IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 5< 
 
 /. 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 MP.. 
 
 <f mi/. 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 "- IIIIM 
 
 |50 ^^ 
 
 i^ IIIIM 
 
 .- i4£ 12.0 
 
 IM 
 
 2.2 
 
 IIIIIU 
 
 U III 1.6 
 
 ^' 
 
 'W 
 
 /a 
 
 'cf-l 
 
 em ^ > ^ ^^W 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 ^ 
 
 iV 
 
 iV 
 
 ;\ 
 
 \ 
 
 lV 
 
 ^ 
 ^ '' 
 
 ;^^ 
 
 
 ;\ 
 
 *f> 
 
 33 WIST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WIBSTIR.N.Y US80 
 
 (716) •7a-4)03 
 
 
«. 
 
 i/x 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The 
 tott 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 □ 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture da couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommag^a 
 
 Covers restored arid/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculie 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relit avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion l« long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes 
 lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais. lorsque cela ttait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas itt filmees. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppKkmentairet: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet n<<emplaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithoda normale de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 EZ 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtas 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculies 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolorees. tachetdes ou piquees 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages dttachees 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality intgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les peges totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. 
 etc.. cnt it6 filmAes ^ nouveau de facon a 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 The 
 posa 
 of tt 
 filmi 
 
 Orig 
 begi 
 the I 
 sion 
 othe 
 first 
 sion, 
 or ill 
 
 The 
 shall 
 TINl 
 whic 
 
 IVIap 
 diffe 
 entir 
 begii 
 right 
 requi 
 meth 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci dassous. 
 
 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 a4x 
 
 32X 
 
tails 
 ; du 
 odifier 
 une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmt fut reproduit grAce it la 
 gAnirositt de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 p'us grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet* de l'exemplaire f ilm6. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmAs en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dsrniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmte en commengant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -i-^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA. 11 est filmA A partir 
 de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. 
 et de haut en bas, on prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 Tata 
 o 
 
 lelure. 
 I a 
 
 32 X 
 
 12 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
T 
 
COMPLTMFNTS OP 
 
 S.W. DAlVSOM,M.P. 
 
 ^IDID'LX>i 
 
 The trade QUESTION. 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED BY 
 
 Hon. WILFRID LAURIER 
 
 — IN THE — 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 AUGUST 4th, 1891. 
 
Hon. Wilfrid Laurier's Speecli 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TRADE QUESTION. 
 
 On the occasion of the resolution which was p7'esented to the House of 
 Commons by the member for U Islet, 
 August 4th, 1891. 
 
 Mr, LAURIER. Mr. Speaker, when some few weeks ago the 
 hon. ,£»entleman introduced the motion which he has now again pUiced 
 in your hands, and wliich he was afterwards compelled to withdraw, 
 for the reason lie has alluded to, he launched upon us as a Parthian 
 arrow the threat that we should still hear his motion. One would 
 have hoped, one might have expected, that in the meantime reflection 
 and better advices would have given him a wiser decision ; but it is 
 evident that the hon. gentleman has for this offspring of his brain, the 
 blind fondness which sometimes makes people mistake deformity for 
 beauty ; he dotes upon this motion of his. Not satisfied with present- 
 ing it to us, in the form in which he presented it to us the first time, 
 he has embellished it, and given it a new toilet for the present occasiim. 
 Still, it seems to me that it remains what it was at first, an alia podrida 
 which it would be difficult even iov the rude stomachs of National 
 Policy men to digest. There are some things in this motion which 
 under ordinary circumstances I should not object to ; but the hon. 
 gentleman has not been cjuite fair. 
 
 He gives us something to swallow 
 
 which in itself might be acceptable, in order to cram down our throats 
 a good deal that is altogether unpalatable. For instance, the hon. 
 gentlemen wants us to approve of the policy of the Government in 
 their efforts to extend our trade with the far East, with the West 
 Indie.s, with Great Britain, and with the United States. What have 
 the Government done to extend our trade with the far East 1 They 
 have subsidized some steamers. Certainly that is not a stroke of genius 
 nor anything unheard of. And what have the Government done to 
 extend our trade with the West Ir»dies1 They have again subsidized 
 steamers, and not only that, they have sent my hon. friend the Min- 
 ister of Finance to negotiate reciprocity treaties with our sister colon- 
 ies in the West Indies and with the Spanish colonies as well. My hon. 
 friend, however, has never blasted of his success in that line. He has 
 not been very prompt in laying before the Hduse the result of his 
 efforts, it is only within eight days that he has thought lit to ac- 
 quaint the House of the result of his endeavours; and certainly ho 
 will agree with me that he has not much to boiist of in that diniction. 
 
He made an offer, but his ohev was not accepted. He offered to the 
 C(jlonies of the West Indies tliat Canada would accept their sugar free 
 of duty if they would accept Canadian products eciually free of duty. 
 I s(j read the statement, and 1 think I shall show before I conclude 
 tliat t am correct. At all eventH, I think the hon. gentleman made 
 ai) oiler to reduce the duties on sugar, if the West Indies would accept 
 our ])roducta in exchange. The offer was rejected ; but the hon. gen- 
 tleman has not only reduced the duty on sugar, he has altogether 
 ab<jlished the duty, and this after he 
 
 HAD MADE THE OFFER OF A TREATY 
 
 and failed. Then we ai'e asked by the mover of this resolution to 
 ajiprove of the efforts of this Government to foster our trade with 
 Great Britain. What in the name of common sense, have this Gov- 
 ernment done to foster our tni,de with Great Britain ? They have done 
 evei-ything which it has been possible for them to do to kill our trade 
 with Great Britain. W'hy, the very policy which has been enacted 
 and supportenl by this Government, has haid for its very purpose to 
 destroy the trade we have to-day with Great Britain. Their policy 
 hiis been Lo manufacture everything we could manufacture here, and 
 which we have been in the habit of buying from Great Britain. The 
 hon, genthiman says we should ilso approve of the efforts of the Gov- 
 ernment to establish ;i tride with the great nation to the south of us. 
 Well, if anyone can she v me what those efforts are, I will be prepared 
 to vote for this resolution ; but so far they ar(> not visible to the naked 
 eye, nor do I believe them to be visible under a microscope. Why, 
 the pcilicy of the Government has not been to develop trade between 
 this country and the United States. On the c )ntrai'y, their policy has 
 been in every instance to do what they could t'> injure trade between 
 this country and the United States. Then the hon. gentleman asks 
 us to rejoice over the policy which has created surpluses and great 
 public works. Sir, it takes a man of some courage to make this asser- 
 tion at the })resent time. We have hitherto had surpluses, it is true ; 
 we have had liigli taxation, large revenues, and great public works ; 
 'but it is now apparent and only too manifest that these public works 
 have cost the country double the anu)unt they should have cost. We 
 have this further evidence, that every cent of the surpluses that should 
 have been expended on these public works 
 
 HAS 11EE>" APPLIED IN PECULATION, 
 
 ill '.'lalversation, in corruption, which to-day are a lasting shame 
 and an eternal disgrace to the nam<j of Canada. And, Sir, the hon. 
 gentleman says that this policy has developed industiies, and has in 
 eonse(jU(!nce imide this country prosperous. Well, this is a question of 
 fact upon which I am sure we might all agree ; yet, in t\\<- loiig debate 
 which closed a few days ago, we have not been able to agiee upon this 
 one fact, whether the country was prosperous or was not prosperous. 
 We on this side of the House have asserted that the condition of the 
 country was not satisfactory, and especially that the condition of the 
 agricultural industry was most precarious. True, we have been met 
 by negation on the other side of the House. I will not discuss the 
 
 (luest 
 for m 
 matte 
 in, uu 
 gentU 
 but ii 
 confi' 
 or nol 
 the 
 to tht 
 ing f r 
 
great 
 
 question with them, because their powers of negation are too strong 
 for me. Wlienever a thing is asserted on this side of the House, no 
 matter what it is, denied it will be, and the negation will be persisted 
 in, until perchance i; is possible to unearth some declaration that hon. 
 gentlemen may have made in what I would call an unguarded moment, 
 but in perhaps what they would call a " moment of weakness," and thus 
 confront and silence them. With regard to this question, as to whether 
 or not the country is in a dissatisfied condition, as to whether or not 
 the agricultural interests are in a nourishing condition, I will not give 
 to the House any argument of mine, but will content myself with read- 
 ing from the I'eport of perhaps the most important financial institution 
 iu Lower Canada, The Cridit Fonder Franco-Canadien. That in- 
 stitution, in its report of May, 1891, not yet three months old, says: 
 
 '< With regard to rural real estate, we called your attention in tho report of 
 last year to the crisis which it was then undergoing. This situation has only be- 
 come worse In the course of the year 1890, and a ve y bad harv(■^!t has been added 
 to the two preceding ones. Add to this the deplorable effect which tho McKinley 
 Bill has produced upon the Industry of our Canadian farmers by abruptly closing 
 the American market to their products, almost without auynoUtication, and with- 
 out giving them time to modify their system of farming. Under these circum- 
 stances we thought It wise to use double precautions, and to accept demands for 
 rural loans only In most favourably situated localities." 
 
