friend that a British commission was sent out to this side to study conditions, particularly in the United States-and conditions are better in Canada to-day than they are in the United States. This commission reported that there was a very large margin in favour of the American working-man as compared with the British working-man, not only as regards wages, but with regard to the cost of living. Does my hon. friend know that meat rarely appears on the table of the British workingmen? On the continent it is almost an unknown article. Horseflesh occasionally gets on the tables, but never a good piece of beef. My hon. friend must know that we in Canada today are living in clover as compared with other countries, and that our working-men are paid as well, if not better, than any other working-men in the world, and they would be contented if such agitators as
appear occasionally on the other side of the House would only leave them alone.
My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) was so anxious to prove his case that he quoted an article on one side and then killed it on the other side before he got through. Let me point out what he said- and I will deal with this a little more fully later on. He says the Cockshutt Plow Company pays the duty when they ship ploughs into the United States, and that they sell their goods cheaper there than they do in Canada. Who pays the duty on ploughs coming into Canada? My hon. friend blows hot and cold. When the manufacturer ships goods from this country he pays the duty, but when the American manufacturer ships implements here the Canadian farmer pays the duty.
If I said that, I did not express what I had in mind. What I meant to say was that the Cockshutt Plow *Company could sell their goods so cheaply in the United States that the consumer in the United States purchased them even although he had to pay a duty of 15 per cent on the implements and 45 per cent on repairs. I did not intend to say that the Cockshutt Plow Company paid the duty.
My hon. friend knows to what place good intentions pave the way. If my hon. friend had only carried out his intentions he would have omitted a lot of stuff that he has put on ' Hansard,' which will rise in judgment and condemn him in this generation. That is only one illustration, and I could quote several more. He did the very same thing in regard to wheat. It is not a mistake on his part; he goes into it with his eyes open. He says the western farmer pays the duty on the wheat that he sends to the United States, and then he turns round and tells us that it is the consumer in this country who pays the duty. My hon. friend had better decide where he is at before he speaks on these questions. He cannot make the consumer on the one hand and the exporter on the other pay the duty just as it suits his case.
The farmers will never be caught with such claptrap as that. The trouble with my hon. friend-he has quite a number of troubles-is that he cannot see beyond Weyburn. They have a bank there, he told us a good many times last year. No doubt it is a very respectable place, but if my hon. friend is ever going to be a statesman-of which I have my doubts-he should take a little wider view than the immediate surroundings of Weyburn. He has given us a policy very much in line with that of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), who I regret is not in the House, because I wanted to pay him a similar compliment. The hon. member for Moosejaw led our friends opposite into one of the worst holes they have ever been in, and which they would be glad to be extricated from to-day. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-I do not see him now; soon after I got up he retired to a back seat, and now he has disappeared altogether-
indulged in the old game of quoting the wholesale price on one side, and the highest retail price on the other; and the cash price of one side and the credit price on the other, and so he got all astray in his figures. I understood him to say-he can correct me if I am wrong-that in some cases fifty per cent or sixty per cent was demanded in the Dominion of Canada over the prices which prevailed in the United States. Did the hon. member say that ?
I have never known any political economists to contend that the price of an article could be raised above the amount of tariff exacted, that is, the whole duty, which is twenty per cent on some articles and fifteen per Cent or seventeen and one-half per cent on others. Prices could not posssibly be more than the duty in advance of the prices in the United States, because the manufacturers there would immediately send their implements over the border. I have here an immense list of articles that have been imported into Canada. This list, which is from the Department of Customs, is entirely authentic. The imports of agricultural implements under the existing duties, which are, as I say, from seventeen and one-half per cent to twenty per cent, are as follows: in 1911, $4,510,000; in 1912, $4,221,000; in 1913,'
$4,440,000; for nine months in 1913, $2,658,000. If you take the whole line of articles which I understood were included in the argument of t-he hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) in his resolution the other day, and which embrace engines and threshing machines and all the larger items, then we have the following, which is very much more: in 1911, $4,887,000; in 1912, $8,237,000; in 1913, $10,104,000, under the tariff of from fifteen per cent to twenty per cent. If $10,000,000 worth could come in in 1913, under the tariff of from fifteen to twenty per cent what would be the.result if they were put on the free list, and all that vast amount of agricultural implements brought into Canada free of duty? It would mean that all the capital invested in that business in Canada would be wiped out; that over fifty manufacturing concerns employing from $45,000,000 to $50,000,000 of capital,
10,000 hands and supporting 45,000 to 50,000 dependents, would be wiped out at the behest of my hon. friend. He says he is a strong friend of the manufacturers. Well, if he will trust the manufacturers to look after themselves and not take them under
I am only making the bald statement that, on the face of it, his information is false, for the reason that the prices could not be advanced by more than the amount of the duty. No tariff could advance the prices of goods beyond the amount of the duty that is exacted. When my hon. friend quotes a sixty per cent advance, he must know that he is not speaking by the book. I think my hon. friend must realize that, and i do not think he will get any farmer to believe that the price of implements is fifty to sixty per cent higher in Canada than in the United States.