beef cows A. 85 00 83 00 $5 60 $3 50C. 4 50 3 00 5 00 3 50A. 14 50 5 00-5 10 C. 5 00 3 50 5 60 4 10Per head. Per head. Per head. Per head.Milkers and springers A. $60 00 $28 00 875 00 $35 00C. 65 00 25 00 75 00 30 00[DOT] Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.A. 85 60 $5 00 $6 20 $5 50C. 6 60 5 50 7 25 6 00A. 4 00 3 75 4 50 4 00C. 4 25 3 75 4 60 4 25Hogs A. 8 00 5 90 9 00 6 50C. 8 50 . 7 00 9 20 7 00Poultry dressed

A.. . .21 cents to 29 cents.

C.. ..24 cents to 29 cents.

I>o-s A.. ..28 cents to 35 cents.

C.. ..30 cents to 36 cents.

The comparison between the prices of the Buffalo market, and the Toronto market is as follows:

Buffalo, N.Y., and Toronto, Canada.

Commodity. Price. Producer's price. Wholesale price. Highest. Lowest. Highest. Lowest..Beef steers and heifers A. Per 100 lbs. $6 20 Per 100 lbs. $4 00 Per 100 lbs. $6 75 Per 100 lbs. * 86 25C. 5 65 4 00 6 25 4 50Beef cows A. 4 80 3 55 5 35 4 00C. 4 75 2 60 5 25 3 00Stockers and feeders A. 4 75 3 30 5 25 3 75C. 5 00 3 75 5 50 4 25Calves A. 0 55 5 35 7 25 6 00C. 7 80 2 50 8 50 3 00Milkers and springers A. Per head. $61 00 Per head. $18 00 Per head. $70 00 Per head. $20 00C. 71 00 26 00 80 00 30 00Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs. Per 100 lbs.Lambs A. 5 90 $4 15 $6 50 $4 75Sheep C. 5 70 5 20 6 25 5 75A. 4 00 2 25 4 50 2 70C. 4 15 2 55 4 65 3 00A. 7 75 [DOT] 5 40 8 50 0 00C. 9 30 6 50 10 00 7 15

You will notice from this comparison of prices, that there was nothing in favour of the American side, hut it all goes to show that the Canadian markets are better for the Canadian farmers. It is I believe a fact that although the consumer is paying more for his stuff on the American side, that is due to the manner in which the trusts control the situation in the United States, and the actual fact is that the^ producer gets a lower price in the United States than in Canada.

I quote the following with reference to dairy cattle:

Prices of dairy cows range from $33 to $39 a head in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota the range is practically the same. In the western border states of Montana, Idaho and Washington the range is from $41.80 to $46.50. In eastern Canada, prices of dairy cows range from $32 to $48, and in western Canada, from $39 to $41. The highest Canadian price quoted is $48 in Ontario as against $46.50 in Montana, the highest American price.

Now, I have some facts here which show that we have a market in which we can command sales at good prices. We need not go begging to any American city or to the United States government for the prices I am going to give you.

Dispersion sales of pure-bred cattle held in Canada during 1910 brought some record pr ices, iaaid the f ollowing figures prove conclusively that our Canadian breeders are under no obligation to the Americans in order to get a remunerative market for Mr. KIDD.

their surplus stock. The first sale I wish to refer to was held by James Benning of Williams town, Ontario, on April 20, 1910. His 81 head of cattle brought $11,916, an average of $147, each. Forty-two aged cows brought $207. Other prices were as follows:

Herd bull sold for $400.

12 yearling bulls averaged $85.50.

13 bulls averaged $108.

10 1909 heifers averaged $114.

16 1910 calves averaged $42.25.

The highest prices paid for cow $590.

Highest price paid for two year old heifer $425.

Highest price paid for 1909 calf $200.

Highest price paid for 1910 calf $95.

Highest price paid for 1909 hull $125.

Mr. John Campbell's sale held near Dal-rneny on April 19, realized some good figures. Eight Holsteins brought $1,475, an average of $184 each; one cow brought $290; twenty-one aged Ayrshire cows brought $1,676.