 I will be asked this question : Who is it that has drawn this woe- 
 ful picture ? Who is this preacher of blue ruin ? Who is the Yankee 
 sycophant that dares assert the McKinley Bill is not a blessing in 
 disguise 1 Who is this veiled traitor that dares say anything in dispar- 
 agement of the great Natif)ual Policy ? I will give you his name, Sir, 
 but I am almost soriy to have to give it, for he is not one of mine. 
 He belongs to the other side of the House, and I almost fear for him 
 the fate of Orpheus, who was torn to pieces by the Thracians because 
 he would not give them the music they expected. Well, Sir, the name 
 is that oi the Secretary of State for Canada, and the report is that of 
 the Credit Fonder Franco-Canadien appended to which is the name I 
 have just mentioned. There are in my friend evidently two different 
 characters. I will not do him the honour to say that one is Dr. Jekyll, 
 nor will I do him the injury of saying that th(! other is Mr. Hyde ; but 
 T will say that the one is the politician, the memlier of the Conserv- 
 ative AdministratioUj whose object it is 
 
 TO SHOW EVERYTHING UNDER ROSY COLOURS, 
 
 colours, and to drug the people with some hashish or some potion the 
 effects of which would be to create in them illusive sensations ; and 
 the other is the man of business, the capitalist, the investor, the director 
 of a financial company, whose object is to show things as they are, so 
 as to make proper investments and not lose any money. And whom 
 are we to prefer to believe 1 The Secretary of State, the politician, or 
 the capitalist? For my part, my choice is made. I rather prefer to 
 believe the man who looks after his business than the man who simply 
 spijaks as a politician. That is not all. T also find tlie iiame on these 
 pages of the hon. metnber for Laval (Mr. Ouimet), wlio is also a sup- 
 porter of the great National Policy. I tilso find the name here of the 
 hon, member for Hochelaga (Mr, Desjardins), who spoke on this ques- 
 
e 
 
 tion some time ago and (inoiod tlii'^ rfpcit. He (quoted it to establish 
 what 1 To establish that real estate in the Province of Quebec had 
 not decreased in value, but he did not cite the part T have just quoted, 
 but something else. What did he quote ? He cjuoted to prove that 
 the debtors of the company are not in arrears in their payments. 
 That may be, but he cited something more. He stated that the comp- 
 any had been forced to bring to sale a certain number- of properties, 
 tifty-four in all, which they had been foi'ced to buy themselves, and of 
 these they had sold fourteen, and had realized from the sales the 
 amounts they had lent on those fourteen properties, less a few 
 hundred dollars. But at the same time he stated that they only 
 effected loans on real estate valued at double the amount lent, so that, 
 by their own showing, property in the Province of Quebec has just 
 decreased in value 50 per cent. However, we will not quarrel with 
 this. Let us see things just as they are represented by the Secretary 
 of State when he speaks, not to the shareholders of the Credit Foncier, 
 but to the people of Canada. We will see that there is (me point upon 
 which we are all agreed, on both sides of the House. C)ut of the 
 debate which took place a short time ago this fact towers, conspicuous 
 above all others, affirmed by all on this side, and admitted by all on 
 the other side — admitted, not always in so many words, but when not 
 admitted in words, admitted by their criticisms and by their ecjuivoca- 
 tions, still more eloquent and significant. That fact is that the power 
 of consumption to-day of the Canadian people is not e([ual to their 
 power of production, and we must have new channels of consumption. 
 There are many varieties of opinion as to the methods to be applied, 
 as to the channels that ought to be opened ; but as to the fact itself I 
 believe theie is not a dissenting voice. Nor is this new. The same 
 want was felt as far back as 1(S77, and the very same divergencies of 
 opinion then existed as to the methods to be applied. Hon. gentlemen 
 opposite profess to supply a remedy 
 
 BY MEANS OP A POLICY OF RESTRICTION ; 
 
 we advocated a policy of expansion. They believed that the National 
 Policy would not only build up the power of production, ))ut" create an 
 equal power of consumption— that not only would we produce more 
 liberally, but that the National Policy would give a greater market for 
 everything we produced. That this was a delusion cannot any longer 
 be denied. The problem then, as to-day, was not only to increase the 
 powers of production, but to get a market for whatever we C(juld pro- 
 duce. Is it possible to find a I'euiedy within the policy now in force? 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite say it is. 
 
 They have been profuse and lavish 
 
 in their encomiums of the National Policy, yet they support a Govern- 
 ment wliich is pledged to go to AVashingtcm next ()ctol)er in order to 
 find a market for our natural pi-otlacts. This is a strange inconsist- 
 ency, l)ut a greater inconsistency is that, although the Ciovernment are 
 pledged to go to WHshingt<m to find a nwirket for our natural products, 
 yet hon. gentlemen opposite have heajjed up mountains of statistics, to 
 
to establish 
 
 Quebec had 
 
 just quoted, 
 
 prove that 
 
 payments. 
 t the conip- 
 
 properties, 
 Ives, and of 
 e sales the 
 less a few 
 I they only 
 :nt, so that, 
 ec has just 
 uarrel with 
 B Secretary 
 dit Foncier, 
 ^ point upon 
 C)ut of the 
 conspicuous 
 1 by all on 
 :t when not 
 ir equivoca- 
 t the power 
 lal to their 
 ^nsumption. 
 be applied, 
 act itself I 
 The same 
 3i'gencies of 
 . gentlemen 
 
 he National 
 it create an 
 oduce more 
 market for 
 any longer 
 ncrease the 
 c(juld pro- 
 w in force? 
 
 t a Govern- 
 in order to 
 e inconsist- 
 ^rnnient are 
 fil products, 
 statistics, to 
 
 show that reciprocity in natural proflucts would be destructive to our 
 l)est iuteiests. 'J'liis is so far as natural products are concerned, but 
 we put the (juestion : Can we under our present fiscal system find a 
 iDarket for our manufactured products? An attempt indeed has been 
 made to solve the problem in some manner. An attempt has been 
 made to solve it by equalizing production and consumption,- —not, how- 
 ever, by increasing production or by increasing consumpticm, but by 
 reducing production to the level of local demands. This has been the 
 policy resorted to by the very industries the National Policy was in- 
 tended to fcjster and develop : millions of dollars had been taken away 
 from the capital of the country and invested in mills — cotton mills and 
 woollen mills for instance. Thousands of mei. were withdrawn from 
 their usual occupations and brought to these mills to spin and to weave ; 
 but the day soon came when it was found that if these mills were 
 woi'ked to their full capacity, tliey would weave and spin in a year 
 more than could be consumed by our small pcjpulation in the same 
 time. Then we know what took place. 
 
 The masters combined and aguekd 
 
 to control production ; they agreed to close up some of the mills 
 and to work others at half time ; and they forced men to be idle, one 
 week or two in the month or one month and two : the year. These 
 periods of enforced idleness sometimes amounted to three or four 
 months in the year. Now, I hold in my hand a circular which was 
 issued last year by one of the knitting manufacturers of shirts and 
 drawers, and after speaking of the hard times in which the industry 
 was then labouring this is what he proposed : 
 
 •' If under such circumstances wo should continue to run our mills to their full 
 capacity, the result would probably be such an over-production of goods as would 
 affect the market lor the next two years, not only destroying all chances of profit, 
 but probably bring disaster in its train. 
 
 •' I submit, therefore, whether it would not be wise for the mills to at once stop 
 all machinery except such as is in use on bona fide orders, that is orders that pay 
 a fair profit. 
 
 " I have already stopped one-third of my machinery and given imperative in- 
 structions to stop the balance as fast as orders are exhausted. 
 
 " If all the mills will co-operate in this conservative policy, keeping the sup- 
 ply of goods fully within the limits of demand, I have no hesitation in predicting, 
 not only an avoidance of disaster for the future, but a fair prospect of remunera- 
 tion instead of loss." 
 
