Mr. MARTIN:

The sole purpose of his resolution is to control the price of wheat, which ithe bon. member himself has said, produces the staff of life which feeds all the people of this country. This is a most peculiar time in the history of Canada for a man to advocate in this House the control of the price of the main product of our farmers. During the past few years I have heard gentlemen of the type of my hon. friend advocating that the farmers of this country should go into mixed farming. When the farmer had about come to the conclusion that mixed farming was a good thing, the war came in August last, and immediately my hon. friend and his friends advocate that people should produce more. And now, I suppose, we have the climax of this campaign of " Patriotism and Production " in the speech of my hon. friend, advocating that the farmer should not be paid more than a certain price per bushel for his wheat. I submit that the hon. gentleman has started at the wrong end of this question. I am informed and believe-and perhaps my hon. friend has the information- that the millers of Canada are manufacturing flour out of wheat bought three or four months ago at prices not exceeding a dollar a bushel at Fort William. I know, and hon. members of this House know, that during October and even September-because our harvest was early last year-and during November, there was no dollar wheat in western Canada. It was the exception if the man got 98 cents or 99 cents a bushel, and from that were deducted transportation charges to Fort William. The farmer got for his wheat on an average from 80 cents to 90 cents a bushel. And I am informed, that the millers fortified themselves with a large supply of wheat which did not cost them. $1.25 a bushel or anything like it. And yet flour is selling at $8.75 a barrel.

There is another reason why the hon. gentleman has started at the wrong end of the question. He knows, as does every other member of this House, that for many years past the Canadian miller has been selling his flour in the markets of the world at a less price than that at which he sold it to the consumer in Canada. What is going to be the result of raising a question

of this kind? I agree with the hon. member for Brandon (Sir James Aikins) that the agricultural business is the maip industry in Canada. To increase the prosperity of this country, to get men on the land in the East and in the West, and to get larger acreage in crops and to get more agriculturists on the land, a campaign of " Patriotism and Production " is undertaken. I saw some figures the other day with respect to the population centering in the cities. While the rural population increased from 1900 to 1910 by half a million people, the population of the cities increased by almost a million and a quarter-or almost two and a half times the increase of the rural population. Of course, the cities are always attractive to a large number of people, but the main attraction has been the comparatively high wages that were paid there, especially by the manufacturers. The manufacturers did not raise wages for philanthropic reasons. They have acted in this matter the same as they have in relation to the doctrine of protection; it was an absolutely selfish proposition. They were forced to raise the wages of their employees because the cost of living has so greatly increased within the last fifteen years. The effect, of course, was to increase the wages of all city employees. The farmer could not compete with these prices, and so the farmer's hired men and the farmer's son went to the city. And now my hon. friend proposes that the price of the farmer's principal product should be curtailed. I would suggest to him, as the hon. member for Brandon said, that he might consider advantageously some reduction in the cost of agricultural implements in western Canada. Let me give an instance that came under my own notice a short time ago, one the facts of which I am ready to substantiate at any time the hon. gentleman wishes. A certain man bought an engine gang plough. I ascertained these facts at Carnduff. I learned that the machine was quoted there at a certain figure. But this man crossed the-line into Sherwood, in North Dakota, and bought the plough there at such a price that though he paid about $100 duty on bringing it across the line, he saved $80 or $90 on the transaction. Does the hon. gentleman dispute that? That was a Canadian-made plough, one that had paid duty on going into the United States. Yet, though it had paid that duty and though it had to pay another duty on being brought back into Canada, the purchaser saved the amount that I have named. It was one of the agricultural implements manufactured by those philanthropic gentlemen of On-

tario, manufactured and sold abroad at 20 per cent less than they charge for it in Canada.

The hon. gentleman wishes to control the price of the product of the farmer, but. at the same time he is arranging that his friends the Government of the day should increase the duty on the implements that the farmer uses, and on everything that the farmer consumes. That is the policy of my hon. friend. I would like to know what the Government think of that policy. Is it in favour of the policy of curtailing the price of all the foodstuff that the farmer produces and to enhance the price of all that the farmer uses?

