Mr. RAINVILLE:

The farmers were

very much interested over that $2. Are we going to say that, if the price of wheat at Winnipeg were four, five or six cents lower than at Minneapolis at certain seasons, Americans would come on to the Winnipeg market and pay five, six, seven or more cents for wheat? I do not think they would do so, because they are better business men than that. They want our No. 1 wheat. On account of the splendid reputation that our Canadian wheat has obtained on the markets of the world, we would prefer to 19

keep it here for the good reputation of the Canadian market.

What about our milling industry? Would free wheat hurt our milling, industry? I heard some one discussing the question of giving bounties to the milling industry if it would be hurt by free wheat. If it is true that thq West is hurt by not being able to send its wheat into the United States, I would rather see this Government pay bounties to our Canadian railroads, is order to enable them to keep their freight, to keep our freight, because it belongs to us just as much as to the people of the West.

Mr. PROULX:

Was not the hon. gentleman in favour of reciprocity in his county during the last election?

Mr. RAINVILLE:

No. At the very first meeting I held at St. Lambert in the county of Chambly, I took up the stand against reciprocity; but when we saw that man going around and canvassing door by door with that $2 a ton more for hay, we were obliged to discuss it more fully.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

You took the wrong track.

Mr. RAINVILLE:

I took the right one, and my hon. friend will find, if he runs in the next election, that he is on the wrong track.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

You will be in the lake when I am re-elected.

Mr. RAINVILLE:

Sir, I am surprised.

Our friends the Liberals were in power for fifteen years. And now, only two years after the end of their administration, all these big questions arise at once. It must be that the Liberal members had not opportunity to bring these questions forward on the floor of the House when they were in power. If the questions had been settled that arose in their time, so many great questions could not have arisen all in a moment now. Or, if these questions are really important to-day, then some of them must have existed three, four or five years ago. Why then, did not our friends opposite try to settle these questions, and not propose reciprocity which was not wanted by the people and will not be accepted by the people? We hear of the case of the farmer to-day; we have heard also a little of the case of the people of the towns. Which of these classes needs more help, and more immediate help? I say, that the people of the towns. Why? Complaint is made to-day, and we admit justly made, of the high cost of- living.

grain from the West to the eastern seaboard of our country. But what has been done for the farmers of the East? I know that the answer can be given that large public works have been constructed in the East, and I admit that they have. I shall not enumerate these public works, we know they have been constructed, but what I want to know is what has been done for the farmers of the East? I asked that question of Mr. Fisher, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, during the fight in Chateauguay. He never dared to answer it, he had nothing to say. If the minister in charge of the immigration work of our Government 'would help the farmers of Canada, and especially those from Lake Superior to the Atlantic, to secure good farm hands, and if tne Minister of Agriculture would establish demonstration farms right at the doors of the farmers' in order to show the results which have been obtained at the Central Experimental Farm and demonstrate to them the economical side of advanced methods, they would be doing something big for the farmers of this country. Our one crop a year matures at about the same season each year, and the farmers have to sell their products all at one time, because of the fact that a large proportion of them are of a perishable nature, and they have no place to keep them. They are obliged to sell, and they have to take the price they can get. This is where the middleman comes in. He has a refrigerator and a housing system of his own. This is the trust that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has talked about, and he is right. The middlemen go out through the country and they buy up all the produce, much more than is necessary for the immediate needs of the people. They store this produce in order to husband it for the winter season. Then, what happens? They sell it at any price they want and they make the people in the cities pay for it. The people in the cities are at the mercy of the middlemen.

This is where the intervention of the Minister of Public Works would be useful in solving the problem of the high cost of living and relieving the farmers as well as the people of the towns and cities from this situation. How can he do this? By adopting the same policy with regard to the farmers of the East as that which the Government have adopted in regard to the farmers of the West. The Government have at the public expense built grain elevators for the housing of the farmers' grain in the West. Let the Minister of Public Works build at Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John f Mr. Rainville. ]