 Sir, you propose legislation to prevent combines. Remove the causes 
 and you remove the combines. Increase the; markets and the mills 
 will be working at their full capacity, but as long as the manufactur- 
 ers have to operate in a restricted market, it is impossible that the 
 mills should be working all the time. If all the mills in cottons and 
 woollens were to work to their full capacity for one year, and if at the 
 end of the year all the goods remaining unsold in the warehouses were 
 to be piled up in a public sc^uai-e, the sight would be appalling, but it 
 would be a fitting monument of the folly of those who once believed 
 in a restrictive nuirket. Those who believe in a false system of pro- 
 tection, when any industry is injured, say that the only remedy they 
 have is to apply a little more restiiction, which is just like the system 
 followed by the old practitioners. If a patient was ill, they bled him, 
 
d 
 
 and if that was not enough they took more blood from him, and if he 
 was not well then, again more blood, and finally the ailment was cured, 
 for the paticmt was killed. In this case, howevcjr, there is a slight 
 difference, for the ))rinciple, advantageous as it would be to the capit- 
 alist, while it is ruinous to the workman, cannot be enforced all round. 
 The farmers cannot combine, but 
 
 THEY ARE THE VICTIMS OF COMBINES 
 
 — combines in woollens, combines in cottons, combines in salt, and in 
 almost everything they buy. Wha^ is the remedy for this ? The 
 reiriedy is the expansion of the market ; and what we propose on this 
 side of the House is that, as our population cannot consume everything 
 it pnxluces, it should find a market elsewhere, and if possible should 
 find it in the great nation of 65,000,000 to the south of us. Hon. 
 gentlemen opposite profess not to believe in unrestricted i-eciprocity 
 with our neighbours to the st)uth, but there was a time when they be- 
 lieved in reciprocity at all events in natural products. Time and again 
 we have proposed to send commissioners to Washington to endeavour 
 to obtain that limited recipi'ocity, but every time we wei-e met by a 
 stern refusal. In 1884 my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island 
 (Mr. Davies), taking advantage — not taking advantage, but lot)king to 
 the fact that the fishery clauses of the treaty of 1871 were about to 
 terminate, urged upon the Government the necessity of sending com- 
 missioners to Washington to negotiate a new treaty. This is what he 
 moved : < 
 
 *• In view of the notice of the termination of the fisheries articles of the 
 Treaty of Washington, given by the United State.s to the British Government, and 
 the consequent expiration, on the first July, 1885, of the reciprocal privileges and 
 exemptions of that treaty, this House Is of opinion that steps should be taken at 
 an early day by the Government of Canada with the object of bringing about 
 negotiations for a new treaty, providing for the citizens of Canada and the United 
 States reclpocal privllages of flshing and freedom from duties now enjoyed, to- 
 gether with additional reciprocal freedom in the trade relations of the two 
 countries." 
 
 This motion was met by Sir John Macdonald, who was then Prime 
 Minister, in these words. He said it was of no use to go to Washing- 
 ton, that the people there would not agree to any unrestricted reci- 
 procity. He thus continued : 
 
 " That feeling, I believe, still exists, and unless the United States will come at 
 some time or other to a conclusion that they would be willing to enter upon a reci- 
 procity treaty, not for our natural productions, but for our manufactures as well 
 as our natural products, we will never have a treaty. lam quiet satisfied the United 
 States will not agree, the country will not agree, the voice of the country will be 
 against repetition of the Treaty of 1854. Then Sir, the only question is this: Can we 
 have a treaty on a larger basis ? If there Is no indication that the United States peo- 
 ple, that their representatives, their Congress, will accept the recommendation of 
 the president and appoint a commission, or go into the question and see whether 
 there cannot be an arrangement, and if we know and the hon. gentleman admit" 
 — and it is evident he is correct — that by no possibility will there bo a Bill to 
 allow reciprocity in these articles, what indication, what sign is there that there 
 would be any use in our going again, for the fifth or sixth or tenth time, on our 
 knees to Washington, and asking them again, for Heaven's sake, to enter into a 
 treaty wltii us? " 
 
 This was the key-note of the language which has been held ever since. 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite, whenever we have asked them to go and 
 negotiate even a treaty in regard to natural producty alone, have told 
 
» 
 
 us un\'aT'iably that it was ajjainst tho diffnity of Canada to proposo 
 anytliin*,' of tli.it kind, but all of a sudden, last winter, we heard that 
 tlie Canadian (xovernment lia<l, not at the (iKnentli liour noi- the 
 twelfth hour, but at the fourteenth hour, determined to send commis- 
 sionei's to Washington to endeavor to negotiate su''i a treaty. What? 
 Those proud men, who never would 
 
 LOWER THEIR DIGNITY BY ENDEAVOURING 
 
 to negotiate a treaty, those who never would consent to enter into 
 any negotiations with the Yankees send connnissioiiers to Washington 
 to negotiate with them ! 80 it was, but those hon. gentlemen told the 
 people of Canada that this negotiation had not originated with them, 
 but that the Government at Washington had come down on t'leir knees 
 to them, and asked them to send commissioTiers. T say here that in 
 making this statement to the people of Canada they Ayent to the peo- 
 ple with falsehood and deceit in their mouth. , We know now that the 
 facts are tlw very reverse. We know that it was not the American 
 (Tovernment who invited them, but that it was themselves who acted 
 in this matter. A stranger who came into this House would think 
 this was a matter of very little moment, whether the invitation came 
 from Canada or from W^ashingtcm, but, small as the question may ap- 
 peal- to be, I charge upon them that they did not dare to state the fact 
 and that they went to the country with falsehood and deceit in their 
 mouth. And why? Because up to that moment they had refused to 
 do what the circumstances then forced them to do. Up to that mo- 
 ment they had instructed their party that it was against the dignity 
 of Canada to send commissioners to Washington ; and now if they had 
 avowed that they had taken the steps which they were pressed to 
 take during many years, they would have stood in antagonism to their 
 own record, in contradiction Avith their own notions of national dignity ; 
 they would have stood before the people of Canada self-confessing that 
 for many years they had neglected a duty which it was their business 
 to perform. But, Sir, even though we had the assurance of hon. gen- 
 tlemen that it was the Government at Washington which had first sought 
 reciprocity from them — an assurance the accuracy of which some hon. 
 gentlemen on this side of the House had dared to doubt — after the 
 letter of Mr. Blaine to Congressman Baker, it was impossible not to 
 come to the conclusion that these hon. gentlemen had not told the 
 whole truth to the Canadian people. When my hon. friend beside me 
 (Sii- Richard Cartwright) took occasion to recall to the hem. gentlemen 
 that they had lacked in frankness towai-ds the people of Canada, he 
 was met <m the other side of the house with the usual answer — dis- 
 loyalty. Of course cmly a disloyal man like my hon. friend could 
 doubt the word of a Canadian Minister, but it was natural to him, 
 disloyal as he is, to take in pi'eference the words of an American Min- 
 ister. Now, to show to the House that 
 
 I AM DOING NO INJUSTICE TO THE 
 
 hon. gentlemen on that side, let me ([uote from the language made use 
 of on that occasion by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance : 
 
Wf 
 
 - ■■¥ 
 
 10 
 
 '» I think my hoii. friend from South Oxford will allow me to tell him that it 
 would be well for him to trust the Canadian people a little more, and oven to trust 
 the Canadian Ministers wlien they make grave statements on their responsibility 
 as Ministers of the Crown." 
 
 They had made a gi'ave statement on tlieir i-esponsilulity as Ministers 
 of the Crown. What was it 1 We find it in the report of Council 
 adopted on the 1 2th of Decemljer last : 
 
 " The Committee of the Frivy Couneii having learned that the Honourable 
 the Secretary of State for the United States lad expressed to Her Majesty's Min- 
 isters at Washington liis readiness to negotiate for a reciprocity treaty on a wide 
 basis, and particularly for the protection of tlio mackerel flslierios, and for the 
 fisheries on Inland waters, and had subsequently stated to Her Majesty's Minister 
 his great desire to conclude a reciprocity treaty, tliey desire to take the opportunity 
 afTorded by these intimations from Mr. Blaine of suggesting the expedieney of 
 taking early steps to adjust the various matters that have arisen and now exist, 
 affecting the relati<ms of Canada with the United States." 
 
 This was the key-note of the language held by hon. gentlemen all 
 through the election. Now, what are the facts 1 Let me quote from 
 the official correspondence laid on the Table of the House a few days 
 ago. I will quote the language of Mr. Blaine in April last, in a letter 
 to Sir Julian Pauncefote : 
 
 " In view of the fact that you had come to the State Department with the 
 proposals, and that the subject was then lor the first time mentioned between us, 
 and in view of the further fact that 1 agreed to a private conference as explained 
 in my Minute, I confess that it was a surprise to me when several weeks later 
 during the Canadian canvass, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Cliarles Tupper both 
 stated before public assemblages that an informal discussionof a reciprocity treaty 
 would take place at Washington after the 4th March, by the Initlatloa of the Sec- 
 retary of State." 
 
 Mr. Blaine here directly denies the statement of this Minute of Coun- 
 cil adopted by the Canadian Privy Council. But I may be told that 
 after all this is only the statement of one man against the statement 
 of another man ; it is only the 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MINISTER 
 
 against the statement of the Canjulian Government. Sir, we can view 
 this (juesti(m in the light of the testimony of no less a man than Sir 
 Charles Tupper. Sir Cliarles Tupper, tis we know, harl an interview 
 with Mr. Hlaine, and he thought, it good policy to a(l\<'rt t(» this fact; 
 in a letter which hc^ wrote to Sir John A. Macdonai 1, liiltiting the 
 interview which he had with Mr. Blaine, occurs this very significant 
 passage : 
 
 " I told Mr. Blaine that I wished, In thn outset, to recognize the accuracy of 
 the statement contained In his letter to Sir .Julian Pauncefote, which I had seen, 
 in reference to the initiation of negotiations regarding reciprocal trade arrange* 
 ments between the two countries." 
 