As I have said, what we most of all require in western Canada, and I believe in the whole of Canada, is to get men on the land. Canada is primarily an agricultural country. We have prided ourselves on that for many years past. But immigration has practically ceased during the last six months, and it has been declining, like our revenue, for eighteen months past. If we are to get the farmers on the land to carry out the "patriotism and production" policy that we have heard so much about, how can any reasonable man defend the position that the price of the main product of the farmer's labour shall be fixed? I say, I believe that the majority of the House will agree that the farmer should be allowed the price for his products fixed by the open competition of the world.

Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve):

My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has said a good deal in former years on questions similar to this,' but formerly he argued on the other side. To-day he is very anxious to protect the workingman, not only of his own constituency, but of the whole of Canada. From what the hon. gentleman says, one would suppose that the workingmen of Canada ate bread and nothing else. I am prepared to favour the proposition of the hon. gentleman if he will ask the Government to regulate also the prices of everything that comes on the workingman's table. But I suppose he will not accept that, for otherwise he might be'blackballed by the association of which he is a member. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has changed from the position which he occupied in former years in this argument. For my part, I have always said that the farmers did not get enough for the goods they grow, yet the consumers always had to pay too much. The hon. gentleman can hardly

[Mr. W. M. Martin.!

deny that. There is a middleman somewhere-there are many of them, and my hon. friend is one. I would ask him in two words also to make some sacrifice, and would ask the trust of which, I assume, he is a member, to make some sacrifices. And I would say to the trust of the millers, which is really one of the biggest in Canada, and which has paid dividends on watered stocks of so many million dollars, that surely they also could do something for the country at the present time. My hon. friend may say that they are not paying any dividends this year. They are very sorry that they cannot pay any dividends, but I may remind hon. gentlemen that when I brought this question up in the House on a previous occasion it was plainly stated that these people were paying no dividends except on common stock. I may tell my hon. friend that I will second his proposition on the condition that the regulation or restriction of prices shall apply to every article of foodstuffs that goes on the workman's table. I may say, too, that I shall be willing to make some sacrifice if the interests with which my hon. friend is connected are willing to make one also.

Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):

The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coek-shutt) spoke of Canada as being the granary of the Empire; I think it will be admitted that vrestern Canada is really the granary of the British Empire. The hon. gentleman proposes to make provision for the regulation of prices of foodstuffs, which would include the larger number of the products of western Canada. Farming in western Canada has not been profitable; that was established only last year by the report of the commissio'n appointed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan to inquire into farming conditions. That was due largely to the prices received for the grain which the farmers produced. This year, when exceptional conditions prevail and there is a prospect of the farmer obtaining a good price for his wheat, the hon. member for Brantford comes Along with a proposition to restrict the prices within certain limits and practically to wipe out the first opportunity for making a profit that the western farmer has had for a great many years.

What will be the effect of the proposed changes in the tariff upon the farmers of western Canada? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) argues that the price of the protected article goes up just to the extent to which the tariff is increased.

I have before me substantial proof that since the Government increased the protection afforded to certain agricultural implements, the price of agricultural implements has been raised, and the new prices arenow in effect. I will quote the

statement, not of a politician, but of a gentleman who is engaged in the implement business in the city of Winnipeg.

I have here a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, February 23, containing the report of an interview with Mr. H. W. Hutchinson, vice-president and managing director of the John Deere Plough Company. Mr. Hutchinson argues that the entire tariff, in so far as it affects tillage implements used upon the farms, imposes a burden upon the farmer of western Canada. We have been advocating, as Mr. Hutchinson points out, increased production, but production can only be brought about by utilizing tillage implements, and upon these the Government, under its proposed tariff arrangements, is putting an extra tax. Let me read what Mr. Hutchinson says in that regard:

The prairie farmers will, of course, be called on to pay the duty. We have been already notified by Canadian manufacturers that prices will be increased to us and we have already begun to prepare a new price list for the sale of our commodities. On every walking plough tin re will be an increase in the price paid of from $1 to $2; on every sulky plough an increase of $4 ; on every drill an increase of ?5.