and other centres, a housing system with cold storage attached where the farmers could get together upon a co-operative basis and could husband and store their goods and food stuffs until there was a market available for them. All they would have to do would be to appoint one man who would sell everything belonging to all the members of this co-operative movement, and that one individual could deal with them in the same way as the representative of the fruit growers organization in California represents the members of that body. They would have one man to represent them who would tell them what they should do and what they should not do. He would be able to advise the members of the association as to what things were needed at a particular time and at a particular place. It seems to me that this would be a practical solution. I know that there may be some one who may criticise my suggestion; I do not pretend that it is perfect, I am only a new member of this House, but I am suggesting what I think is best for my country. _ I think that it will be found that this system of co-operation would be the most economical and satisfactory system that could be devised and we would get rid of what is so much deplored by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition: the wide

margin between the price that is paid to the producers and the price that is paid by the consumer, this is my programme; I am giving it out to-day. I am going to fight for it with all my power, because I think it is most necessary for our country. If we would take the trouble to study the question, we would find that it is applicable to the West just as much as to the East, because in the West we have towns that are growing in a wonderful manner, and anything that would help the cities of the West would help the cities of the East, would help the people, would help the farmer who is the producer and would help the consumer to get rid of the middleman who gets rich too quick.

That state of affairs did not come into existence to-day; it has existed for the last ten years. I remember the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) once saying that they saw the crisis coming and were trying- to relieve it by reciprocity. If they saw the crisis coming, in my judgment reciprocity was not a good remedy, no better remedy than the surgical operation that the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the other day. The Liberal party were in power. Did they lift up a finger to relieve the situation, except by reciprocity? They

call themselves ' Liberals.' They are proud of their name. What is there except the name? I remember the old programme of the Liberal party. While they were in power, did they carry out all their promises? During the last two years they have been criticising the programme of the right hon. the Prime Minister. If I should take up the Liberal programme of 1896 and make a little criticism on it after the Liberals had been fifteen years in power, would I not find more to say against them than they can find to say against the Administration of to-day? What did they do about the North Atlantic Trading Company and immigration? Is the Sunday Observance Bill that they passed very Liberal? Is what they did in giving the money for the Quebec bridge to political friends very Liberal? Did they cease for a single .moment giving, what we used to call tin-pot titles? Did they cease appointing members of Parliament to official positions? What about their programme of 1893-free trade? Did they try once to put that into effect in the country? Never.

But there is something more. Did they reform the Senate in any way? The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) said the other dav that my hon. friend from Bellechas-e (Mr. Lavallce) came from pure Liberal blood. I was once a pure-blooded Liberal too, and when we used to talk about the Senate my blood boiled. We were ready to fight for the abolition of the Senate. Have the Liberals abolished it? Look at, the Senate to-day; it is worse than ever it was.

Did they curtail the expenditures? No,. they increased them all the time. Did they stop election corruption during the time they were in power? Never. That was a portion of their programme. But we have seen that while they were in a position to carry out their programme, they did not do so.

We had an example not very long ago of an ex-minister of agriculture, whom I do not intend to name, running in Chateau-guay and then hiding himself in order to avoid the service of a counter petition, contesting the election. We shall see what will come out of the case. Maybe we on this side of the House shall have more fun than our hon. friends opposite.

During the fifteen years the Liberals were in power what did they do in regard to agriculture? I think I can prove that they did nothing. They failed in 1911 with the reciprocity cry, because the people were against reciprocity. They have failed with

their free food policy and they would not dare to bring it about. If they ever come along with free trade, they are going to fail in a worse way than they ever have failed, and they will die over it if they endeavour to bring it in.

Mr. ROBERT CRUISE (Dauphin):

Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency composed mostly of farmers; and, as this amendment is for free wheat, for which the farmers of the West are asking, I think it is my duty to say a few words on the question.

In the first place, I would like to refer to a few remarks that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) made yesterday. He said:

When the discussion of such an important matter as this does take place on the Budget Speech, we shall need to have the very best and soundest reasons-reasons more sound than those which the hon. member for Humboldt has been able to present to the House-before it would be wise for this Government to deal with any tariff changes which would affect important industries.

I presume these industries are the milling industry and the farming industry. I would just like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what better reason does he require? The organized farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta met the organized farmers of Ontario and discussed these questions before they brought them before the Government. The organized farmers are not the only people who are in favour of free wheat. We have also the Conservative Government of Manitoba, the leader of which is Sir Rodmond Palen Roblin, a man who, with his followers, opposed reciprocity to the bitter end. We have these men converted-if you will allow the expression, Mr. Speaker-to the belief that free wheat is in the interest of the western farmers. I do not know what stronger reason the Minister of Puouc Works requires than to have the Prime Minister of his own province, a province he represents in this House, requesting the Government to give the farmers free wheat. The Conservatives of Manitoba are holding conventions to nominate their provincial candidates, and in some of these conventions resolutions have been passed endorsing the Manitoba Government for taking up the question of free wheat. This is a farmer's question; free wheat has been asked for by the farmers; and we have a Government here that pretends to be the friend of the farmer. They told the farmers in the West, before the last election, that if they were given power they would do all

kinds of things for the farmers. It is a very small concession that is asked of the Government, and I hope they will grant this small measure pf relief to the western farmers.