 Here we see Sir Charles Tujyper forced to admit to Mi-. Blaine that 
 the language which he, Sir Charles Tupper, and the Caiuidian MiniHt- 
 ers had used t(» the {u'ople of (yjinada during the elections, was untrue. 
 Sir, we s<'(> here to what depth of baseness (»ur oppotKMits will go when- 
 ever they want to find a vvy with which t<» go to the country. Not 
 satisfied with tlu? unfair tidvantages which the (Jerrymander Act gave 
 tliem, not satisfied with tin* unfair lulvantages of tln^ Franchise Act, 
 
 JJU 
 
not satisfied with the advantages which they have enjoyed from the 
 appointment of partisan returning officeis, they have stooped to the 
 low level of misrepresentiiig the American Secretary of State, and 
 wlien they were taken to task by the American Secretary of State, like 
 Ancient Pistol, they had to eat the leek, but, nauseous as was the 
 operation, the leek had served the . 
 
 DESIRED PURPOSE OF DOING DUTY IN THE 
 
 elections. Now we are told that the Government, at the fourteenth 
 hour, have decided to send conmiissioners to Wa;-hington. What are 
 the circumstances which have at last induced the Government to re- 
 verse their policy and to do that which they have refused to do during 
 so many years ? Sir, the leason is not far to seek ; it is now a matter 
 of history. It was the policy of our sister colony, Newfoundland, 
 which, not so fastidious as the Govei-nment of Canada, took proper 
 steps to secure a treaty, and they did it in a very business-like way. 
 Sir William Whiteway, Premier of Newfoundland, and Mr. Bond, a 
 member of his Government, were in London. Mi-. Bond secui-ed a 
 letter of inti-oducti(m from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, 
 the English ambassador at Washington, who then introduced Mr. Bond 
 to Mr. Blaine, and inside of eight days a treaty of reciprocity was 
 negotiated between Mr. Bond and Mi-. Blaine, whereby Newfoundland 
 secured the admission of her tish free of duty to the United States, 
 and gave in return to the United States free bait on the coast of New- 
 foundland. During all that time our Government were standing, or 
 rather sleeping, on their dignity. Sir Julian Pauncefote, however, 
 thought that it was time to arouse 
 
 THEM FROM THEIR DUiNIFID SLUMBER 
 
 and to tell them what was going on. Then they became very lively. 
 Their action took the form of a protest. Protests by telegrams and 
 protests by letters urging Sir Charles Tupper to prevent the Colonial 
 Secretary from allowing that treaty to go into force. T will not n(tw 
 discuss the ([uestion of the policy of this Government, whether it was 
 fair or not, toward the sister colony of Newfoundland, in preventing 
 her fi'om managing hei- own affiiirs according to her (»\vn views T leave 
 that for anothei' occasion ; but 1 am now discussing the point in so far 
 only as it. i»«]ates U> the j)re\ious policy of the ( Jo\(M"nnient, who at 
 last were forced, by tlu; action of Newfoundland, to take st(!ps to pre- 
 vent iheni from gaining an advantage which \v(! could not ha\(> our- 
 sel\(w without negotiating a ti' Nity. They lemonst rated at the Colonial 
 OtHce. Biit th(' (yolonial Stcretary of State told t\wu\ the only thing 
 they could do was to follow the example of tlu^ people of Newfound- 
 land and negotiate a ti'eaty for themselves, or to b»u'ome a ])arty to the 
 negotiati(tns then going on ; and tliat is tlic way in wliicli our (Jovern- 
 ment have been brought to this position, tli.il on tlic l-tli of ( )ctol)er 
 next they are going to send commissioners to Washington to neg«»tiate 
 a triNity. Now, what is the basis upon which they will negotiate that 
 treaty? Sir, T venture to say after the long debate that we have hfwl 
 that tlmy do not know yet upon what basis they will negotiate. There 
 
1 1 
 
 12 
 
 are not two men on tliat side of the House who can agree upon a basis. 
 They are all opposed to complete reciprocity ; on this they agree ; upon 
 everything else they disagree. Some are opposed to reciprocity in coal. 
 For instance, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will 
 never agree to reciprocity in coal. He told his electoi/s, and he told 
 the C(>untry generally, that he had taken Sii- John A. Macdonald in 
 hand, and had forced him to abandon his recii>rocity notions concern- 
 ing coal. The hon. member for Sherbrooke ( Tr. Ives) will not have 
 reciprocity in natural products. Yes, T beg liis pardon, he will agree 
 to reciprocity in some products. And what are they? Horses, lambs, 
 hay, barley and eggs. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Also potatoes from Prince Edward Island. 
 
 Mr. LAURIEK. Tluit was an afterthought, because the articles 
 I mentioned are those he tirst included. If the hon. gentleman spoke 
 for his party, they want reciprocity in those articles which we always 
 sell to the Americans, but whicli the Americans do not sell us ; they 
 expect that the Ameiicans will agree to give us their mai'kets for (»ur 
 horses, lambs, hay, barley and eggs, and even potatoes from Prince 
 Edward Island, and at the same time, that we will keep our markets 
 closed against all their goods. If that is the idea entertained V)y hon. 
 gentlemen opposite of recipiocity, let them call it by some other name, 
 and I advise the Government to stay here. The hon. member for 
 South Oxford (8ir Richard Cai'twright) has given them the basis on 
 which they should negotiate, and that basis is uni-estricted reciprocity 
 in natural products and in manufactured products as well. But hon. 
 gentlemen opposite would not agree to that. They have voted down 
 my h«m. friend's resolution ; and I tnay ask them now, for what pur- 
 pose are you going to Washington? jNIi-. P>laine has told Congressman 
 Baker in his letter, that it was of no use, that 
 
 NO KKCIPROCITY WOULD BE ADOPTED 
 
 except upon a basis of unrestricted terms. Still, if the commis- 
 sioners to Washington secure the settlement of the Behring 
 Sea difficulty and of the Atlantic fisheries question they will have the 
 hearty support of this side of the House. But this will not settle nor 
 even advance the great pioblem of finding a mai'ket foi- our produc- 
 tions, and this is the (|uestion to 1h' settled. I athrm again on the part 
 of the Liberal party that the true policy to be followed on this (i|ues- 
 tion is unrestricted recijtrocity. This biings us face to face with our 
 policy. I know vcM-y wt^U that I Ins policy from its sweeping character 
 will be likely to excit<' alarm auxtng tli(! timi<l and (imorous, but I 
 never heard it seriously (|ueHtioned tliat unnistricted reciprocity would 
 not. favoui- Canada at larg(>. The only objection T have heard against 
 unn^stricted r«!ciprocity is perhaps it would injure some special classes 
 of manufactures. If uiirestricted recipi'ocily were ti» injure manufact- 
 urers but were t(» bcnc^lit everybody (^Ise and every otiier interest, what 
 woidd you do? Woidd yoi abandon it ? I do not, hesitate (o say that 
 I would still b(^ in favour of unrestricted reciprocity. If it is pro\ed 
 that unrestricted reciproti /y, although it might injun' tJie manufact- 
 urer, Would at the same time favour the farmer, the lumberman, the 
 
 UHMUM 
 
i:^ 
 
 miner, the tishei'iiiaii, and the whole body of consumers, would any 
 man stand up in this House and say it would not he sound policy to 
 have unrestricted reciprocity ? But I go further than this. I have no 
 hesitation in saying, though my testimony is not worth much in such 
 a matter, that unrestricted reciprocity W(»uld favour the manufacturers 
 as well as every other class of the Canadian people. What is the rea- 
 son ! Because unrestricted recipi-ocity would give to the manufactur- 
 ers markets, consumers. And what is it the manufacturers want in 
 this country 1 Why, it is the very thing I have named — markets, 
 consumers. But at the same time I admit that unrestricted reciprocity 
 would create competitors to our manufacturers : this is the very thing 
 to wliicli our manufacturers object. They 
 
 WILL NOT HAVE COMPETITION. 
 
 Tt is said that competition is the life of trade. So it is. But there is 
 nothing at the same time which the trader dreads so much as competi- 
 tion, because with competition the trader must limit his profits and 
 extend his o])e rations to secure the same results at the end of the year, 
 and thus trade is enlarged and the connnunity benetited ; while with- 
 out competition the trader will not extend his operations, but will 
 extort the largest p(jssil)le profits from his consumers in his limited 
 nuirkets. If unrestricted reciprt)city would bring ccnnpetition, I fidmit, 
 and T ha\e no hesitation in doing so, that to some extent it would 
 disturb some existing intei-ests. From this fact alone I can well un- 
 dej'stand the hostility this [xdicy has excited in some quarters. But 
 this is the history of all i-et'ornis ; the history of all reforms has been 
 a struggle to free the connnunity from the incubus of some existing 
 interests, and the history of all reforms lias been that those who were 
 interested always combined in order to make the people believe that 
 they were to suffer and not those who were making the objection. Let 
 me call back to your mind, Sir, a well-known instance. When Paul 
 was in the City of Ephesus preaching against the superstition of his 
 day, struggling against the al)surdity, against the folly, against the 
 wickedness of worshipping idols madt! by the hand of man, all the 
 manufactui'ers of idols saw at once that if the doctriiies of Paul were 
 to prevail, if the people were to be 
 