William Higginson's sale of registered Holstein cattle held at Inkerman, Ontario, Tuesday, November 1, brought the following figures:

Ninety head realized $12,457, herd bull sold for $850, highest price paid for cow $300, twenty-one males brought $2,220, average price of males $105.35, 69 females brought $10,235, average price of females $148.

Still more gratifying were the prices realized at the sale of Holsteins held by Brown Brothers, on December 28, among which were the following:

48 head brought $11,355, an average price of $230.50. .

13 females brought $2,185, an average puce of $252. .

] ues brought $2,185, an average price of $168.

15 1910 calves brought $1,575, an average of $105.

3 yearling heifers brought $595, an average of $198,33.

9 two year old heifers brought $2,645, an average price of $294.

9 three year old heifers brought $2,230, an average price of $239.

33 head, calved previous to 1910, brought $8,700, an average price of $280.60.

Highest price realized for female $1,000.

Highest price realized for male $800.

Highest price realized for yearling, $220.

Highest price realized for two year old heifer, $700, and another one sold for $620.

Highest price realized for three year old heifer $160, and two others sold for $450 and $385 each.

Highest price realized for 1910 calf $240, and another sold for $200.

Highest ^rice realized for 1910 heifer calf $135.

Distributed, the cattle went as follows: Leeds county 34, Dundas 5, Carleton 2, Prescott 1, Grenville 1, Western Ontario 2, United States 3. At Benning's more than 75 per cent of the animals were sold to Ontario breeders. Hig-ginson's cattle were distributed as follows: Western Ontario 3, New Brunswick 3, Dundas 27, Leeds and Grenville 27, Carleton 7, Glengarry 5, Russell 2, Stormont 2, New York state 8, New Hampshire state 6.

Now, I desire to give an account of another sale, this one being held in Maxville. The total sum realized was $40,715 for 119 animals. The highest priced animal went for $2,600. An account of the sale was given in the press, and that account reads, in part, as follows:

According to the statement of the secretary of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association the sale of animals of that breed held at the farm of Robert Hunter and Sons at Maxville on Wednesday, was the greatest on record on this continent. About six hundred buyers or intending buyers were present from as far east as New York city and as far west as Ballard, Washington. One hundred and nineteen animals were auctioned ofi under the direction of Mr. Andrew Philips, -who conducted the sale. The highest price realized for any one animal was $2,600. This price was paid for the stock hull Bar-genock Victor Hugo, by Mr. D. Ryan, of Brewster, N.Y. The highest price paid for a female was by Mrs. Earhart, West Berlin, New Hampshire. The total sum realized was $40,715, and the average price per head was $342.15.

Now, let me give a few figures showing the character of our sheep trade. The following figures show' our exports of sheep to the United States:

1907, 63,034 head, value .. .. $195,6551908, 53,583 head, value .. .. 206,0891909, 43,803 head, value .. .. 158,660

And our total imports of sheep to Canada from the United States have been as follow's:

1907, 135,344 head, value.. .. $750,242

1908, 101,589 head, value .. .. 589,285

1909, 67,656 head, value .. .. 365,155

Now why should we look to a country that has more sheep than we have, as a market for sheep? The United States export far more sheep than we do, and yet we are supposed to look to the United States Eor a market.

There has been a great deal of comment and discussion made by the members of the government in regard to this pact, concerning hay. I am sure no farmer should think of looking for a market for his hay -at least only for a very small quantity of it. For any farmer who will raise hay to sell year after year will soon have very little to sell. The same thing applies to potatoes. We do not pretend to raise many potatoes to ship, and none of our farmers should build on the potatoe market. Potatoes are a perishable article, and we should not take any credit for creating a market for them. If the Americans want any of our products they know what to do in order to get them. I know in former years when they wanted anything from this country they simply let down the bars. In 1902 or 1903 when they wanted our young cattle they reduced the tariff on cattle, and after they had brought in what they wanted, they put the tariff up again.