The Minister of Public Works objected to this amendment being introduced at this particular time. I am not very well versed in parliamentary procedure, but it seems to me that had this question not been taken up at this time the result might have been very undesirable. When the Minister of Finance has brought down his Budget and settles the tariff for this year, what good would it do for the Opposition to bring in a resolution for free wheat? They would say: Why did you not bring that in before? There is nothing like being on time; we want to put our vote on record in favour of liee wheat for the western farmer. And in asking for free wheat for the western farmer we ask something which will not hurt the eastern farmer; if it were otherwise, we would not ask for it.

Another question that members on the Government side talk a great deal about is the education of the farmers. I do not know how that appeals to other farmers, but I know how it appeals to me. I have been a practical farmer in Manitoba for twenty years and I do not need any education to enable me to raise more beef and more pork, and more wheat than I do. Give me the market, and I will raise the goods. These hon. gentlemen are on the wrong track; they are trying to educate the wrong people. It is not the farmers who need to be educated, but the manufacturers. Educate the millers and manufacturers so that they will be able to compete with their rivals on the other side of the line. I am quite satisfied that the farmers will be quite willing to have the Minister of Agriculture -whom I am sorry not to see in his seat-appropriate money to educate the manufacturers to be men, to get off the farmer's back and to compete with the American manufacturers. Compare the Canadian farmer on our side with the American farmer on the other side;-would any man in this House like to go to the Canadian farmer and tell him that he could not raise hogs as cheap as the American farmer,- or beef, or wheat? If you told that to the farmer he would hit you. No Canadian will admit that he cannot raise food as cheaply as the American farmer can. Why, then, cannot the Canadian miller produce flour as cheaply as the American miller? Is there any reason? There is no reason. We have good millers in Canada, and they are will-

ing to compete with the Americans if we take the duty off wheat. They are not opposing this change.

But one reason why this is opposed is that some people say: If you give the farmers free wheat they will never stop until they get everything else free. That is the argument that was used in the last elections. The most prominent Conservatives said: We do not object to this reciprocity arrangement, for it will not hurt the manufacturers; but if we give the farmers reciprocity, they will never stop until they get free agricultural machinery and everything else? This is the thin edge of the wedge. But I venture to prophesy that the day is coming, and before long, when, if our governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, do not study the wishes of the farmers, you will have a farmers' government in Canada. For they are educating men in western Canada who study economic questions more than most members of Parliament do, and these are the men who will legislate in the future if our governments do not wake up to the fact that they have to legislate in the interest of the farmers. I am sorry this resolution does not include also free oats, free barley and free flax. But, as I said before, we will be satisfied with a small concession for the present and see how it works. I am going to ask the Manitoba members, -a number of whom I see before me- I am going to appeal to them as representing the western farmers, to support this resolution, and not only to support this resolution but to try to convince the Government that we have got to have free wheat, barley, oats and flax. If that concession is given us, we in the western country, will produce the goods for you -lots of them.

A great deal has been said about the high cost of living and about the many unemployed in the citieg and towns. Where do the bulk of the unemployed come from ? When your farmers are not prosperous and not able to keep hired help, where do the hired men go ? They go to your cities and towns, and the cities and towns have to support them. Put the farmer in a position to be able to keep his hired help winter and summer, and you will not have the congestion in your towns and cities, you will not have hard times.

Mr. BRADBURY:

Wheat growers do not need much help in the winter time.

Mr. CRUISE:

My hon. friend butts in just at this time, and I am glad he does..