 SET FREE FROM THOSE SUPERSTITIONS, 
 
 their trade was g<me. They assembled n. the Red Pai'lour of that day, 
 and the leadei- of the crowd opened the confeience with these very 
 suggesti\e words : " Hirs, ye know by this craft we have our wealth." 
 And the ol)ject of the policy adopttMl was to try to convince the people 
 that theii' interests, not the interests of the manufacturers, but the 
 interests of the people at large, were endangered, and they appealed 
 at once to the passions and pn^judices of tiie people. They sallied 
 forth, saying : "(Jrnvitis l)iaiia of the Kphcsians." And now in our 
 own country, in our own day, while the Liberul part;y, like Paul, are 
 struggling against the superstitions prevailing in this age, against the 
 folly, against the absurdity and the wickedness of restricting trade, 
 all those who prolit by these sujxMstit ions, the (loveinment who therein 
 lind the source of their power, llui monopolists who therein Hud the 
 source of their wealth, assemble in the Red Parlor, and there, as in 
 
u 
 
 the days of Paul, the adopted policy is to prevent the people being im- 
 bued by those doctrines preached by the Liberal party. Like the men 
 of Ephesus, they appeal to the prejudices and passions of the people. 
 The cry they laise is not " Great is Diana of the Ephesians," but 
 " Great is the loyalty of the Canridians." This motion which you, Mr. 
 Speaker, have in your hands, is the last appeal made to the passions 
 and the prejudices (^f the people. What does it assert ? I will not 
 quote its rather verbose language, but in its last sentence there is an 
 appeal to the fact that unrestricted 
 
 KECIPROCITY MIGHT DISCRIMINATE 
 
 against England, and there is a further appeal against assimilation of 
 tariffs with the Americans. This is what the resolution means when 
 the lion, gentleman uses these words : 
 
 " That this House, while approving of the special efforts made by the Govern- 
 ment to Increase Canadian trade with the fur East, with the West Indies, with 
 Great Brltlan, and the United .States, desires to express Its confidence that any 
 negotatlons for the extension of commercial relations with the United Htates 
 will be so conducted that their result wii bo consistent with that proper control of 
 our own taritl and revenues which every self-respecting people must niaintain, and 
 with a continuance of tlxose proli table business and poll ileal relations with the 
 motlier country which are ernestly desired by all Intelligent and loyal Canadians." 
 
 This is an appeal to the passions of the people. This is an appeal to 
 the loyalty of the people. V\'e claim that we on this side of the House 
 are just as loyal as are hoii. gentlemen on the other side of the House, 
 but we object to men trying to make loyalty the cloak for their selfish 
 policy. What is the argument which we hear in reference to this 
 appeal against discriminating against England ? It is stated that it 
 would be unmanly and ungenerous to grant to another nation trade 
 facilities which are denied to the mother Land. This is the burden of 
 the objection which is generally nuide on that score. Let us see what 
 is in it. In the fh'st place, I assert that this policy is not conceived in 
 hostility tt) England. This policy is conceived in the light of what we 
 believe to be for the best interests of Canada. But I state again, and 
 I have admitted without hesitation that this policy might disturb some 
 existing Canadian interests. I>ut I do not admit that English in- 
 terests are to be more favoured thtin Canadian interests. It may be 
 our duty when we have this policy enticted, as it is our duty now, to 
 raise our revenue out of duties on British goods as well as the goods 
 of other jiations. I put the case in this way. I assume that this 
 policy would realize what we expect from it, T say that I assume it, 
 but I slu)ukl not say so, because I believe it rather thfui assume it. 
 
 WOULD BUILD UP THE COUNTRY. 
 
 However, I assume it, just for the sake of argument. I assume, for 
 the sake of argunuMit witli lion, gentlemen opposite, that unrestricted 
 reciprocity wituld do what we (!Xpect from it: That it would foster 
 agricultAire, develop trade, stimulate industries, build up cities and 
 settle our North- West. Then, Sii', if unrc^stricted |recij)rocity were to 
 produce all these I'esults, wliat, 1 ask, would be tin; attitude! of England 
 towards us ? If we could sliow to England that unrestricted reci- 
 
15 
 
 procity would open for us an area of wealth and prosperity, would 
 England dare to bring down her arm upon us in order to kill that pos- 
 sible prosperity 1 There was a time w! ^a England would have come 
 down with a strong hand upon any such arrangement ; that was the 
 time when the notion was prevalent in England that colonies existed sim- 
 ply for the benefit of the parent state ; that was the time when colonies 
 were not allowed any trade except what was graciously conceded by 
 the parent state ; that was the time when, if the trade of the parent 
 state came in collision with the trade of the colony, the trade of the 
 colony must give way. But, Sir, that selfish policy pursued for genera- 
 tions by the parent state towards her American colonies, cost to Eng- 
 land during the last century, the loss of her American cohmies. For 
 years and years, no, at all times the American colonies had been pro- 
 hibited from exporting sugar, cotton, furs, to any country but to a 
 country acknowledging the JJritish flag. At all time, the colonies had 
 been prohibited from exporting manufactured goods, such as wool to 
 any country, not even from colony to colony. At all times, they had 
 been prohiliited from erecting irt)n furnaces ; and all these prohibitions 
 were made to benefit the trade of England. They benefited indeed 
 the trade of England, but they alienated the heart of the American 
 colonists, and when a struggle arose 
 
 British domination had to rkel 
 
 back before the universal discontent created by this selfishness. Now, 
 8ir, even in the days of that conflict, there were men in England with 
 hearts bj'otul eiKtugh, and minds broad enough, to protest against that 
 selfish policy. Charles James Fox in those very days declared in Eng- 
 land,that the only manner in which the parent state could keep distant 
 colonies was to allow them absolute freedom in matters respecting their 
 own Government. Tn oui' own day, and in this country, that doctrine 
 was applied to its fullest extent. Canada has the honour of having 
 revolutionized the doctrines whicli formerly bound colonies to the par- 
 ent state. We have been grantenl fi-eedom of Government in this 
 country, and we have been allowed to settle «)ur own interests in the 
 light of our best judgment. And now, Sir, T ask, and this is a ques- 
 tion whicli 1 want to have answei'ed by hon. gentlemen opposite : Is 
 tiiere any restriction in this light that has been granted to us? To 
 wliat leiigtli is the rigiit to extend ? Would it extend even to the point 
 where Canadian intei-ests would come in coiitiict with British interests, 
 and even invade British interest ? Sir, T say that the only limit to 
 Canada's right is Canada's interests. So far as goes Canada's interests, 
 so far goes Canada's right ; and the doctrine which T assert now has 
 been asserted by all colonial Governments, except the Government in 
 front of us. Tliis doctrine has Immmi granted by the Imperial Govern- 
 ment, not once, (»r not twice, but it is 
 
 NOW TIIK 8KTTLED COMMON LAW 
 
 of tlie colonies. The concession was not made spcmtaneously but it was 
 wriiiig from the iiiotlier laud by tlie very furc(^ of circumstances and 
 events. Since Canada has been granted freedom of Goverumeiit the 
 
16 
 
 fact always apparent became manifest, that the colonies and the parent 
 state had conflicting interests and that these conflicting interests could 
 not be controlled by the same tariff. Why, Sir, in 1843, two years 
 after we had been conceded responsible Government, England which at 
 that time had the corn laws, made an exception in favour of colonial 
 cereals. Colonial cereals were admitted at a nominal duty while 
 foreign cereals were subjected to the heavy duties of the corn laws. 
 But three years afterwards, in 1846, freedom of trade was adopted in 
 England. The col(jnies protested ; the privilege in which the coknies 
 had rejoiced for three years dissappeared, and complaints were loud 
 and hot, but the parent state did not listen to those complaints. Nay 
 moi'e, not only would not England consent to 
 
 LISTEN TO THE COMPLAINTS 
 
 of the colonies, but England went to the extent of attempting — not 
 by force, of course, but by eveiy constitutional means in her power — 
 to force the cohjnies into adopting free trade. The British Govern- 
 ment went so far as to instruct colonial govenors to refuse assent to 
 any laws passed by colonial legislatures which might be in conflict with 
 the system of trade adopted by England. Well, Mr. Speaker, I need 
 not tell you that this policy of England was bitterly resented by the 
 colonies. No colony in Biitish North America would adopt the system 
 of freedom of trade which had been adopted by the mother land, and 
 among others the colony of New Brunswick protested veiy vehem- 
 ently. I will quote to the House a very suggestive despatch which 
 was sent by the Colonial Secretary of State, Sii- George Gi-ey, in 1850, 
 tt) Sir Ednmnd Head, at that time Lieutenant Governor of New Bruns- 
 wick. The despatch proceeds to say : 
 
 " It is with much regret that I have learnl from your dispatch, No 69, of tlie 
 7tli ultimo, tliat dissatisfaction has been occasioned among the Inhabitans of New 
 Brunswiclt by tlie Instructions given you to withold your assent from any Act 
 whlcli may bepassfd by the l^rovinclal Legislature in contravention of that system 
 of commercial policy whicli the Imperial i'arJlament and Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment have judged it advisable to adopt, with a view to the interests of tlie Empire 
 at large." 
 