The following statement will show the exports of cheese from the United States to Canada for the years mentioned and the total exports of cheese from the United


Lbs. Value.


1,540,552 $ 166,510]<)08

452,361 56,7041909 .. 120,844 14,952

Total Exports from United States:

Lbs. Value.


17,285,230 $2,012,6261908

8,439,051 1,092,0531909

6,822,842 857,091

The Total Exports of Milk from the United

States were as follows:


1907 $2,191,111

1908 2,455,186

1909 1,375,104

The Total Exports of Cheese from Canada were:

1909 $22,106,108

1910 180,859,866 = 21,607,692

There has been a great deal of stress put on the fact that we will have a market for our cheese. That is not the case. Cheese was high in the United States last fall, but we all know how that came about.

They sold themselves short in the early part of the season, and later on a few men cornered the cheese market and raised the price to about 14 cents. If those who are endeavouring to secure reciprocity are looking for a market for $21,000,000 worth of cheese, when the Americans themselves are exporting cheese to the extent of over $2,000,000 in 1907, and over $857,000 in 1909, how can they expect a market from these people? We make a very superior cheese in Canada to-day. The Ontario government is spending on an average over $65,000 a year for instruction in what we call the outside service-that is outside of the agricultural centres. They are spending this large amount of money educating the farmers of the whole country to make a fine cheese, which they are doing. Everybody knows that tha United States is making a very inferior article, and that they would be only too glad to mix their cheese with Canadian cheese and so lower our price or raise theirs. I am sure if this reciprocity pact passes it will be a great injury to our cheese trade. We have taken a great deal of, pains and been to large expenses to make a good article, and put it on the market in good shape. I know from the conditions existing across the line that reciprocity would be a great injury to our cheese trade.

In 1910, we exported 4,615,380 pounds of butter valued at $1,010,274. We must admit that our butter exports are decreasing. At the same time we take a great deal of care to put what wre have to sell on the market in proper shape, and we would derive no advantage from shipping our butter to the United States. In 1907, we shipped 12,544,777 pounds valued at $2,429,489. In 1908, we shipped 6,463,061 pounds valued at $1,407,962. In 1909, we shipped 5,981,265 pounds valued at $1,268,210.

Dairying has expanded in other countries just as it has in ours, as will appear from the following paragraph:



South Australia shows Strong Forward Movement. Adelaide, South Australia, July 20.-South Australian produce always finds a ready market in the United Kingdom, and since the establishment of the government produce department and the appointment of a trades commissioner, an appreciable increase in the output of perishable produce has taken place. Producers now know that should the local market fail they can profitably export through the department; consequently they have not hesitated to extend their operations. The dairying industry especially has expanded, and the exportation of butter this season shows a marked improvement compared with previous years. In 1908-09 a total of 456 tons was shipped from Port Adelaide, in 190910, 822 tons, while the aggregate shipments to date for the 1910-11 season total 1,747 tons. The quantity of blitter now made in the state Mr. KIDD. I exceeds eight and a half mil^on pounds annually. Most of the separating is done by farmers on their own farms, and the cream is then forwarded to the various butter factories, which give employment to a large number of people. The opening up of new lands, the extended practice of irrigation in the Murray valley and at other places under government supervision, has given a great impetus to the industry, and these totals will probably be exceeded in the near future. This shows that if this pact goes through our markets will be flooded with produce of all kinds from these favoured nation countries. Denmark for instance has been shipping very large quantities of dairy) produce to Great Britain where it competes with our produce. What would the result be if Canada were to enter into an arrangement for free entry of butter from Denmark under this pact? What would the results be if Canada should enter into free trade in butter under the proposed reciprocity agreement? Our farmers would be confronted with the competition on our own markets of such producing countries as Denmark, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Argentine Republic, Sweden and Norway, as well as the United States. Would this competition amount to anything? At present the import demand from Great Britain is the controlling factor in the Canadian butter market, and it is interesting to note that the average prices realized in Great Britain during the year 1909 for butter imported from Russia, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Argentine Republic were lower than those obtained for Canadian butter. In the matter of prices, then, these countries would be prepared to undersell Canada on her own market, as they do now on the British market. Denmark, which is the largest exporter of butter to Britain, gets much more for her products than does Canada. This is because of the quality of the Danish butter, which is said to be superior to any other make in the world. The fine flavour of Denmark's dairy product would thus ensure a successful competition on the Can-, adian market even in the face of lower prices. Just as the English consumer is willing to pay more for Danish butter, so would the Canadian consumer do the same. Great Britain in 1909 imported 455,034,944 pounds of butter worth $109,134,815, from the following countries: Denmark $51,671,648 Russia 14,325,256 France 11,292,185 Australia 9,770,695 Sweden 7,170,746 New Zealand 7,164,799 Netherlands 3,879.999 Argentine Republic 1,907,801 Norway 797,481 Canada 585,913 Other countries 568,292 So you see that if the produce of these other favoured nation countries were admitted to enter Canada and compete with our produce this country would be very greatly affected. The following comparison of tariffs on butter, if reciprocity becomes law, shows that Canada gives free entrance to all her competitors, but must pay duty to all of them, except the United States, if she wishes to send butter back to them: Canada-Free from Favoured Nations and British Possessions, including Denmark, Russia, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Argentine Republic, Norway and United States; otherwise 4 cents per lb. Australia-6 cents per lb. New Zealand-General Tariff, 30% ad valorem British Preferential Tariff, 20% ad valorem (Canada is entitled to the B.P. Tariff.) Denmark-In hermetically sealed vessels, 4Jc. per lb.; otherwise free. Argentine Republic-4 2-5c. per lb. United States-From Canada, free; otherwise 6c. ner b. Sweden-2 2-5c. per lb. Norway-Minimum Tariff, l 4-5 c. per lb. Maximum Tariff, 3c. per lb. Russia-1 7-100c. per lb. Canada's export trade in butter is not so great at the present time that her farmers can afford to imperil their dairy industry by a tariff scheme that would, in all probability, make the country's imports in this article greater than her exports. In the year ending 1910 Canada shipped only 4,615,380 pounds of butter, worth $1,010,274. Canada's imports of butter on the other hand amounted to 687,454 pounds, worth $104,301. I wish to place on record a comparative statement of the exports of eggs from the United States and Canada. These figures are as follows: Export of Eggs from United States. Dozens. Value. 1907 6,968,985 $1,542,7891908 7,590,977 1,540,0141909 5,207,151 1,199,522 Exports of Eggs from Canada to United States. Dozens. Value. 1908 32,991 $9,846 001909 59,483 14,952 001910 39,917 13,896 00When the United States export these large quantities of eggs why should we expect to have any market for eggs there? It is a well known fact that last year eggs were higher in Canada than in the United States, and at the present time I understand a very large firm in Toronto has a contract for eggs with a firm at Buffalo at 15 cents, and where our farmers are getting a much higher price than that right at home. Serious difficulty may be experienced in Canada owing to the importation of oleomargarine, an imitation of butter, into our market. The manufacture or sale of oleomargarine is absolutely prohibited in Canada. The United States are to-day exporting large quantities of this imitation butter, the figures being as follows: Exports of Oleomargarine from United States to Other Countries. Pounds. Value. 1907 5,397,609 $520,4061908 2,938,175 299,7461909 2,899,058 293,635 The export of horses into Canada from the United States and vice versa have been as follows: United States into Canada. Canada into United States. Number. V alue. Number. Value. $ $ 26,361 15,324 17,376 3,336,353 1,962,438 2,221,562 33,882 19,000. 21,616 4,359,957 2,612,587 3,486,617 The prices of horses range from $106 to $125 in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York; in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Dakota the average is from $111 to $126, and in Montana, Idaho and Washington from $80 to $108. In eastern Canada prices range from $107 to $139. You will see that our prices range far higher than those in the_ United States. In western Canada the prices range from $107 to $156. In Indiana, Illinois and Iowa the prices range from $120 to $124.

