Mr. TURRIFF:

My hon. friend need not worry; I will he as busy as he desires before I am through. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that the duty cannot be taken off these implements because that would hurt the manufacturers. Let us see for a moment how the prices that the Canadian manufacturer gets for his goods compare with the prices quoted in the United States. I will read from the Grain Growers' Guide of April 1, only a week ago.

Mr. SAM. SHARPE: A good authority.

Mr. TURRIFF:

Mr. W. T. WHITE:

Can my hon. friend tell me from his statement the difference between the Winnipeg and the Minneapolis price of an 8-foot binder?

Mr. TURRIFF:

Eight-foot-cut binder

with sheaf carrier, 4-carriage and 4-horse hitch, $164 in Winnipeg and $150 in Minneapolis.

Mr. WHITE:

What is the difference between the freight rates from Toronto or Hamilton to Winnipeg and from Chicago to Minneapolis?

Mr. TURRIFF:

I could not give my hon. friend an answer just off-hand, but if the

freight rates in Canada are too high, my hon. friend, as Minister of Finance, should take the necessary steps to have them lowered.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What about the distance?

Mr. TURRIFF:

The distance is not too great to prevent train-loadfe of Cockshutt ploughs being sent a thousand miles west of Minneapolis to compete with American-made ploughs after duty has been paid-and the same may be said of other makes.

The list I have read is the list given by the Grain Growers' Guide. I have taken the trouble to figure out the difference in percentage of cost. On binders, the main item that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance selected for a reduction of duties there is the least difference of all. On binders there is a difference of only fifteen per cent on the average between Winnipeg and Minneapolis, On the other item on which he has made a reduction, mowers, there is a greater difference, twenty-nine per cent. But these are the two items on which there is the least difference and on these two he made a cut in duty. But the implements that sell for a much greater percentage higher in western Canada than in the United States are the ones on which he has refused to make any reduction whatever in the interests of the farmers. Let me give the percentages:

Grain binders, 15 per cent; com binders, 30 per cent; reapers, 29 per cent; mowers, 29 per cent; hay rakes-dump (all steel), 37 per cent; manure spreaders, 29 per cent; single disc drills, 8 per cent; double disc drills, 35 per cent; grass seed attachments for drills, 65 per cent; disc harrows, 65 per cent; ploughs, 28 per cent; wagons, 32| per cent.

My hon. friend has reduced the duty on mowers, but a farmer must have a rake as well as a mower. Why could he not have given the farmer the benefit of a reduced price for his rake? The duty on rakes is not reduced.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

How does the hon, member account for these differences of sixty-five per cent, thirty-nineper cent and forty-two per cent when the duty is only twenty per cent? What is his method of accounting for the difference?

Mr. TURRIFF:

The Solicitor General is a very clever hair-splitting lawyer in an argument and I will just leave that for him to explain when he comes to speak, as I know nobody that can do it any better, to his own satisfaction, than the Solicitor General.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I cannot give your view, that is what I want.

Mr. TURRIFF:

I was about to ask how it came that after the general expectation, [DOT]after the general statement by many members opposite that there was going to be a great and. general reduction dn the duties on implements that in the end it simmered down to about ninety cents a year to the average farmer who runs a 320 acre farm, a reduction of 5 per cent on binders and mowers and absolutely nothing else. I wonder if the refusal of the Government to go any further than that synchronizes with the flop-over of Senator Jones from the Liberal party to the Conservative party. It looks very much as if it did. It seems to me that if there was any man in Canada who had good reason to stand by his party it was Senator Jones, the president of the Massey Harris Company. When, years ago, this party was on the other side of the House and made some reduction in the duties on agricultural implements, a drawback was given' on the duty paid on the material that went into their manufacture, and I am told that, according to the Auditor General's Report, last year the Massey-Harris Company drew $165,000 in drawbacks. But because the Liberal party came to the conclusion that 'the time had come when free implements should be given to the farmers, this man, who had got every consideration, who was made a senator and who was knighted, who had ' Sir ' put before his name by the kindly offices of this party-I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition at that time put the hyphen in his name or whether that was put in by himself-at all events he is the last man who could say that he was not well treated by this party. But because this party favoured helping the farmers, he apparently went to my hon. friends opposite and made a deal by which, if they would only cut the duties to ninety cents a year for each farmer, he would transfer his allegiance from the Liberal party to the Conservative party. Hon. gentlemen on the Government benches are getting the benefit of this deal but they are not paying for it, it is the farmers of Canada who are paying for the support of my hon. friend, Senator Jones, to the Conservative party. Every farmer in every province in Canada must pay an extra price for his agricultural implements in order that hon. gentlemen now on the Treasury benches may have the support of Senator Jones in the future.

[Mi-. Turriff.]

Mr. BEST:

You can have him back if

you want to.

Mr. TURRIFF:

I have no doubt; and

judging by the remarks made by the Conservative press throughout the West they consider that the iGovernment here has made a bad bargain, that they paid too much for Senator Jones.

Mr. BRODER:

Put him up at auction.

Mr. TURRIFF:

Oh, you have him now.

Mr. ROGERS:

Does that include his

title?

Mr. TURRIFF:

one-half of the wheat is shipped. But he might have added that it was the entry of cattle into the United States during the last three months of the last .calendar year that helped to swell the exports. The Wilson Tariff came into force on the 6th of October and up to the 31st of December, 150,000 head of cattle had been exported from Canada to the United States and only 1,000 to Great Britain during those three months. I am speaking in round numbers. One hundred and fifty times as many cattle were exported to the United States, and why?-simply because the American people offered a bigger price than the Canadian farmer could get at home. Does the fact that the American people are shipping cattle to Great Britain cut. any figure in that respect? What does it matter to the Canadian farmer who has ten head of steers to sell if he can get $10 or $20 more in the United States than he can get from a Canadian buyer to ship to Liverpool? What difference does it make to him if the United States ship out -some hundreds of thousands of catttle to Great Britain? That shows the Minister of Finance what the taking off of duties will do.

If he would only take the duties off other farm products he would have no trouble with delegations coming from the manufacturers, because, by putting the farmer in a position to get value for his products, he would keej^ the manufacturers, busy. As long as you hamper the farmer, as long as you keep him from getting value for his products, just so long will you keep him a poor man and just so long will you keep the manufacturers working half time and coming here and asking for more protection in the hope that it will do away with the depression. You cannot do away with the depression by increasing the burdens of the people. You cannot do away with the depression by taking the money that the farmer earns and preventing him from putting it in his own pocket.

Mr. SAM. SHABPE: Are you advocating free trade?

Mr. TURRIFF:

My hon. friend is a

worthy disciple of the Finance Minister. Free trade, in my hon. friend's mind is free trade in everything; free trade in food means free trade in everything. There is no man in Canada less anxious to hurt the manufacturers than I am. If you want to help the manufacturer .make a market for him at home; put money into the pockets of the farmers so that they can buy and pay for the goods of the manufacture

.

CMr. Turriff.]

Why are the manufacturers working half time to-day? Is it because of a falling off in the exports of manufactures? No, but it is because the Canadian farmer, the worker, the artisan and the labourer are not able to buy the products of the manufacturer If you want to remedy that condition, put the farmer in a better position and do it in such a way as not to hurt the manufacturer. How is it going to hurt the manufacturer if you give the farmer free wheat? How is it going to hurt the manufacturer if you secure a free market in the United States for the farmer's oats, barley and flax? Hon. gentlemen opposite have a habit of saying that because we have free cattle and a few other items such as free hogs and sheep-

How many hogs went over to the United States last year?