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

Do these increases apply to ploughs made in the United States or to ploughs made in Canada?

Mr. BUCHANAN:

Mr. Hutchinson says, "We have already been notified by Canadian manufacturers."

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

So far as our firm is concerned, there is no truth in that report of an increase. It has been decided by the firm that prices shall remain just as they have been.

Mr. BUCHANAN:

I presume that the hon. gentleman, who has dissociated himself from the agricultural implement business within the last couple of years, is probably more familiar with these conditions than I am, but I shall wait until I receive word from some of the farmers in western Canada who are buying the implements before assuming that Mr. Hutchinson's statement is incorrect. Mr. Hutchinson proceeds to enumerate the increases:

On every gang plough an increase of $6 ; on every wagon an increase of ?7, and on every disc plough a nincrease of ?8, with similar advances in the prices to the farmer Of all kindred tools.

Then there follows a lengthy interview with Mr. Hutchinson, in which he says that the tariff increases are discouraging to the farmers of western Canada. In view of the fact that the prices of these articles are to be increased, I submit that even if the prices of grain in eastern Canada to-day rise higher than they ever have been in the past, the additional prices which the farmer will have to pay for the articles which are given additional protection under the tariff changes introduced at this session of Parliament, will reduce his profit and take away from the benefit of the increased price he receives for his products.

The hon. member for Brantford takes a patriotic view of the situation. I wish to tell my hon. friend-not as a boast, but as a statement of fact-that there i& no more patriotic part of Canada than the West; that there is no more patriotic citizenship in this country than that which is found in the farmers of western Canada. I have had the pleasure of attending a great many patriotic meetings in my own constituency, a constituency largely populated by men and women who come from the republic to the south. Those men and women have been interesting themselves in the promotion of every patriotic object, and are prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of Canada until the war is over and victory is proclaimed on behalf of the Allies. They are prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of patriotic enterprises, and they are prepared, if need be, to sacrifice their sons to the Empire. In my constituency a squadron of mounted rifles has just been raised to goto the front with the third contingent, and in that squadron there are six officers, each one of them a native horn American citizen who has only recently become a naturalized citizen of Canada. Any one who is under the impression that our new citizens are not true Canadians lias been entertaining' mistaken ideas.

I believe that this war itself has developed a stronger Canadian citizenship than we have ever had in the past. It has proven the metal, it has proven and established the loyalty, of the people who have gone into western Canada; and they are prepared to make their contributions, but they are not prepared to be limited in the price which may be offered to them for the products of the soil, and then have to pay increased prices for the articles which they use. My hon. friend in his resolution says:

While at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.

My hon. friend surely has kept in touch with Britain's attitude during this war. He knows that to-day it,faas been declared that no food of any kind will be allowed to go into Germany or any other country opposed to the Allies on account of the attitude of Germany and the countries allied with her. Why is that? Wie can get food'products to the Allies and the friendly countries because of the existence of a great power within the British Empire, and this resolution, I maintain, is not necessary in that regard, because all our surplus products are more than likely to go to the countries to which we want them to go-to Great Britain and to the allied nations. -

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):

My hon. friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), has brought forward a resolution that I do not think he can expect this House to approve of. At the present time my hon. friend is engaged in supporting a measure before this House which is to add very heavy burdens, not only to.the farmers in the West, but to the farmers all over Canada. It is bad enough when you hit any class of the people one blow, but in this resolution that my hon. friend presents to the House he proposes to give the farmer the double-cross and hit him at both ends. He adds to the price of his machinery, adds to the price of everything that goes to produce wheat and if, on one particular occasion or in one particular year out of a great many years, the products of the farm are high in price my hon. friend wants the Government to step in and fix the price. I acknowledge that farmers are getting good, high prices for their products at the present time.

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

Some of them.

Mr. TURRIFF:

Well, most of them.

Mr. CLARK:

Pork is very low.