Gentlemen on his side talk a great deal about mixed farming. If the farmer goes into mixed farming, he will need help in the winter-time as well as in the summer. And the western farmer is going into mixed farming, and he will produce all the wheat and beef and pork you want. The high cost of living, everybody knows, is due to lack of production. How are you going to regulate supply and demand? If the farmers of the West go into mixed farming too strongly, what will happen? They will flood the home market, the prices will go down, and then they will have to go out of mixed farming and into something else. Give the farmer the market so that he may be sure of finding a sale for what he raises every year, and he will keep on year after year producing the goods, and that will certainly reduce the cost of living to a great extent.

Now, let me say a word in regard to reciprocity. During my election, it was laughable to hear the arguments that were used in opposition to reciprocity, mainly by men from the towns and cities-we know that it was the towns and cities in Manitoba that defeated reciprocity, not the farmers; the farmers gave a majority of over 900 in its favour. These people told the farmers- fou must not support reciprocity; it would be disloyal to do so, if you trade with the United States, you will be annexed to the United States. I do not know how a more foolish argument could be thought of. You might as well tell an Englishman that if he trades horses with a nigger he will become a nigger as to tell us that we could not trade with the United States without becoming Americans.

Another thing I want to refer to is the farmers' delegations that have come to Ottawa time after time. They have waited on the late Government, as well as on the members of the present Administration. I am not here to defend the late Government, as I was not sitting in the House when the late Government was in power. But we have been told that the late Government did nothing to relieve the situation for the farmers. There is no getting away from the fact that the late Government went to the country on a measure to relieve the farmers, and they were defeated, so that they risked their political lives in trying to give the farmers relief. They were put out of business by whom? By the railway companies, by the manufacturers, by the gentlemen that own the present Government. The present Government cannot do *anything; they cannot bring down any measure providing for a change in the

tariff without first submitting it to the Manufacturers' Association. It is a fine situation in an agricultural country like Canada to have a Government owned, controlled, and operated by the manufacturers. But I was going to speak about organized farmers waiting on the Government, and the treatment they received. They were told: Oh, yes, we will consider your case-but how far were their cases considered? I am sorry to say that the farmers of western Canada are not making money to-day, and it is not a good advertisement for any country to preach that its farmers are not prosperous. But you have to face the facts, and it is a fact that in Manitoba to-day the farmers are not prosperous; many of them are leaving the farms because they cannot make money. When those men come down here and pay their expenses to Ottawa out of their own pockets, it must be admitted that they are sincere. They do not come here for the fun of it; they are sincere in the demands they make. Has the Government conceded anything to them? Has the Government promised them anything? Here is a chance for the present Government to show the farmers of western Canada that they are in sympathy with them, and if they do so I believe they will have good results when the next election comes on. If the Government could only see its way clear to give the farmers the benefit of free oats, free barley, free flax and free wheat, I am sure the people would appreciate it. The farmers of western Canada are waiting patiently for this concession, which has been promised by hon. members from Manitoba. The hon. Solicitor-General has in the past spoken about free implements. I hope and trust that he will never let the present Government alone till we do get free implements and I almost feel satisfied that we will have them probably before this session is over.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

I

want the attention of the House only for two or three minutes to refer to this matter and to explain, if I can, why I intend to vote for the amendment now before the House. I have always been in favour of relieving the western farmer in the matter of freight rates almost before doing anything else, and it is because I see that free wheat will at least give the farmer of the West the benefit of competition in railway rates that I feel justified in the action I propose to take. I have spoken in this House year after year, in favour of lower freight rates. I have suggested publicly to this Government that the first thing

Mr. LEMIEUX:

My hon. friend has

just stated that the National Policy was based on the American tariff. Does he refer to the permanent offer of reciprocity which was in the Canadian tariff?

Mr. MACLEAN:

I do not want to go into details on that; I want to deal with the issue as it presents itself to me. The Americans are a great nation, our near neighbours, our greatest consuming market, and we are their best customers for manufactured goods. When great changes' take place in reference to particular articles we must adjust. Let me give an illustration. It has been said of Shakespeare by another great Englishman that he wrote for all time. You know that very charming love scene between Henry- V and the French Princess Katherine where Henry says; nice customs curtsey to great Kings. That exactly describes this situation, the customs must curtsey to great Kings in this case and the great King happens to be the United States who have shown a disposition to come our way and to take more of our products. They have offered to take our wheat and a lot of other things, and they are taking them, and we will do no harm to the National Policy by adjusting it to meet that condition. If this is the case and if the Government have not yet made up their minds that the farmers of our Canadian West to-day are feeling stringent conditions, we will hearten them up if we tell them that they have this wider market. If we can hearten them up