 Now, Sir, I ask the good men and true who are ever so prone to put 
 forward theii* loyalty : Are tliey rt;ady here to give assent to this doc- 
 • trine, that freedom of trade was established in England not only for 
 the good of England but for the giMxl of the Empire at large? Not 
 one of them, Sir, would admit that doctrine. This despatch goes on 
 to say : 
 
 "II Willie it Is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to advise the Crown 
 to use its autliority in such a manner as to interfere as little as possible with the 
 managment of their own affairs, by the Legislature of the several colonies tliere 
 are certain subjects on which measures cannot be adopted by an individual colony, 
 without affecting Interests of others, and perhaps of the whole Empire. " 
 
 Now, Sir, I ask again : lias it betMi the concern of the Conservative 
 j'arty, wlio pretend to be loyal, whtni adopting their policy, to look to 
 the interests of the Kmpire at large? Has it not been to look to the 
 interests of Canada, as th(y conceive tlu^ interests of Cfinada to l)e? 
 Has not theii' policy always been Canada for the Canadians, and not 
 
 
17 
 
 Canada for the whole Empire 1 And so, the whole doctrine as applied 
 in practice by the Conservative party, is in direct antagonism to the 
 policy of the British Colonial Secretary of State. The despatch con- 
 tinues to say further : 
 
 " III. Measures for the regulation of trade are of this description, and from 
 the very foundation of our colonial Empire, the Imperial Parliament and Govern- 
 ment have always claimed and exercised the right of deciding on the commercial 
 policy which should be adopted by all British colonies." 
 
 Sir, is there a man in the ranks of these loyal men and true who would 
 to-day agree that the policy of Canada should be decided by the British 
 Parliament 1 Not only was the doctrine set down by the Colonial 
 Secretary of State, Sir George Grey, not fidopted, but so far back as 
 thirty years ago the Canadian Legislature protested that they and they 
 alone were the best judges of what were the interests of the Cansidian 
 people. Nay, the day came when in 1879 the Conservative party 
 which had just gained the election adopted a policy in direct antagon- 
 ism to the policy of free trade ; they adopted a policy of high protec- 
 tion. I remember very well, Sir, that 
 
 UPON THAT OCCASION THEY CHEERED 
 
 as lustily as they cheered some few days ago, but I remember that they 
 did not sing " God save the Queen," over it. They did not sing " God 
 save the Queen," for very good reasons — because the objection had 
 J)een taken then that their policy, which was calculated to injure 
 British trade, might endanger British connection, and the answer was : 
 Then so much the worse for British connection. The answer then 
 given by their press, solidly maintained by every one of them, was that 
 if protection was for the best interests of Canada, then protection was 
 to be had, even if protection was to destroy Brritish connecti<jn. Sir, 
 for this language, which if it had been used by us, would have brought 
 upon our heads storms of denunciation and abuse, we never upbraided 
 the party of hon. gentlemen oppoaite. If they believe that protection 
 was for the best interests of Canada, it was not only their right but 
 their duty to act in the line of their belief. But T protest against the 
 shouts of disloyalty being raised against us, because the policy of hon. 
 gentlemen opposite having been tested and found wanting, wc propose 
 a policy which we know to be no more inimical to our connection with 
 Great Britain than the policy which they adopted fifteen years ago. 
 Sir, there is more. The British Government, landing that they could 
 not make Canada or their other colonies adopt free trade, initiated 
 another systen : they negotiated commercial treaties without reference 
 to the interests of the colonies, but jolely in the interests of tl-3 British 
 people, leaving the colonies to judg3 for themselves what they would 
 do. Some few weeks ago my lum. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Rider) 
 put a question to the Government — whether or not there was a treaty 
 of commerce between France and England? The Government have 
 not yet been able tt> give an answer, though it is quite ea.sy to give 
 oiu'. The Coluleii Treaty was negotiated in IHGO ; and T am bound to 
 say that the class of l^iiiglish goods which were admitted into France 
 at a s{)ecial rate of duty under that treaty were not those in which 
 (Janada could have competed with England, 
 
18 
 
 11 
 
 WITH ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION, 
 
 ships. British ships were admitted into France under the Cohdeu 
 Treaty at the rate of 25 francs a ton, while the general tariff of France 
 at that time, if I am rightly informed, was 50 francs a ton. That 
 treaty was negotiated in the interests of British ships, and without 
 regard to Canadian ships, though Canada could have competed with 
 Great Britain in that article, because Canada was at that time a ship- 
 building country. But that treaty has come to an end, and there is 
 now no special commercial treaty with France. But there is a conven- 
 tion to-day between France and England, signed in February, 1882, 
 whereby English goods are admitted into France on terms reserved tt) 
 the most favoured nation. Now, my hon. friend from Htanstead, asked 
 this question : What is the difference of duty on fresh butter, salt 
 butter, cheese, salt meat and lard, as between the Canadian product 
 and the English product when admitted in France? The answer is 
 this: Under this convention, v/hich is to last until February, 1892, 
 when it will have been ten years in operation, fresh buttei* coming from 
 Canada is subjected to the general tariff of France, which is 13 francs 
 per 100 kilos, whereas English butter is admitted free; that is to say, 
 there is a discrimination against the Canadian article in favour of the 
 British of 13 francs per 100 kilos. On salt butter the general tariff 
 of France which is applied to Canada, is 15 francs per 100 kilos, and 
 the tariff upon English salt butter 2 francs, a difference of 13 francs 
 per 100 kilos. On soft cheese the general tariff is 6 francs and the 
 special tariff 3 francs. On hard cheese the general tariff' is 8 francs 
 and the special tariff 4 francs. On salt meats the general tariff is 8.50 
 francs and the special tariff 4.50 francs. Lard is free. So that, Mr. 
 Speaker, the English Government have negotiated that treaty without 
 looking to the interests of Canada, but looking simply to the interests 
 of the English people. But, 8ir, there is more. 
 
 England has negotiated 
 
 treaties with Germany which directly affect Canada ; and if the ho'n. 
 Min' *^er of Customs were here, I should have his testimony that in the 
 trea^.es negotiated in 1862 and 18G5, if I remember rightly, Ixiween 
 England and Germany, German goods imported into Canada cannot 
 be charged a higher rate of duty than British goods ; and in the face 
 of that treaty the hon. Minister of Customs is not at liberty to so 
 appraise German goods coming from Gei-many to the full cost of transit 
 between Hamburg or Bi'eman to Canadian ports, but simply as if they 
 were shipped from Liverpool or any English ports. Therefore, Eng- 
 land has negotiated treaties in a manner directly contrary to the inter- 
 ests of Canada. But there is more. In 1870 the late Prime Minister, 
 Sir John Macdonald, tested the American pulse in t)rder to ascertain 
 whether or not he could obtain a treaty extending not only to natural 
 pi'oducts, but even to manufacturcKl goods. Sir John Macdonald was 
 charged with i at in the House in 1870 by Mr. Huntingdon, and he 
 did not deny it. Moi'eover, we would have the pi'oof of it in the blue- 
 book, if they could be had ; and we have the pi-oof in the English 
 press. The Times, the great organ of public opinion in England, had 
 
19 
 
 been kept au courant with what was going on, used this very suggest- 
 ive language in reference to this matter : 
 
 " It Is at this very moment a matter of discussion in Canada, whether a treaty 
 of reciprocity shouUl not be concluded with the United States; and the result of 
 the deliberations may very possibly be an admission of the manufactures of New 
 England into the Dominion under lighter duties than the manufnctures of Great 
 Britain. If the Canadian Ministry come to the conclusion that such an arrange- 
 ment is for the benefit of that country, will the Colonial Office advise the Crown 
 to disallow the negotiations? Assuredly not." 
 
 This is the sentiment of public opinion in England ; and I say it is the 
 merest flunkeyism on the part of any one in this country to try to be 
 more English than the English. It is t. . ) merest flunkeyism to pre- 
 vent us from doing what the English people 
 
 ARE PREPARED TO CONCEDE 
 
 to US ; and if there is any man in this Parliament to-day, forgetting that 
 he is a Canadian, wants to do what men would not do in England, all 
 T have to say is that his place is not in the Canadian Parliament, but 
 he should go to the other side of the water and try to find a seat in 
 the British Parliament. But, Sir, there is still more than that. There 
 is the very recent action of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, 
 who last year, with the view of promoting trade with the West Indies, 
 induced the Government of which he is a member to pass the following 
 Order in Council for the establishment of better trade relations be- 
 tween certain colonies in the West Indies, not only British but foreign, 
 and Canada ; and this is what was proposed on the part of Canada : 
 
 " A reduction in Canadian duties on raw sugar imported from the Spanish 
 Antilles into Canada for refining purposes, such reduction, however, not excwd- 
 Ing the maximum of 30 per cent, of the present duties." 
 
 This was the offer made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to 
 the West Indies. Now, what was he to get in exchange for this 1 
 
 " In return for this the Spanish Government to admit at equivalently reduced 
 duties into their islands, grain, flour, flsh, coal, lumber of all kinds, vegetables 
 including potatoes, and such manulactured goods as may be agreed upon." 
 
 Foster's Disloyalty. 
 