Mr. TURRIFF:

Some of the farmers have got good prices and because they happened to have got good prices my hon. friend comes forward and wants to have the prices fixed by the Government. I think the hon. member for Brantford is beginning to learn something, and that is that high protection does not always protect or benefit the interests that he is so anxious to have benefited. Surely the proposition of the Government to increase the price of manufactured goods should be sufficient for my

hon. friend who represents a manufacturing constituency-a constituency composed

nearly altogether of manufacturers and artisans. If that proposition worked out as they would lead us to believe, the artisans of that constituency should be benefited, but according to the hon. member for Brantford they are not being benefited, he finds the prices of products too high and he comes to this Government and wants to have them regulated.

We have heard a great deal of late years about getting the people back to the land. What I am particularly concerned about is endeavouring to keep the people on the land that we have on the land at the present time. People have been leaving the land steadily and now, when you are placing heavier burdens than ever before on the backs of the men who are trying to make a living on the land, how does any one expect, how does the hon. member for Brantford expect, that we will be able to get more people back to the land or even that we will be able to keep the men on the land who are there now? My hon. friend, with a show of patriotic fervour, declared that we should make sacrifices. What sacrifices are his constituents making? What sacrifices are the manufacturers making under the legislation that is before Parliament to-day? I heard one manufacturer from Montreal make the statement-and he made it knowing what he was talking about-that the added duties that are proposed at the present session would mean 5 per cent additional profit to the manufacturers. These are not my words, these are the words of a practical manufacturer. If these added duties, of which the farmer will have to bear the biggest part, will enable the manufacturer to made an additional 5 per cent profit, I would like to ask my hon. friend where the sacrifice comes in. I have never been able to see any sacrifice that the manufacturer has ever made. The vice-president of the Manufacturers' Association said that they would have to grin and bear the extra taxes, but I notice what the Ottawa Citizen said chiefly grin, and, it i= a case of grin on the part of the manufacturer it he can make five per cent extra money.

I hope the hon. member for Brantford will not succeed in having liis resolution carried into effect, because it would mean that the farmer, in addition to the extra burden that he is going to be called upon to bear, wouid be precluded from taking advantage of good

prices for his wheat, or his cattle, or anything else in the way of food that he produces, at any time that it happened that the prices were extra heavy. I would like to ask my hon. friend if Great Britain has asked for any such action on the part of the Government of this country. I do not believe she has. The hon. member fo'-Brandon (Sir James Aikins) has pointed out the statement, in a despatch to the press to-night, that Great Britain had food enough on hand for the next twelve months. I do not think there is much suffering from the lack of food, and I think it would be a step in the wrong direction absolutely if the Government were to place any restrictions whatever in the way of the farmer getting the very best prices lie can. My hon. friend from Brantford, only a year or two ago, supported very heartily a proposition in this House to prevent the farmer from selling his wheat on the other part of the line if he could get a better price for it. He could not see that there would be any advantage in that whatever, but if my hon. friend from Brantford refused to allow the farmer to sell his wheat in the best market that happened to be available, and that best market was across the line, and if he is supporting the policy of added burdens to the farmer in producing that wheat, surely he does not want to give him a third welt and to say: We must prevent the farmer from getting the market value of his wheat because that is going to make the cost of living too high for my constituents. That is exactly what he says-the cost of living is going to be too high. My hon. friend will find out that when he undertakes to legislate upon all these matters he just gets them going from bad to ivorse, and that it would be far more in the interests of his constituents, as well as in the interests of the whole Dominion, if they would leave matters as they are and not add any greater burdens to the farmer and not give any greater concessions to the manufacturers. He would then find that the cost of living for his constituents would not go up nearly as fast, and that they would be in a much better position than if the Government were to accede to their request anu put a limit on the prices that the farmer could get for his product. If anything were going to be done in that

line, now is not the time to do it. I can hardly think that the Government would entertain this idea for a moment; but if it were going to be done at all, the time'would be before the grain has largely

passed out of the farmers' hands-it is not altogether out of their hands, but a very considerable portion of it is-and into the hands of the great milling concerns. However, I am not at all alarmed that the Prime Minister will do anything of the-kind asked for by this resolution. It does not seem to me it is a motion in the right direction and I do not think the members on his own side of the House will accord the hon. member very much support.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Queens, P.E.I.):