so that they will prove to be more successful wheat farmers they will become better mixed farmers and they will produce more; our railways and millers will have more to do even if rates have to be reduced to some extent by reason of this result. Most of all the people of Ontario see a larger market for their products in the great West if the West improves in population and in production and if the people there are contented. We have got to make our Canadian West contented and Ontario to-day, if she is proud of anything, is proud of the fact that the great Canadian West has sprung from the loins of Ontario very largely. We are proud of these three great provinces that have been established on the prairies and the people of Ontario, and I think I speak for the people of Ontario and for a large number of the Conservative- of Ontario, who wish prosperity to come again to the West and they wish to see it peopled more. They wish to see more ground broken in the West and more people going in there. There has been a let up more or less pronounced in regard to settlement in the West and there is more or less of a let up in the immigration going to the West.

A friend of mine, a constituent, sent me yesterday a Wisconsin paper containing a statement in regard to immigration which I hope will command the attention of the House and the Government. This statement is signed by B. G. Packer, Wisconsin Immigration Commissioner. In the statement he tells the farmers of Wisconsin, as they are being told all over the Western States, that Canada is not quite such a good country as it was to go to, and he gives the figures as to the movement of population. These figures are somewhat surprising as showing the number who have come into Canada and the number who have gone back to the United States. I shall read the concluding paragraph signed by this Commissioner of Immigration for Wisconsin-and similar statements are being published in all the Western States, upon which we draw largely for that fine population of men ready to take up land and who know how to farm it. That paragraph reads:

High freight rates and interest charges, increased cost of protected implements, food, clothing, lumber and other necessaries coupled with frequent low prices for grain apparently convinced many that farming pays best ' back home.'

That is, these Americans who are said to be leaving our Western country and

going back to the United States. I do not want to see immigration disturbed or checked in regard to the West; I do not wish to see production disturbed in that country. I want to see our railroads get an immense freight to move out of that country, and to see that freight moved, as has been said here this afternoon, by Canadian channels instead of American channels. But if we do wish to see that, we have got to try and give our own people in the West what they are asking for, to make them contented, and to encourage them in these times of stringency. We must show them that we are willing to cooperate with them in the great work which they have at hand, and on the line of conciliation and of encouragement of tji at country I think it would be wise on the part of the Government, when they bring down their Budget speech, to have in that very prominently the recognition of the cry of the people of the West for free wheat and for admission to the United States market. It shall not change the National Policy, it will not hurt the people here in the East; but it will be an illustration of what ought to be the inspiring principle of governments, and that is to readjust their course by the compass to new conditions as they arise.

Mr. JAMES M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal said during this debate as to the reason why production of food stuffs in Canada has fallen short of the market demand. To my mind the only thing that can induce the people of Canada, which is essentially an agricultural country, to produce the required food products for this country is to give to the farmer every facility in the power of the Government in the matter of market. To my mind the question of markets is one of the most important questions with which this present Government or any other has to deal in connection with the farming industry in this great country. The late Government went down to defeat in an endeavour to ameliorate the conditions in Canada in regard to the production of food products. We had it admitted to us on all sides that the reciprocity pact would not interfere with the manufacturing industry any more than that it was a step in the direction of opening the markets and a step in the direction, possibly, of free trade. We have also had a great deal of advice as to

the style of farming which should be followed, particularly in Western Canada.

The section from which I come is essentially a mixed farming district. We were a mixed farming district even before the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave his famous advice to western Canada; and we are so, because conditions there lend themselves particularly to that kind of farming. We also produce a certain amount of grain, but the transportation problem is such a serious one that we do not pretend to ship a great deal of grain. We use it as feed and ship it in the shape of cattle, swine and other live stock. We have had some figures both during the regime of the late Government and of this Government, showing the magnificent proportions of immigration into Canada. I have taken pains to analyse these figures and I have found that notwithstanding the tremendous immigration into Canada from the United States, the net gain to Canada for the past five years is only something like 20,000 people. I would like to place these figures on ' Hansard ' showing how this loss has been suffered.

Canada to U.S. to

U.S. Canada.

1907- 8

68,826 58,3121908- 9

84,564 59.S321909- 10

94,496 103,7981910- 11

105,512 121,4511911- 12

107,943 133,7101912- 13

143 578 139,009594,919 616,112 .Gain in Canada in six years.. 21,193

You will notice that there is an increase every year, both coming into Canada and returning to the United States.

