IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 /s {./ A u.. ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 ■AA12.8 |2.5 lU Itt |2.2 £f L£ 12.0 MUt. 1.4 11.6 ^ -^ 7 ' ^p , ; 1 CIHM/IC^IH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituta for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa 1980 Technical Notes / Notes techniques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Physical features of this copy which may alter any of the images in the reproduction are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couvertures de couleur L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurer. Certains dAfauts susceptibles de nuire A la quality de la reproduction sont notte ci-dessous. D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur T P o fl T c o a D Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur D Coloured plates/ Planches en couleur T fi ir D D Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es. tachet6es ou piquies Tight binding (may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin)/ Reliure aerr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure) rrj Show through/ D Transparence Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es h ir u b fl Additional comments/ Commentaires suppidmentaires Original copy restored and laminated. Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents D D Pagination incorrect/ Erreurs de pagination Pages missing/ Des pages manquent n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque n Maps missing/ Des cartes giographiques manquent D Plates missing/ Des planches manquent D Additional comments/ Commentaires supplAmentaires The images appearing here are the best quaiity possible considering the condition and legibiiity of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ► (meaning CONTINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont tt6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de rexempiaire filmA, at en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fllmage. Un des symboles sulvents apparaftra sur la der- nlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: la symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". The original copy was borrowed from, and filmed with, the icind consent of the following institution: Library of the Public Archives of Canada iVIaps or plates 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: L'exemplaire fiimA fut reproduit grAce A ia g6n6rosit6 de i'6tablissement prAteur suivant : La bIbliothAque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour Atre reproduites en un seui clichA sont filmtos A partir de I'angie supArieure gauche, de gauche A droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Le diagramme suivant illustre la mAthode : 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I i I I f '.*• '. i THUESDAf , MIEOH 71%. 1889. $ 'I a i g^^ ni ■■■■■{■ml ■ -. it:'.a,.„„ ' '» I -^- , „ ^TVAWAl r . Wmt^ »oi>,W» <^t»»»'» ^^T>fr«» * Comf^0m^^ or tt^mni^T. :^^ ! .'V, likji). gg'Mtf. ■^jMprt.i-'?' '^■^ r A-^ ili .."**V.j..t^ '^3'>''.#'^*v* ''*''i|^:j|v^«^Pfl^.%*-?-^*^^»-- ^. MtiM. Ss.- tk." -•Wife- s^a tt -*- '.ill ttiTA^ ^< ik.: ! SPEECH OP JOHN CHARLTON, M.P. ON UNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY WITH THE XJISriTED STj^TES, DELIVERED IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, MARCH Tth, 1889. Mr. CHARLTON. Mr, Speaker, I am sorsy to see absent from their pilaces to-night the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whose remarks 1 wish to direct a few words before proceeding with the more important part of the discussion. If the Finance Minister wore present, I would compliment him upon the creditable manner in which ho made hid maiden financial statement, a statement which w^s, I am sure, satisfactory to his friends upon that side of the House, and one which^ on the whole, reflected credit upon him. I hope that the hou. gentleman will bo able to redeem the promises that he has made to the country with reference to preventing ar increase in the public debt, keeping down the expendi^>iie, and engaging in a career of ecouomy that has not oharao* terised the Government's financial history for a few years past. I must warn that hon. gentleman, however, that many iiitluences will be brought to bear to thwart bis laudable purposes in that respect. The party with which he is connected and for whom he acta as Finance Minis- 2 ter, has for many years engaged in the expenditure of money in a lavish manner, and I foar that reformation in that reapeot is scarcely to be hoped for. I only hope that he may be correct in his anticipations, and may bo able to give us an adminiBtraiion of public affairs fluoh as he has promined in his Budget spoooh the other after- noon. With regard to some of his statements 1 Bhall have ocoaeion to refer to them in the course of the few remarks which I shall make to-night. I wieh, also, to re er briefly to a few statements made by the hon. gentle. nan (Air, Tupper) who spoke this cfiernoon. Ho is a worthy son of a worthy sire, and to U8e a common expression which has more force than elegance, he is "a chip of the old block." Bis father, I recollect, some years ago, promised us that about this time we would be having 640 million bushels of wheat annually from the North- West. We have not had the wheat yet, but the son this afteruoon did as much as he possi- bly could to give us the chaff. The hon. gentleman dealt rather severely with my hon. friend at ray right (Sir Kichard Cartwright). I think, however, it scarcely needs any trouble on my part to attempt a defence of that hon. gentleman, whot^e record itself is a sufficient defence, and who is amply capable of defending hinoBelf. The hon. gen- tleman seemed to suppose