In all the Canadian provinces the prices are higher than in the United States. If this pact goes through, which I hope it will not, our market will be injured very-much for Canadian horses. I remember, when I was a very small kid, that our horses were always supposed to be very much better than American horses. We had many of our southern neighbours up here buying our horses a few years ago for street car purposes and it was claimed that three of our horses would outlast four or five American horses owing, no doubt, to our horses being raised in a colder climate and therefore being hardier and more valuable horses than the American horses. There is no doubt that our farmers will be greatly injured if this pact goes through because it will be taking from them their western market which is the best market in the world to-day for eastern horses. Now, let me cali your attention to the bacon and ham trade. The following is a statement of the exports of bacon and ham from Canada to Great Britain. Year. 1906 $12,119,804 1907 9,196,305 1908 11,153,749 1909 8,625,005 1910 6,836,392 You will see that in the last couple of years there is a decrease in our exports. Where does the rest go? The answer is that we are using the rest. We are using far more bacon and hams than we did some years ago.


Year. Quantity. Value. Lbs. 1907 2,710,369 $287,4601908 4,957,022 532,4421909 5,759,930 620,193


Year. Quantity. Value. Lbs." 1907 250,418,699 $26,470,9721908 241,189,929 25.481.2461909 244,578,674 25,920,490


Year. Quantity. Value. Lbs. 1907 209,481,496 $23,698,2071908 221,769.634 25,167,0591909 212,170,224 23,526,397 I will give a short comparison between Chicago market prices and our Ingersoll market prices for the years 1901 to 1910:


Price at Price at Year. Chicago. Ingersoll. 1901 $5 71 $6 701902 6 76i 6 681903 5 88 6 07


Edward Kidd

Conservative (1867-1942)



5 04 5 321905

5 18 6 411906

6 23 7 171907

6 09J 6 851908

5 36i 6 871909

7 53| 8 041910

8 59f 9 11The Ingersoll prices averaged 58 cents per hundred weight higher than the Chicago market prices. ,

Now I will read a paragraph from the report of the committee appointed by the Senate committee to make inquiry into the comparative prices in Canada and the United States:

Why is it that an American hoard of investigators thus finds itself confronted with these superior conditions in Canada ? Simply because of the better product cultivated by the Canadian farmer. With regard to this point of quality in our hogs

This is taken from Senate Document 849. This is where some of the figures I have quoted are taken from and they are figures that this tariff board spent a great deal of time in Canada and the United States in procuring in order to make a comparison of prices.

The lack of corn, the existence of a well-established dairy production and the advisability of suitable forage, has led to the introduction of another agricultural speciality in which Ontario excels, to wit, the breeding and rearing of bacon pigs, as contrasted with the heavy corn fed lard hog of our middle west.

We all know that just as soon as this pact goes through we will be confronted with the American fat hog, which will reduce the value of our pork to a large extent. There is no doubt that we raise a far superior quality of hog to that of the Americans. Fox 15 or 20 years we have been breeding a superior quality of hog, we kill him at the right time, and put him on the market at the proper time. Our consumers consume far more bacon and pork than they did a few years ago. For years we made our hogs very heavy for the shanty trade, and the Americans followed in the same direction. But we have ceased sending large fat hogs to market now. This market will all be upset if this pact goes through. Now, Sir, I wish to draw your attention to the amount of spring wheat that is grown in the United States compared with what we have in Canada, and the average grown per acre. The United Slates, in 1910, raised 231,390,000 bushels of spring wheat, average per acre 11 '7, value per bushel 98-8 cents; of winter wheat they raised 464,044,000, average per acre, 16-8 bushels, value per bushel, 89-1. In the United States the total amount grown of winter wheat was 695,443,000 bushels; in Canada, of spring wheat there were grown 133,379,600 bushels; average per acre, 15-53 bushels; value per bushel, 73-8 cents.