Mr. EDWARDS:

Will the hon. gentleman give his authority for these figures?

Mr. DOUGLAS:

Mr. DAVID WARNOCK (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to take up as little time as possible, as I understand it has been arranged between the whips that the vote shall be taken before six o'clock. But this question of free wheat is of so

much importance to the West that I desire to put myself on record as being strongly in favour of the request made by the western farmers. I do not propose to enter into a comparison of the prices in the United States and Canadian markets. The opponents of reciprocity, in the late reciprocity campaign, always assured us that the United States market would be absolutely valueless to the live stock producers of Canada. But since the Underwood tariff has come into operation we have had ample proof that the United States market is a most valuable market for our live stock producers, and the western wheat growers ask our Government to remove these duties so that the countervailing duty may be taken off and thus give them an opportunity of getting into the United States market just in the same way as our live stock growers have got into it and with the expectation of equal benefit. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder), speaking the other evening, informed the House that the farmers of Ontario were more prosperous than they had ever been. Why? Is it not the case that they have the United States market for their live stock, milk and cream? Certainly the Ontario farmers never would have been as prosperous had that market not been thrown open to them. The western farmers ask that they be permitted to share in this prosperity. Our live stock growers in western Canada are getting better prices for their live stock, their hogs and cattle, than they have ever done in the history of live stock raising in the West.

About six weeks ago there were hundreds of cattle on the hands of feeders in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a constituency lying south of Calgary. These cattle could not be sold at a profitable figure, but when the Underwood tariff came into effect buyers from big packing plants at Tacoma and Seattle came into Calgary, purchased these cattle at a very profitable price to the producer and shipped the cattle to the large packing plants in the Pacific Coast cities.

Let me deal shortly with conditions as they exist in southern Alberta to-day. We have heard a great deal in the Bast about the bumper crops that the western farmers have had during the past season; in fact, I remember reading some interviews given by Cabinet Ministers on their return to the East from the West, and some of them were so optimistic that they said that there was a large enough crop in the western country this year to relieve the whole of the financial stringency all over Canada. But in the

[Mr. Warnocli. 1

winter wheat district we found that conditions were not quite so good. I know that in my own part of the country the yield of winter wheat was a great disappointment. Many crops only threshed out about an average of twelve bushels to the acre, and the farmer being compelled to sell at the prices prevailing in the West, had to sell at a loss of from 81 to

$5 per acre on the cost of production. No farmer can continue to farm under these conditions. Even the farmers who had good crops realized very little more than what it cost them to produce their crop. In past years our farmers have tested the United States markets by paying the duty and shipping a portion of their grain across the line, and I have never yet met a farmer who was not thoroughly satisfied with his experiments in this direction. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of free wheat, and I hope that the Government will see fit to grant the request of the western farnSers. As the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) pointed out this afternoon, it is not the request of a few agitators of the West. I believe that 90 per cent, of the farmers, no matter what their political persuasion may be, are in favour of free wheat, and the bulk of the Conservative press in the West is advocating free wheat.

I should like to put on record an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald, a paper which is friendly to the Borden Government, and which is looked upon as one of the staunchest party papers in the West. Tnis article was written in regard to a letter received from Mr. Kelly, president of the Western Canada Flour Mills Company, with important interest in Calgary. The article, which is dated January 13, 1914, says:

What the president says, in effect, is that if the Dominion Government removes the duties against United States wheat and flour there w:U be an end to milling development in the West.

Perhaps Mr. Kelly didn't mean it exactly that way, but what he says sounds very much like a threat, and if there is one thing more particularly objectionable than another to the average westerner it is the threat, no matter from whence it comes or by whom given.

Mr. Kelly will forgive us if we suggest that the issue concerned in the matter of free or taxed wheat is something of far greater importance to the people of the West than the development or stagnation of any single industrial enterprise, even though that enterprise is of such magnitude as the milling industry. Involved in it is an economic question affecting practically the whole population of the West. And if the Borden Government decides that it will be for the general financial betterment of the people of the West to remove wheat and flour duties, it is not at all likely those duties

will be retained in order to meet the desires of the Association of Millers.

