Give us the name of your paper.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

I cannot give

the exact date, Mr. Speaker, but I read that statement in the Regina Leader, and if I have misquoted the right hon. gentleman I am sorry.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

You are not the only

one.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

I am sorry that I have dropped into the universal error of misquoting him.

Mr. STEVENS:

You are in bad company.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman is

not quoting me at all. That is what I am asking him to do.

Oh, oh.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting the newspaper itself.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No, the hon. member is not.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

The newspapers reported that he said it; everyone in the west believed that he said it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Bring the paper.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

His own followers did not deny that he said it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Produce your paper.

C2S COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

He had the

name of saying it, and you might as well hang a dog as give him a bad name. I will make further quotations which perhaps the right hon. gentleman will not deny. I do not think he will deny this, because I have heard him repeat it since, in this House-that he would begin by raising the duty or imposing a duty on agricultural products.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

The right hon.

gentleman does not deny that. We explained that to the people in the west. We told them that they were to be protected against the cheap wheat, cattle and hogs of the United States. They laughed at that and they

laughed most uproariously. The right hon. gentleman also mentioned fruit. He has told us how our appetites are satiated with American fruit before the Canadian fruit comes on the market. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) enlarging on that argument, mentioned strawberries as an example. I might tell the hon. gentleman that we anticipated his argument. We took strawberries as a concrete example of how the proposed duties would work out. This is how it would work. Strawberries come on our market generally about the first of June. At that time they come from the southern states. They remain on the market about two weeks, and then the southern crop is exhausted. Still we cam buy strawberries, and now they are coming from ,the western states. The western berries remain on the market about two weeks and that crap is exhausted. Still we can buy strawberries; now they come from British Columbia. The British Columbia berries remain on the market about two weeks. Then that crop is exhausted and the strawberry season is over. Now what have you had? You have had fresh strawberries on your market every day for six continuous weeks. But the right hon. gentleman says, "Put me in power and I will stop all that; you shall have no strawberries until the Canadian berries are ripe, and if anything should happen to the Canadian crop, as did a year or two ago, you shall have no strawberries at all." He proposes to supply the Canadian market of 9,000,000 people with the Canadian strawberry only and he would deny our Canadian strawberries access to a market of 110,000,000 people just across the line. The Canadian fruit grower, like the Canadian grain grower and the Canadian producer of cattle, has nothing to fear from American competition. He has a superior article and he knows it, and he is not asking for protection in his own market. What he

is asking is access to other markets. The Canadian farms, the Canadian forest, the Canadian mines, the Canadian fisheries, and in many cases the Canadian factories, are producing on such a scale that the Canadian market could not begin to absorb all their product. We must have access to wider markets if we would expand.

A great ado has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite over some 4,000,000

pounds of New Zealand butter which were imported into this country-I am not sure whether that is the exact figure. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said it was, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber-) said! it was only 2,000,000; then he said if it was not 2,000,000 it would be at some future time. They argued that that importation had been responsible for the drop of three cents a pound on butter in Canada. They repeat that argument, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) pointed out that as butter is on an export basis the amount of butter imported into Canada could not possibly affect the market. Mr. Speaker, we use butter to catch mice. We bait the trap with the butter and the mice walk in. Some hon. members opposite seem to think they can catch the farmers in the same way. If their argument were true that these importations had depressed the price of butter three cents a pound, it would not move us one hair's breadth from the position we take. We are opposed to the protective tariff on principle, and we have no intention of selling our principles for three cents a pound.

Some hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the stand that we should adopt a retaliatory tariff and put up a high tariff wall against our neighbours, because they put one up against us; that because our neighbours are trying to injure us-and they are doing us a certain amount of injuiy-we should turn around and injure ourselves with the tariff. That reminds one of the ancient Chinese custom of wreaking vengeance upon one's enemy by committing suicide on his doorstep. Then we have the proposal to impose an import duty on wheat. That is another retaliatory measiure. The Uniteid States government impose an import duty of 42 cents a bushel on all the wheat we ship across the line, and now our patriotic millers ask that the Canadian government impose an export duty of another 42 cents on the same wheat. My constituency runs down to the Montana line, and I know how

The Address-Mr. Young (Weyburn)

it will work out. I have constituents there who live forty miles from a Canadian marketing point and only six miles from an American marketing point. They haul their wheat over to the United States and dispose of it; then the American government, through their customs officer; collect from the farmer 42 cents for every bushel he sells. Now our patriotic millers ask the Canadian government to take another 42 cents out of him to get even with the United 11 p.m. States. Yes, they are asking our government to be a party to taking from the Canadian farmer 84 cents for every bushel of wheat he sells in the United States.

Hon. gentlemen opposite are greatly

alarmed about the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods we buy abroad. It is true we buy every year hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods abroad, but it is also true that we sell hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods abroad, and if we sell abroad and refuse to buy abroad, how in creation are we going to get paid for the goods we sell? Will hon. members say we should accept, in exchange for the goods we sell, the depreciated currencies of other countries? Would they have us accept the I.O.U.'s of people who might never be able to pay? What shall we accept? We shall have to accept goods in exchange, and the more we buy the more we shall be able to sell, and the more we sell the more we shall be able to buy.

Speaking of the Hudson Bay railway, there is a feeling prevailing in the west, whether well founded or not I do not know, that the eastern interests are opposed to the Hudson Bay railway because they are afraid it would divert traffic from the port of Montreal and the Maritimes. If they happen to be of that opinion, I would ask them this question: When Peter the Great of Russia opened the port of St. Petersburg, did it have an injurious effect upon Russia's Black Sea ports? Not at all. When the port of Liverpool was developed, did it have an injurious effect upon the port of London? Not at all. In fact, it made more work for all the ports. When *the Hudson bay route is opened it will develop business and bring trade to all the ports; and the problem will not be how to get business for the ports but how to handle the business that is offering. It will give us another point of contact with the outer world, and the more points of contact we have with the outer world the broader and the fuller will be our civilization.

To sum up, I would say that Canada's greatest needs to-day are cheaper production, improved transportation and wider markets.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is now on the main motion.

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather

protracted discussion from the government benches, I desire to make a few observations on the motion now before the House; but as the hour is late I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to and debase adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.35 .p.m.

Tuesday, February 2, 1926