One of the ideas of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in proposing his motion appears to be that most of the wheat in Canada has been secured by the millers-and other speculators at a low price, and' that these men are taking advantage of the war conditions to charge consumers an inordinate profit, and he seems to think that in some way or other this resolution if carried would regulate the price to the consumer. I do not think it would have that effect. The motion says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports, thereby regulating the prices at which bread, meat and other food products shall be sold for home consumption, while at the same time directing that our surplus food exports should only reach British or friendly countries.

According to the proclamation issued by Great Britain and the Allies, the surplus products that Canada has to ship will only reach Great Britain and other friendly countries, and, therefore, that part of the resolution is not necessary. And if, by reason of that fact, you control the price of the home grain then there is no part of the resolution that is necessary. There is no doubt that the millers and other speculators are charging a very high price for flour at the present time, and if they have bought this wheat at a low figure before the price advanced, there is no doubt whatever but they are taking advantage of present conditions, and whether they should be allowed to do that is a point worthy of consideration. This is a combine-ridden country-

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

Say that again.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES:

My hon. friend

wishes me to repeat that, but everybody knows it who wishes to know it, and therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat. We have combines to raise the price of food and other products, and if they can be smashed, it would be a good thing for Can-

ada. There are men in this country-we all know it-who are taking advantage of the war conditions to make fortunes of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars out of the food and other products they are selling to the people of this country, and to the Government of this country, which is another name for the people. If the bon. member for Brantford had moved a resolution asking for a parliamentary committee to find out who the guilty parties are, and to try to prevent these practices, I for one would support him. The resolution of the hon. member in its present form would be innocuous and useless were it adopted. Something should be done to prevent the people from being fleeced, and to prevent the designs of the cormorants who are trying to fatten upon the people at this particular time, by taking advantage of the patriotism and loyalty and devotion of the people. These men think that perhaps their raids upon the treasury and upon the people of Canada may pass unnoticed, but we know them and they should be brought to book. Action in this direction taken as speedily as possible and before Parliament prorogues would be in the best interests of the country and of the Empire. If my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) had proceeded along that line, I am sure he would have got support in this House, from independent members at all events, and perhaps some one may yet move in that direction. That is the view I take of this resolution.

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

I

am only going to detain the House for a moment to loou on this question from the point of view of increasing production throughout Canada, especially farm production, both in the East and in the West. Having regard to the present situation, if I were asked to suggest something to improve the condition of the farmer of the West in the matter of increased production of foodstuffs, I would suggest the adoption of a policy by the Government to valorize or stabilize the price of the forthcoming wheat crop. 1 would be quite willing to see the Government make a price for the first and seconu grades of the coming year's wheat crop, somewhere in the neighbourhood of SI.40 or $1.50 per bushel. Tnat would enable the farmer to hold the wheat until they got at least that price for it. If a better price were obtainable they would get the benefit. Py the Government valorizing and stabilizing the price of wheat, the farmer would get what he does not get

to-day, namely, the large amount which the miller takes away from him. The bulk of the wheat that has been raised by the farmers of our western country has gone into flour, and that flour has been sold, as nearly as I can make out, at a price which should have netted the farmer from $1.30 to $1.50 a bushel. There are always new ideas in economics, ana the suggestion has been made, and I think it is -worthy of consideration having regard to the present conditions, that the Government of Canada could well afford to stabilize the price of the coming crop at least at $1.30 a bushel. If we cannot do that, there are other things we can do to help the farmer. There are two things that could be done in that direction and the Government is doing one of them now in increasing the storage capacity in the West so that the farmer can keep his wheat until such time as the miller wants it, and thus secure a better price. A widespread system of storage throughout the West will no doubt help in that direction. Then we should have a banking system in this country that w-ould enable the farmer to carry his wheat, so that he would not be compelled to sell it as wn as the crop is reaped, If the farmer could store his wheat and if he [DOT]could have a banking accommodation that would help him to carry his wheat, we would accomplish what ought to be accomplished, namely, not a reduction in the price of wheat in this country, but the increasing of the price in every possible way, or at least the enabling of the farmer to get the price which he is entitled to get for his wheat. The Government should enter upon a policy of valorizing the price of wheat, especially of the higher grades; but we certainly can at least provide storage for the wheat and furnish a banking system that will enable the farmer to carry his crop until such time as he can sell it at a fair price. If we had those facilities to offer to the western farmers, farmers would flock to the West and settle, there, and we would see the West thrive as it has never thrived before.