Originally designed to foster home industry and develop the Dominion industrially and agriculturally, the policy of protection has not always been operated in accordance with its original design. Various industrial interests . have, with more or less success, persuaded governments to manipulate tne tariff in such manner as made it the servant of special rather than general interests. It would be better for the protective policy if this soft of thing ceased entirely.

We may be excused if we refuse to believe everything in the way of calamity Mr. Kelly in his letter assures us will follow to milling interests of the West if wheat and flour duties are removed. It would be an insult to the intelligence and business ability of the managers of this business in western Canada to suggest that, located as they are in the heart of the finest wheat growing country on the continent, and having as cheap and ready access to Pacific coast and other markets as their western American competitors, they would fall down if forced to meet their rivals in open competition. Possibly their dividends might not figure so largely in financial statements, hut that they would fail or cease to progress! Well, we simply cannot believe it; that's all.

Viewing the free wheat and flour proposal as it applies economically to the people of Canada to-day The Herald is quite well satisfied to see the experiment tried out. We do not believe that in operation it can work any great injury to even a section of the people, and there is the possibility it may work benefit to a great majority, in which event the removal of duties would be justified. And if, as has been contended, Canadian millers are at a disadvantage in meeting their American competitors because of duties on mill machinery and equipment, why not remove these duties also? The Government of R. L. Borden in giving justice to the majority has no desire to work any injustice to the minority, if it can be avoided. If the people are given free wheat and flour the millers should also be given free access to markets from which they obtain their equipment and other supplies.

Therefore even the Conservatives of western Canada are not afraid of free wheat.

It looks very much as if the farmers of western Canada were going to be driven out of business unless they are given an opportunity to sell in a wider market at better prices. It would appear, as pointed out by the _ hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) that considerable emigration is taking place to the south. In fact, I believe the statistics show that there has been a greater migration from Canada to the United States during the past twelve months than from the United States into Canada. If an exodus should set in from our western provinces, what would happen to our eastern industries and our great transportation companies? They would face bankruptcy, and instead of opposing the giving of free wheat, the removal of the duty, they ought to do everything in their

power to encourage the Government to grant the request of the western farmers.

With regard to the education of thev farmers, we have been told by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) that this Government has been doing a great deal in that way. Scientific education in agriculture is a good thing, but it will not enable any farmer to make money when he is compelled to sell his agricultural produce at a loss. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I have a number of graduates of Guelph Agricultural College and also of the Manitoba Agricultural College, and I think I may safely say that, although these men are farming along scientific lines, farming according to the most advanced methods, not one of these men is making more than a bare living out of his farm to-day. The only men who are making money are the men who have live stock to dispose of.

As regards the advice of the hon. member from Dundas (Mr. Broder), re going into mixed farming, the farmers have had a great deal of that advice from governments, from presidents of transportation companies and from presidents of our banking institutions. It requires, however, capital to go into mixed farming, and very few of our western farmers at the present time have the capital to embark on mixed farming. It is to be regretted, partly for that reason, that there has been so much delay in putting into effect the recommendations of the Ranching Commission appointed some time ago to look into the ranching and grazing question. In 1911 or 1912 the commission was appointed; the report was handed in, and so far the Government has not put its recommendations into effect. The hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Rainville) was speaking of the large number of cattle that had gone out of eastern Canada into the United States. If the farmers and stock-men of western Canada had been assured of a grazing area, they would have bought a large number of these young cattle and breeding stock that were for sale in eastern Canada, would have shipped them west and so done something to stimulate mixed farming. A great deal of that stock would have been taken out there, held over the winter and sold to small farmers who could afford to buy cattle in the spring. I trust that before very long the recommendations of the Ranching Commission will be put into operation.

Recently the Government was visited by the Conservative members oi the Alberta Legislature; and before these gentlemen left

30 i

the West they gave the people to understand that they were coining here for the purpose of impressing upon the Government the importance of granting free wheat and many other requests of the western farmer. I learn from the High River Times-a paper friendly to the present Government-of Thursday, January 21, that the provincial delegation were much more interested in redistribution and questions of patronage than they were in free wheat. This newspaper states:

The delegation went fully into redistribution and cutting up of the province in order that the larger centres of population would be distributed so as to offset the farmers' vote on reciprocity as much as possible.