 Sir, is it to be conceived — can it be possible — that these loyal men and 
 true were ready to ask the Spanish Covernmei • to discriminate against 
 Great Britain in favour of Canada 1 It is an act of disloyalty when 
 we, in order to (obtain the American market, are jjrepared, as we are, 
 t(» discriminate to some extent against England. This is an act of dis- 
 loyalty ; but these gentlemen, saturated as they are with loyalty, can 
 try and induce the Spanish Government to admit Canadian manufac- 
 tured pi-oducts of the same kind. This is what they call loyalty. Sir, 
 loyalty is but a sham in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite. They 
 would be loyal just so far as it suited them, just so far as their loyalty 
 would keep them in office, but if ousted from office they would resort 
 to their old attitude of 1849. There is another pet objection, which 
 is also mentioned in this motion of the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. 
 Desjardins). It is said— and it is a pet objection — that unrestricted 
 reciprocity is not to be tliought of cause that would involve the 
 
20 
 
 assimilation of the Canadian and American tariffs. 
 Unrestricted recipi'ocity can be had 
 
 Tliat I deny. 
 
 t 
 
 WITH OR WITHOUT ASSIMILATION 
 
 of tariffs, but I will go further, I will assume that unrestricted recipro- 
 city cannot be had except by assimilating the two tariffs. Is there 
 anything in that to break the heart of a good solid Conservative who 
 has voted every item of the Canadian tariff and cheered over it ? Is 
 there anything in that to break the heart of the Finance Minister who 
 has brought our tai-iff to the height it has now reached ? Is the dist- 
 ance which separates the tariff of my hon. friend fi-om the taiiff of the 
 Americans so great that it is beyond the capacity of his legs 1 If my 
 hon. friend believes he cannot cover the distance, I tell him he does 
 not do himself justice. Judging of the nimbleness of his limbs by 
 some of his foi-mer acrobatic feats, I can tell him that he can turn still 
 another somersault and sing " God save the Queen " over it. But my 
 hon. friend points to his heart, and says he wishes to keep control of 
 the Canadian tariff in the Canadian Parliament. 
 
 An hon. MEMBEE. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. LAURIER. And I hear, " hear, hear " from some gentle- 
 men on the other side. What use, I ask, has the Canadian Parliament 
 made of its control of our tariff, under the guidance of a Conservative 
 Government if not to copy, meanly to copy the American tariff? 
 There is a magic in words. We all know that the very term " assim- 
 ilation of tariffs " sends hon. gentlemen opposite into a frenzy when- 
 ever it is pi'onounced. I tell tliem, and I challenge contradiction, that 
 their policy for the last fifteen years has been to assimilate the Cana- 
 dian to the American tariff. That has 
 
 BEEN DONE UNDER ANOTHER NAME, ' 
 
 but not the less has it been done. Hon. gentlemen opposite remind 
 me of Monsier Jourdain iu Moliere's comedy Le Jioiityeois (jenfAfl.cnnme. 
 M. Jourtlaine, the hero, is a merchant who has mjide money but whose 
 early education had been somewhat neglected. At the age of lorty 
 and over, he sends foi- a professor of philosophy in order to be in- 
 structed. The professor finds that the philosophy of his pupil is not 
 of a very high order, though perhaps practical. Our hero wishes the 
 professor to aid him in inditing an amorous epistle. Very well," says 
 the professor, " shall it be in verse.'' " No," said the other. " Then 
 '^i will be in prose." " No," again said our hero. " Well," said the 
 professor, " it must be either in prose or in verse because everything 
 that is said or written is either in prose or verse." " What," said M. 
 Jourdaine, " do you mean to tell me that whenever I have said to my 
 handmaid, Nicole, bring me my slippers, and give me my night-cap, 
 this is prose." "Yes," said the professor. "Well, upon my word," 
 said M. Joui-daine, " I have been making prose f'oi- oxer forty years and 
 nevei- so niucli as suspected it. T am much obliged to you for tlie in- 
 formation." In like manner I want to inform hon. gentlemen opposite 
 that for fifteen years they have been assimilating our tariff to the 
 American tariff, and if they are not as grateful to me for giving them 
 
 thei) 
 they [ 
 w;is 
 c(j]>y| 
 a revl 
 
 whicl 
 a puil 
 have' 
 been I 
 
2i 
 
 the information, as M. Jourdaiiie was to his professor, it is because 
 they are not so honest. In 1S77 \v(f liad two courses open t(» us ; one 
 was to continue the i-evenue tariff we had then, and the other was to 
 c(4iy the American tariff. If we had kept on as we began, with 
 a revenue tariff, undoubtedly we would 
 
 NOT HAVE THE LARGE PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 which we can boast of now; but we would be aV>le to boast to-day of 
 a pure)' name than we now enjoy. Undoubtedly our revenue would not 
 have been so large, but corruption would not be as rampant as it has 
 been proved to be. Undoubtedly we would not have so many million- 
 aii'es, but we would have a mf)re general and even distribution of 
 wealth. But hon. gentlemen opposite, good, loyal men, were dazzled 
 by the career of the United States. Even at that time there was a 
 settled conviction that the natural market for Canada is the great 
 republic to the south of us. What was it that pix)mpted the Tories of 
 1849 to adopt the policy of annexation? It was not hostility to Eng- 
 and. I will not do them the injury of ascribing such a sentiment to 
 them. It was because they were convinced the American market could 
 not be had otherwise. In 1877 theie was, as there has been at all 
 time, and as there is to-day, the conviction in the minds of the people 
 that the natural market for Canada was the American market. Then, 
 what was the policy adopted 1 It was i-ecipiocity of trade or recipro- 
 city of tariffs. Sir, these were by-words in those days. Reciprocity 
 of trade, with whom? With England? No; reciprocity of trade 
 with the United States. Reciprocity of tariff, with whom? With 
 England ? No ; reciprocity of tariff with the United States. In the 
 name of com.mon sense, I ask, what was that, if not assimilation of 
 our tariffs with that of the Americans ? The motto which was dis- 
 played on every public occasion at that time was : Reciprocity of tariff 
 or reciprocity of trade ; and the language used was this : We are ready 
 and willing to trade with the Americans. If they will lower their 
 barrier, we will lower ours. If they will not, we will build up a bar- 
 rier as " high as theirs. What was that. Sir, if not assimilating our 
 tariff to the American tariff? I remember 
 
 THE CATCH PHRASE IN VOOUE 
 
 at that time among hon. gentlemen opposite. They did not want a 
 single-handed-jug policy, they wanted two handles ; the Americans had 
 one handle of the jug, and they wanted to hold the other. What was 
 that, again, if not assimilating the American tariff to ours ? But for 
 fear it might be supposed by the younger men of this generation that 
 I am not representing things as they are, let me quote the speech of 
 Sir John Macdonald, which was the gospel of that day, delivered at 
 Compton on the 17th of July, 1877 : 
 
 " Although Messrs. Alexander Mackenzie, George Brown and others of that 
 free trade stripe tell us, 'Do not Irritate the United States; do not annoy them; 
 by-and-by they will come to their senses and let us go into their markets.' The 
 people ol the United States know bettor. They say; 'Why should we open our 
 markets to you ? You have already upend yours to us.' The way to meet them 
 

 22 
 
 Is to say: • What! s sauce for the goose Is sauce for the gander.' (Cheers and 
 laughter.) The only way is to tell them: " If yon can stand It, we can; if yon 
 keep HH out of your mnrkets, wo can keep you out of ours.' (Cheers.) Until we 
 have the pluck and inanlinehs to adopt their policy; until we give up that cring- 
 ing attitude (for which I am afraid I am somewhat blameablo, because I w^s In 
 power when the reciprocity treaty ended, and I am afraid I went loo far to have 
 it renewed) the present state of affairs will continue. Long, long ago, I gave up 
 that attitude, and I said : To get reciprocity, wo must give them a touch of eqality; 
 we must give thorn a taste of what we get ourselves." 
 
 What was that if not assimilating our tariff to the Americans ? 
 Sir John Macdonald continued : 
 
 Then 
 
 " I believe they were quiet willing to return to the old reciprocity treaty of 
 1864, but no, the farmers on the whole line, from Maine to Wisconsin, rose to their 
 might and told the Congress of the United States, that it was as much as their posi- 
 tions were worth to renew that treaty, and we were told that no matter what the 
 desire of the American Government might be, the farmers of the whole northern 
 belt, from east to west, had resolved there should be no renewal of the reciprocity 
 treaty. I gave it up from that moment. Why, there are 40,000,000 of people. If 
 these 40,000,000 are afraid of the competition that our 4,000,000, in Canada would 
 produce in their markets, what would wo say ? If our products can affect the 
 markets of 40,000,000, how much more will the products of 40,000,000 affect ours ? 
 It is not a matter ot doubt, but of cortainty — wo are to have this country developed, 
 if we are going to make this great country what the United States can make theirs, 
 we must take a leaf out from their book. (Cheers.) I told them in the House and I 
 tell you now, it cannot be called a retaliatory or vindicative policy to adopt their 
 tariff. It Is said the truest and most sincere flattery you can bestow on a man is 
 to imitate what he does. Wo will say tx) the United States: • We were freetraders ; 
 we took our cue from the ir ther country. We did not recognize the difference be- 
 tween the circumstances of un old country and a new one like ours, but we see you 
 are wiser than we were. We will pay you the compllmentof saying we were wrong 
 and you were right, and we will do to you as you do to us.' " 
 
 Following Yankee Example. 
 