that becauso the arguments pro- duced on this side of the House to the country had not car- ried the elections of 1882 and in lfc87, that, perforce, wo were wrong. Now, majorities are not always right, minorities are not always wrong. You may advance truth that will. not convince the public, that is more often the case tl in otherwise. But, Sir, there were other reasons that might bo cited to account for the result of those elections, than the arguments presented to the country. We had, for instance, the Gerrymander Act of 1882, by which, in the Province of Ontario, 200,000 Conservatives were enabled to exercise as much power in the elections as 300,000 Eeformers, and which, at least gave to the present Government 12 or 14 seats. We had in 1887 the Franchise Bill, and we h^d called to the aid of the Government, th& revising barrister, and this one Act in 1882, and this other Act in 1887, were sufficient to account for the results ot thcMse elections; and I feel certain but that for the revising barrister's kindly intervention in behalf of the Government in 1886, the Beform party would have carried the eieotionB in this country in 1887. Then the hon. gentleman makes & feeble attempt to defend the Finance Department from the charge of cooking the accounts. Now, Sir, this is useless. It is beyond all controversy that the acoonnts are cooked^ 1 that the book-keeping is of a character that would not bear the investigation of an accountant, that the expenses charge- able to the adminifltration of Dominion lands in the Ncrth- West are charged to capital account, and the receipts are credited to coue^olidated fund ; and in this way and in other ways of that kind, the public accounts are made to represent a result which the facts do not warrant. Wo have his reference to the fact that my hon. friend, as he asserts, had said that in case of war with the United States, we would not be able to secure very great assistance from England. Now, Sir, unfortunately, that is the case. In case of war with the United States, England would be utterly unable to place an armed force upon the frontier between these two coun- tries, adequate to the defence of Canada, The Uuited States, with no greater exertion than was put forth in the rebellion of 1861 to lb6l, could place in the tield an army of 3,000,000 men, and it is folly to talk of England being able to cope with such a force, in British North America, so far from her base of eperations. It is true that, so far as land operations are concerned, England would be unable to afford "to us adequate a-isistance and protection. Then the hon, gentleman refers to the exodus, and he charges upon us responsibility for the exodus from this country. As well charge upon the physician responsibility for the occurrence of the disease because he had given a diagnosis of the case ; as well charge the physician with responsibiHty for the result of a disease whose treatment had been repudiated and not adopted. The Liberal party merely pointed out the causes that led to the exodus. They urged the Govern- ment that these causes should be removed, and they have, in their places in this Qouse, and in their efforts in the country, from time to time, striven to remove the causes that produced this lamentable state of affairs. * fiat so far from responsibility resting upon their shoulders, they merely have labored to the best of their ability to avert the evil results, which unfortnnatly, have fallen upon us in this regard. Then the hon. gentleman accused my hon. friend, at my right, of attacking protection, and then moving a resolution in this Ho ise by which he proposed to double our protection. The hon. <*entleman is evidently nnable to dissociate in his mind the i ^reof the resolutions demand- ing unrestricted reciprocity and commeroiai union. It is not oommeroial anion that is advocated by my hon. friend it is not commercial union thatia asked for by this resolution, bat anrestricted reoiprooity, and anrestrioted reoiprooity would leave in oar hands the entire control of oar own tariff, except in bo far as relatiug to imports and exports between this country and the United States. He sajd that Mr. fiitt and Mr. fiutterworth are protection istn, that they want possession of this market, that they de^^ire to re- duce the people of this country to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Mr. Hitt and Mr. fintterworth, it is true, are protectionists, but the^ desire to lee the scope of free intercourse upon this continent enlarged; they desire to see a policy adopted that will be mutually beneficial and advantageous to their own country and to the Dominion of Canada. They are truly patriotic in their efforts to promote the interests, not only of the United States, but the interests of all the Anglo-Saxon commonwealths upon the continent of North Annorica. He next refers to the income tax, and endeavors to create the impression that my hon. friend, in his refer* ence some time ago to the income tax, had advocated a tax that would press with great severity upon all classes of people in this country, upon the artisan, upon the wage* earner, and upon every class of individuals who have any income at all. That depends entirely upon the character of the income tax; it depends entirely upon the limits to which that income tax comes down. It may be a tax upon incomes of a thousand dollars and upwards, upon two thou* sand and upwards — the limit of the taxable income may be so large as to affect the rich man only — and it was in that sense, as I distinctly remember, that my hon. friend re- ferred to this question. Then we have paraded before us the old stock arguments about a home market. Protection to the industries of the country for the benefit of the