Of winter wheat there was grown 16,610,000 bushels; average per acre 23-49 bushels; value per bushel, 87 cents. The total wheat grown in Canada in 1910, 249,989,600 bushels. Now we can easily see that the Americans raised a very large amount of wheat, and still our people are anxious to get their market.

Now let us look at the exports of Canadian wheat for the last five years to Great Britain and to the United States:

Exports to Exports to Great Britain. United States.


$30,622,824 $298,1601907

20,710,973 630,3491908

42,911,810 102,8491909

51,350,211 602,6611910

58,538,772 1,883,637

Wheat imported into Canada from the United States:










Now with this large amount of wheat, I do not see why we should be looking to the United States for a market. Here is a table showing wheat exports from the United States:

Bushels. Value.

1907 , 76.569,423 $60,214,388


100,371,057 99,736,7671909

66,923,244 68,094,447

Now why should we be looking for a market from which is exported so large a quantity of wheat? I do not see any advantage that we could have. 1 can see quite well the advantage the Americans would have in this trade. It is a well-known fact that our wheat is a great deal better, of a superior quality to that of the Americans. We often hear it said that unless their wheat is mixed with some of our Canadian wheat it will make nothing but dough. They want our wheat to mix with their own, and that is one reason why they are so anxious to have this reciprocity treaty concluded. Let me here read you a short paragraph from a speech of President Taft at Indianapolis, in favour of reciprocity, made on the 4th Q-f July last:

President Taft put tlie parting touch on his part in the celebration of the city's 'safe and sane' Fourth in a speech on Canadian reciprocity at the Marion Club banquet to-night. The President made his answer to the argument of other Republicans that reciprocity, as he has proposed it, is not good Republican doctrine, but Democratic doctrine.

Replying to the contention that reciprocity would be made wholly at the expense of the farmer and in the interest of the wage-earner of the large cities, Mr. Taft said that in his judgment ' the reciprocity agreement will not

greatly reduce the cost of living, if at all.'

' It "will,' the President continued, ' steady prices by enlarging the reserves of supplies for those things that are raised in both countries, and it will make more remote the possibility of cornering commodities and extorting excessive prices for tbem from the public.'

The complaint that the farmers would suffer by the agreement, the President said, when analysed would be found to be an argument that the admission of Canadian wheat free of duty would lower the price of wheat raised in the United States ten cents a bushel.

'The answer to this argument,' he said, ' is that this cannot he, for the reason that the price of wheat in the United States and Canada both is ultimately fixed by the price of wheat in the world, and that the world's prices are adjusted and made at Liverpool by the relation of the supply of the exported wheat to the demand for it by countries which do not raise enough to supply their people. i 4i

Is not that a strong admission of President Taft that reciprocity will not raise the price of wheat. I read this from the To-1 ronto ' Globe,' July 24, 1911:

In the United States we have seen the same .sequence of events in our own time. A people formerly agricultural have become city dwellers. Their exports, which were mainly natural products a generation ago- wheat, corn, cattle, cotton and. similar articles -are now in ever-increasing degree manufactured goods. Under the protective system in its application to foodstuffs the duties on wheat, barley, oats, beans, cattle, fish and meats have been prohibitive since tbe passage of the McKinley tariff twenty years ago. The inevitable result has been the frequent cornering of .the wheat market, and the increase of the price of wheat and flour far above that prevailing in .the world's open marts. The meat trust has taken toll of the people without mercy, and the cost of living has been forced up so high that the town dwellers, and in some measure the farmers also, have revolted, and demanded the removal of the food taxes that were used to make great fortunes for the manipulators of the markets. On the one hand, the trusts were able to depress the farmers' selling prices, and on the other to compel the consumers to pay enhanced prices fer their food supplies. The secret of the meat trust's tremendous power lay in the fact that the farmer was. selling cattle at prices pre-arranged by a little group of men who controlled practically all the packing houses in the United States, while the consumer was buying meat at retail stores similarly controlled by the trust.