 I ask again what, in the name of common sense, was that if not assim- 
 ilating our tariff to the American tariff? and to do the hon. gentlemen 
 opposite the full justice to which they are entitled, I must say that 
 they were as good as their word. They won the election on this policy 
 of the assimilation of our tariff to the American tariff. The average 
 of the American tariff at that time being 40 per cent., they raised our 
 tariff to an average of 35 per cent. — not a bad commencement — and 
 from year to year since that day the Finance Minister has been adding 
 bar after bar to the barrier which we have raised against the United 
 States in order to make our tariff as close as possible to the American 
 model. And now these gentlemen who have adopted this policy in the 
 past/ pretend to be shocked because unrestricted reciprocity, they say, 
 would involve an assimilation of tariffs between the two countries. 
 There is one thing which would be niost objectionable. I do not wish 
 to give the control of our trade policy to the Americans. I am in 
 favour of unrestricted reciprocity as much as anyone, but if unrestricted 
 reciprocity is only to be had at the cost of anything derogatory to the 
 honor of Catuida, I am against it. But what difference would it be 
 whether the Canadian Parliament raised the tariff to the height of the 
 American tariff from the position in which we find ourselves to-day ? 
 It is almost done already, and, if this would involve an assimilation of 
 tarifis, the Parliament of Canada would 
 
 •MiwiHUilitu 
 
s.^ 
 
 .' (Cheers and 
 re can; if you 
 ors.) Until we 
 up that orlng- 
 ecause I w^h In 
 too far to have 
 ago, I gave up 
 ouch of eqality; 
 
 leans ? Then 
 
 oclty treaty of 
 In, rose to their 
 ch as their posi- 
 atter what the 
 (vhole northern 
 the reciprocity 
 ) of people. If 
 Canada would 
 can affect the 
 00 affect ours? 
 ntry developed, 
 m make theirs, 
 he House and I 
 to adopt their 
 w on a man is 
 sre freetraders ; 
 ic difference be- 
 but we see you 
 we were wrong 
 
 if not assim- 
 gentlemen 
 ist say that 
 n this policy 
 rhe average 
 sy raised our 
 leinent — and 
 been adding 
 the United 
 i American 
 policy in the 
 they say, 
 countries, 
 do not wish 
 I am in 
 unrestricted 
 itory to the 
 kvould it be 
 eight of the 
 ves to-day ? 
 imilation of 
 
 NOT HAVE A VKKY HAHI) WORK 
 
 l)efore it, and, judging from the experience of the past, judging from 
 the last stroke of policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, V>y 
 which, because the McKinley tariff reduced the duty on sugar, he has 
 done the same, T do not tliiiik it would be hard for him to bring alx)ut 
 an assimilation in tariffs. Let me say this definitely. There is no in- 
 tention in the breast of any Canadian on this side of the House to 
 surrender to the American Government one iota of our rights. If the 
 Americans will give us reciprocity on the lines which we advocate, 
 that is, that each nation shall preserve its independence commercially 
 as well as politically. I am in favftur of it, but if unrestricted reci- 
 procity is to be determined, as suggested by my hon. friend from West- 
 moreland (Mr. Wood), by a conunission on which the Americans would 
 be represented by thirteen and the Canadians by one, I am as much 
 opposed to it as he is. All I have to say to my hon. friend from West- 
 moreland (Mr. Wood) on this subject is that, when the day comes, 
 which is not far distant, when the Libei-al i)arty will send commission- 
 ers to Washington to negotiate a treaty, we cannot choose my hon. 
 friend as one of the diplomats. T have every confidence in him as a 
 business man, but as a diphjmat, judging from the specimen of his 
 diplomacy which he has given us here, I have no faith in him at all. 
 We will send men who are prepared to 
 
 STAND BY THE RIGHTS OP CANADA, 
 
 and not only do I not fear that the Americans would try to trample 
 over us, but I believe they would meet us in a manly way as we are 
 prepared to meet them. Another objection is raised, which is the 
 pet objection of the Minister of Finance, and that is the question of 
 revenue. His heart is harrowed as to what would become of poor 
 Canada under unrestricted reciprocity. If hon. gentlemen opposite 
 are prepared to tell us that that is their only objection, that were that 
 objection removed they would have no other one to raise, I would not 
 hesitate to tell them where we would get our revenue. But they are 
 inveterate sinners. If that difhculty is removed, they will fall back 
 on another, and when the other is removed they will discover one more. 
 They will not be convinced. They will for ever remain blind. What 
 would we lose in the way of revenue ? We would lose first of all the 
 revenue we now get from our importations from the United States, 
 which amount to a little over $7,000,000. 
 
 Mr. foster. $8,100,000. . 
 
 Mr. LAURIER. Well, say $8,000,000. Then we would remove 
 from the shoulders of the people of this country $8,000,000 of taxa- 
 tion. Hon. gentlemen have taken some credit because they have 
 recently removed as they say $3,500,000 of taxation. Let us say we 
 will remove $8,000,000 from the shoulders of the people. Would it 
 be a very extraordinary feat in finance to 
 
 FILL UP THIS GAP THUS CAUSED 
 
 in the treasury ? I do not pretend to be a financial man myself, but 
 
24 
 
 from plain common sense and Judging from the experience we hav3 had 
 during this session, T ask if it is a very extj-aoi-dinary and impossible 
 feat to remove taxation with (me hand and reimpose it with another 
 liand? My hon. fi-iend ctudd remove three millions and a-half of taxa- 
 tion from sugar and impose them on whiskey and tobacco and beer. 
 It seems to me I could do that myself. But my hon. friend will tell 
 me that this is not all we would lose. He will tell me : You will buy 
 more from the United States than you are now buying ; you will buy 
 from the United States goods which ycju are now buying from other 
 nati(ms which now pay duty and which would not pay duty und(!r 
 those circumstances. How much would that be? My hon. friend 
 cannot tell, and I cannot tell. But the basis of unrestricted recipro- 
 city is this — -and if the basis is not true we are all wi'ong — that it 
 would make Canada as prosperous as a peoj)le as the Americans are, 
 and if it will have that effect — and I believe we are situated econom- 
 ically in the same position as the Americans are — then there would be 
 no more difficulty in our levying our necessary revenue from customs 
 and excise than there is for the American people to levy their revenue 
 from customs and excise. The difficulties would not be greater and the 
 same results would apply on one side of the line as now apply (in the 
 other side of the line. These objecti(ms will not stand when they are 
 ventilated. The only objection, perhaps, which can be urged against 
 us is one which T have heard sometimes from business men. We are 
 told that unrestricted reciprocity would 
 
 CREATE A GREAT DISTURBANCE 
 
 of trade. Sir, if unrestricted reciprocity were to be adopted to-morrow 
 in twenty-four hours without further notice, T admit that it would 
 create a great disturbance of trade ; but we propose, when we negoti- 
 ate such a treaty, to do it like sensible men, to give ample notice 
 beforehand, to make a treaty that will come into operation at definite 
 periods gradually, by a sliding scale so as not unduly to affect existing 
 interests, and under those circumstances we have no fear whatever of 
 the result. Sir, some few days ago the hon. member for Muskoka 
 (Mr. O'Brien), whom I regret not to see in his seat, told us that this 
 policy of unrestricted reciprocity was the only plank in our platform ; 
 he alnu)st regretted this was the only plank in our platform, and he 
 said U> us: " Tf y<Hi fail in your endeavours, what will you do?" Sir 
 I do not beliexe we can fail, becau-^e 
 
 JUSTICE AND TRUTH MUST PREVAIL 
 
 in the end, and this policy is founded (m justice and truth, and we shall 
 not fail. But after all, supposing for ai. instant that the United States 
 were not disposed to meet ns like men. suppose they were disposed to 
 b(i overbearing and to exact sacrifices from us which we could not make 
 what would we do in that case? Sir, we would then turn over a new 
 leaf in our book, and 1 say this to the hon. member foi- Mtiskoka, and 
 to those who believe with him, that 1 would b(^ jirejtared then, speak- 
 ing for myself alone, to look into the wvy scheme which he has pro- 
 
25 
 
 posed, the United Empire Trade League. I do not belieA^e in the prin- 
 ciples of the United Empire Trade League for the reason that that 
 scheme limits trade to allegiance, it proposes to malce jjlegiance the 
 basis of trade ; whereas we desire to make trade interests alone the 
 basis of trade. This latter principle seems to me to \)e the most sensi- 
 ble one. Now, those are the objections which are urged against us. 
 We are daily denounced, we are daily assailed, but neither assault nor 
 denunciation will make us deviate one iota from the path which we 
 believe to be the path of truth. 
 
 Canada has ricjiits and Canada has duties. 
 
 In the adoption of our policy we forgot neither the rights nor 
 the duties. From England we exact every right that is due to our 
 manhood; to the United States we will concede nothing which might 
 be derogatory to our national dignity. This double consideration is 
 our inspiration, it is for us the pillar oi ckmd by day and the pillar of 
 lire by night which will guitle ftur course throughout ijiis whole strug- 
 gle until we have reached the goal. 
 
 # 
 
 /;. 
 
 /^/^,