Freight rates also have a bearing upon this question, and there may be relief in that direction. Parliament should find a way to improve the condition of the western farmer and to enable him to get the best possible price for his wheat. If we do that, we shall increase our production in a most surprising way; we shall bring prosperity again to the West, and we shall see a new and greater West in the near future.

Mr: D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) : I have followed with a great deal of interest the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I am sure, whatever any one else may have said about the speech of my hon. friend, that he has at least brought a good deal of live information and reliable statistics to the notice of the House. The subject to which he has drawn our attention is .certainly one of the greatest possible importance. During this discussion the hon. member for Brantford has been criticised for propounding a policy. It certainly cannot be said that the hon. gentleman has been propounding any policy. As I understood him, he was propounding a way in which to deal with an urgent condition of things brought about by the extraordinary state of the country at the present time. The resolution is perhaps not as well drafted as it might have been. As I read it, there is only one categorical assertion in it, namely:

That, in the opinion of this House, the circumstances arising out of the present war are such as to justify the Government of Canada in exercising supreme control over the quantity and destiny of our food exports.

There cannot be any objection to the resolution laid down to that point. It may be said that it calls for a great deal of work and that it imposes an unnecessary burden upon the Government; but it is a wise and sane statement to make, that the Government of the country, or any other country situated as we are, should have the greatest possible knowledge of the food supply of the country and that then it should know where it is going. The other phases which follow in the resolution are not necessarily the consequences of the first positive assertion, although they seem to be taken by the mover of the resolution as necessary consequences of it. I do not think that because the Government knows what quantity of foodstuffs there is in the country and their destination, the prices of foodstuffs will be regulated. I do not know much about the movement of wheat; but as far as I understand commercial conditions in this country, I know of nothing that would prevent a combine of speculators from buying up all the wheat that we have for sale in Canada, taking it to the United States and sending it to our enemies in the old land. This may be an absurd statement to make; but I know of nothing to prevent German money from coming into the United States, with which an American company may be formed for the purpose of buying our wheat and ship-35

ping it to Germany, if it can be got in there.

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

Germany has

no money.

Mr. McKENZIE:

My hon. friend is an

authority on most things, but I would not care to change my mind with regard to voting for this resolution, because, as he says, there is no money in Germany. I would not care to take the risk of leaving our wheat within easy reach of Germany, even supposing that country has no money.

It is a fair and reasonable proposition that any country that is at war-and we are at war-should have absolute knowledge of tlie sinews of war within its bounds, and that it should have absolute control of where they shall go and how they shall go.

During the session of 1914, when we were only talking about war, which we then deemed to >be far distant, legislation was passed giving control over the export of petroleum oil, because if war broke out, we should have absolute control of the oil so that it should not go out of the country except where thought advisable. If it were right to do that-and the legislation was passed without any controversy-surely it cannot be said that it would be wrong for the Government to have enabling legislation passed at this session to give it power to deal with this wheat question, if it were necessary to do so.

I do not quite understand that it is using very extraordinary powers for the Government of any country to take control of the food supply in time of war. It would be a species of expropriation of property. . Wheat is property and land is property, and I do not think it would be any more drastic to expropiate wheat than to expropriate land.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Does the hon. gentleman not recognize the fact that in so far as the House can give that power, the legislation is already on the statute book?

Mr. McKENZIE:

I am not saying

whether it is on the statute book or not. In reference to wheat, I am not aware that It is. Perhaps the hon. Solicitor-General will tell me where we have such legislation.