You can see, Mr. Chairman, from this that the trusts control nearly all the articles consumed in the United States, and there is no doubt that under reciprocity they will extend their influence to Canada without the least ^trouble in the world. It is a well known fact that the local butchers right! aross the line cannot buy cattle direct from the farmers as the Canadian butchers do, - beeausp the trusts crowd them out of the

market. A farmer that lives three or four hundred miles from Chicago will have to sell his meat to the trust, and the consumer has to pay the railway frieght on the live stock cargo, and the freight on the dead meat from Chicago to New York, thus paying a double rate. They pay on the live' cattle going into Chicago and on the dead meat going out, and in the meantime there are two or three middlemen to make money. There is no better managed market the world over than in the Dominion of Canada; nearly everything the producer raises goes direct to the consumer, and the producer gets more for what he produces than does the American producer, while the American consumer has* to pay more for his food, the reason being that the trusts intervene between the producer and the consumer in the United States. This proves that we should continue to do business in the future, as we have done in the past. President Taft at New York plainly indicated the intention of the United States to prevent by this agreement the possibiilty~-of a commercial union of Canada with the empire. He said, speaking to his own people:

I have said that this was a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall from the United States, and to make her part of an imperial commercial band reaching from England around the world to England again *by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty, and if we would have reciprocity, with all the advantages that I have described, and that I earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now or give it up forever.

In the same speech Mr. Taft disclaimed any desire on the part of fhe United States for the annexation of Canada. He cannot speak for the United States on this subject -but assuming that he is right with regard to annexation, he certainly is right with regard to Canada's future with the empire if reciprocity takes effect, and again we ask: 'Why. take the risk?'

It is not much wonder they should talk this waj, because they know right away that if they talked commercial union or annexation it would kill the Bill in Canada, and so, they ask for reciprocity in order to help Canada. Did you ever know of the Americans doing anything before to help Canada? Never. I quote the following remarks of Senator Works:

Washington, July 19.-Senator Works, of California, insurgent Republican, urged the passage of the Canadian reciprocity Bill in a vigorous speech in the Senate to-day. He expressed the belief that reciprocity would not injure the farming interests of the nation.


Edward Kidd

Conservative (1867-1942)


except to cause some temporary disturbances in border states, which would soon adjust themselves.

Senator Works said he did not believe President Taft had used undue influence to secure the passage of the reciprocity Bill through congress, and that Mr. Taft was 'too good a lawyer to overstep well recognized bounds.'

Attempts to amend' the Bill were obvious attempts to defeat reciprocity as a whole, said Mr. Works, who defended the Bill as fair and just and of lasting benefit to the country.'

No wonder, Mr. Chairman, that all these politicians of the United States are in favour of reciprocity with the United States.

The New York 'Journal ' is very confident about the future:

Intelligent Americans will favour this treaty; intelligent Congressmen will vote for it. Eventually, beyond question the whole North American continent will be one nation.

The Oriental 'Review ' of New York regards the trick as already done:

This great republic has morally added to its union one more state without fighting for it, and without any future need of 'knocking it' into proper shape.

When the International boundary between Lake Superior and the Pacific was being delimited, the United States desired it to be at latitude 54.40, instead of at parallel 49, where it now is. Ardent spirits wished to settle the question by the sword. The difference between 49 and 54.40 is that 54.40 is north of the Saskatchewan, and that if the boundary had been fixed there no part of the Canadian west that is growing wheat for export would have belonged to Canada. The St. Paul ' Dispatch ' is reminiscent :

The arrangement is just as good for the United States, so far as it goes, as the policy of '54-40 or fight' would have been had it succeeded.

The unique position and possibilities of Canada in world politics are keenly realized by many business men and publicists in the United States. They see that Canada's political strength within the British empire will be increased as her trade with the empire increases.

Control of trade and trade routes is the most powerful incentive to political aggrandizement! They openly profess that the agreement is a blow to Great Britain and to the empire. Whatever is a blow to Great Britain and the empire is a blow to Canada.