The grievances over the grazing leases and the delay of the Government in changing regulations was discussed, and it is likely that some action in the matter will soon take place. The delegation is reported not to have been in unison on the question of free wheat, but the Government was strongly advised that something ought to be done in order to offset the growing sentiment of antagonism throughout the West.

Evidently, the editor of this paper thinks there is some antagonism developing to the present Government in the West, and perhaps from a political point of view I should not be anxious to see that antagonism removed. But let me say, if there is antagonism in the rural districts, there must be antagonism amongst the people of the towns and cities of the West as well, because the very existence of these towns and cities depends upon the prosperity of the farmers. But I am quite prepared to risk defeat in the next general election by the removal of some of that antagonism to the Government; and if the Government wiUVbnly grant the request for free wheat, H?- can assure them that they will rise very appreciably in the estimation of the western farmers. I have tried to deal with this question from a non-partisan point of view. I am actuated by a sincere desire to see a betterment in the conditions of the West, and therefore I shall be very pleased to see this Government grant free wheat, thereby acceding to the demand of the western farmers.

Mr. WILLIAM A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, my observations

on this amendment will be very brief. I desire to summarize the argument put up by the members from western Canada on behalf of this measure, which we believe will be an inestimable advantage to the farmers of the western provinces. The demand is general; it does

not represent one political party only, but represents, I can safely say, the unanimous sentiment of the people of western Canada. In my own community I have come in contact with men who are leaders in the Conservative party, and they declare themselves in favour of free wheat, realizing that it is in the interest of the farmers of the West. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) yesterday was looking for reasons, and I think enough have been offered him to induce the Government to provide, in the Budget, for free wheat. Now, I believe every man in this House is anxious for the development of the western provinces; and I will be candid enough to say that western Canada is not developing at the present time. I am speaking from experience. I have travelled through my constituency, and have met the peonle, and they are discouraged and dissatisfied; and the result is that some of them are leaving Canada. Now when our Cabinet ministers come to the West they come on a special train or on a special car. They visit the members of the party in the chief centres; but I will guarantee this, that not one of them who came to the West last year came into contact with the farmers themselves or went out and met them on their farms and tried to find out the conditions existing there. If they had done so, they would realize that every word that the western Canada members have said in this debate is absolutely true, and that free wheat is one of the necessities for the western Canadian farmer. I am an optimist in regard to the West, I believe in the West, it is a country with untold riches. But we must have our people there living under conditions satisfactory to them; conditions jnust be such that as a result of their labours the people may be able to make a profitable living, and that they cannot do under present tariff conditions. If I were to outline the needs of the West at the present time as presented by the farmers and others, I would speak also of a general reduction in the tariff, more transportation facilities and lower freight rates. Most members of this House think the West has been 'afforded a large mileage of railway transportation. That is true, but still in my own district, which is 180 miles square, there are points that are fifty and sixty miles away from a railroad, where farmers are endeavouring to farm and where they have been farming for the last three or four years. I will quote one instance. On the 1st of July last, I had occasion to attend a de-

monstration in a district known as the Altorado district. At that demonstration, at a place fifty miles from a railroad, there were a thousand people in attendance, among them some farmers whose places were sixty and seventy miles from railroad connections. These people cannot help but be discouraged in their efforts. What is the cause of these people going to live in such places? Homestead lands were opened, railroads promised to build and the people went in. And let me say, one of the most unpopular measures passed last year was the subsidy to the Canadian Northern railway-unpopular in a district which is looking for a branch, line of the Canadian Northern railway. That company had made promises, time and time again, to those people, and yet in all this time they have not laid a mile of track in that district. That is one reason why the people are discouraged; they want more transportation facilities, a general reduction in the tariff and lower freight rates. Let me say for the western people that, while they are free traders in sentiment and belief, yet they are not asking for something that is going to injure eastern Canada. While desiring a genera! reduction of the tariff, they will be prepared to stand for protection for the eastern Canadian industries. But they feel that when their own industry, the great agricultural industry, asks for free entrance into other markets and is prepared to compete on a free trade basis with other countries, their request should be granted. And they are looking to this Government, which has promised so much for the benefit of this country and especially for western Canada, to grant that request.

Mr. BELAND:

I was paired with the

junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. CRUISE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Munson) ; had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. RAINVILLE:

I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. STEWART (Lunenberg):

I was

paired with the hon. member for North Cape Britain and Victoria (Mr. Mackenzie); had I been free to vote I would have voted against the amendment.