Mr. Knox, the United States Secretary of State-chief member of President Taft's cabinet.-speaking at a reciprocity dinner in Chicago, which, to quote the official report of the Chicago Association of Commerce, was representative of ' cities as far

north as Duluth, and as far south as Nashville; as far east as Cleveland, and as far west as Omaha,' said:

In providing for free wheat we also take into account the facilities which the United States possesses for handling a part of the surplus Canadian crop, and thus preventing the demoralization of prices which results through the dumping of large quantities upon the European markets, where the world's price is fixed. The free admission of grain from Canada thus meets the present situation and provides against contingencies when the Canadian surplus becomes greater by placing the control in the hands of our own grain-growers.

It has been the object of Canadian statesmanship to build up Canadian ports, because control of maritime trade is of the essence of building and preserving a nation with seacoasts. Governor Foss, of Massachusetts, is wholeheartedly for the reciprocity agreement because it will draw all kinds of trade away .from Canadian ports.


Subsequently Mr. A. J.@

Hill, chairman of the board of directors of the Great Northern railway, said:

It is not what we have gained by the reciprocity treaty that is most important, but what we have prevented. In the comment on the treaty when it was pending nearly every argument for it spoke of the good it would bring and it will bring good. My views in favour of reciprocity are so well known that I need not repeat them, now that the Senate has acted favourably. But the good that it will bring is only the smaller consideration of the question. What would have happened if we had not passed the treaty? That is the big question. There would have been a revival of a move for imperial federation, and if we had refused to trade with our good neighbour, our second best customer, and, for our manufacturers the best customer we have, we should have been 6orry for it in years to come, for the opportunity was before us to make a favourable agreement with Canada and it would not have been before us again for many years if we had refused it this time.

That is why I say that while the treaty will mean much good for both the United States and Canada-and I believe that it will stimulate trade on both sides and that it will not be long before everyone will see its benefit and see that the wise thing to do was to act favourably upon it-yet, after all, [DOT] that is the secondary part. There is not the slightest doubt that the situation was such that had the vote in the senate been against it, the report would have gone over the *world and would have stimulated activities elsewhere for obtaining trade that we are in the best geographical position to handle, and in England it would have meant the beginning of action for such imperial trade federation as would have shut us out.

Will it hurt Canada? Not a bit of it. It will he of great benefit to Canada. It ought to help Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Winnipeg, and all our country and Western Canada. There never was any more reason why there should he a line of custom houses along the northern Minnesota-Montana border or the border of eastern Canada, than there should

be between Minneapolis and Wisconsin or New York or Pennsylvania. What has made the commerce of the United States so great? That provision in our constitution that said that trade shall lie free and untrammelled between the states. Althodgli there were those who doubted the wisdom of free commerce between all the states when our country was in the formative period, it b&s been the greatest thing iti our history. It will be the same between the United States and Canada.

You see, Mr. Chairman, all these prominent men in the United States are in favour of this pact. But even so lately as a year ago had they any favours to offer Canada? No; they wanted the highest tax they could put on-25 cents a bushel on wheat, 6 cents a pound on butter, and so all along the line. They never were anxious to give Canada any favours but sought to do everything they could to hurt her trade. Mr. Chairman, it is growing late, and I will now move the adjournment of the debate.

Progress reported.



Mr. KING moved that the report of comparative prices in Canada and the United States, 1906-1911, be printed, and that rule 74 of the House be suspended in relation thereto. Motion agreed to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)



I beg to lay on the table complete information in r-eply to a question asked by Mr. Sharpe (Ontario), dated March 16th.

I would also lay on the table for the information of the House some comparative figures which have been prepared by the department in regard to agricultural products affected by the pact with the United States.

At the request of the right hon. the Prime Minister, I lay on the table the report of the committee of the Imperial Conference convened to discuss defence at the War Office, June 14-17, 1911.


George Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).

Does the hon. minister (Mr. Fisher) propose to have this report printed forthwith.


Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)



That is the intention.


July 28, 1911