far- mer, forsooth 1 Vihjj what is the condition of the farmer in this country to-day ? Living, Sir, in a country which is one of the dearest in the world to purchase in, and oneof the cheapest in the world to sell in, so far as the products of his labor are concerned, selling the products of the soil for very much less than they were sold for during the regime of my hon. friend at my right, struggling with difficulties created by this very party which taxes everything that he produces and reduces the purchasing power of the natural customer to whom he sells his productions, not onjy increases the cost of what he purchases but diminishes the price of what he Eells. Then the hon. gentleman refers to the Intercolonial Bailway, and he tells us that this road has been an immense benefit. Well, in a sense it has. It has been a great benefit to certain coal mine owners ; it has been an enormous benefit to the owners of the Springbill mines, and to-day this road is carrying coal for less than the bare cost of transportation, and is charging other olasBes of freight much higher in proportion than it charges for the transportation of coal ; and in this way it is an immense benetlt to the owners of the coal minen, and it discriminates in favor of those men aod againnt the farmers and producers and other business clast^es of this country. It is said that the road was not built for political reacons. I combat that and I asseit it was. It has cost up to this time over $50,« 000,000, which is an annaal incubus on the o untry. We lose every cent of interest on that sum, amounting to not less than $1,500,000 a year« Mr. MITCHELL. That arises from bad management. Mr. CHARLTON. And in addition it cot is $300,000 or $400,000 yearly, even with the accounts cooked and .•^-ns charged to capital that t-hould bo charged to running expenses of the road, in excess of earnings. The hon. Minister of Marine has told us that the loss in run- ning the road in 1888 was only one-half what it was in 18Y8. There was a difference in the mode of keep- ing the accounts, In 1878 what was charged to ronning expenses came properly under that head, while in 1888 every dollar which by any excuse could be charged against capital account was charged there, in order to reduce nominally the cost of operating the road. Then the hon. gentleman told us that the Liberal party in this House were ashamed, at the beginning of the Session, to speak of unrestricted reciprocity. I am sure my hon. friends to my right and my left will laugh at i>uch an assertion, because the party pledged itself to that issue last year, the party has stood by that issue every day since, and upon that issue > it stands to-day and on that issue it will stand to-morrow, and it will fight this question out on this line to the bitter end, it will go to the country on this question, and it will carry the country on it. No, we were not ashamed of this issue at the beginning of the Session, we are not ashamed of this issue now. My hon. friend has placed this resolution before the House in accordance with a decision the party arrived at within two or three days of the time we oame to Ottawa. The hon. Minister informed the House that they, the Conservative party, the Government party, were still willing to make a fair and liberal treaty with the United States? Are still ready? When have they been williog to make a fair and reasonable treaty ? When have they shown a disposition to meet the United States on fair, liberal and equitable terms ? When have they offered any treaty on any other lines than the Treaty of 185 1, which the Amerioans diflavowed and abrogated in 1868, and which they have told us year after year ever nince thay never would renew on those conditions. And with the assertion staring us in the face that another treaty would not be given us on those conditions, it is Itttle short of an insult to the common sense of hon. members to tell us that the Govern- ment party are ready to make a fair and liberal treaty and are using their utmost efforts to negotiate one. The hon. gentleman quoted from the present Secretary of State of the United States, who has repeated the statement that a treaty with Canala upon the lines of the old treaty was en- tirely inadmissible and was net to I bought of. So much for the position takun by tbo Minister of Marine, and I pass now to the consideration of the question which comes up directly in connection with the motion of tbo hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Eichard Cartwright), It is a question of great importance, it is a question ot greater importance than any other ques- tion that is now before the people of this country, and it is a question of greater importance than any other question which has been before this country for ten years past at least. The Minister of Finance referred to the necessity of securing wider markets, ho referred to the necessity of ex- tending our trade. And how does he propose to do it ? Why, he cannot think of sacrificing the interests of that Bmall circle of individuals who are benefited by the National Policy; he cannot think of sacrificing the interests of men who are useful in election contests, because they are directly interested in maintaining the Government in power, and are ready to pay for that interest. He must maintain the interests of those men, even if he does so at the sacrifice of the interests of nineteen- twentieths of the people of Canada. And he proposes, not to take the great market lying at our very doors, not to take the natural market with 60,u00,000 of customers lying alongside of us, but he proposes to hunt up new markets, to subsidise steamship lines, to construct more railways, to reach China, Japan, India, to go to South America, to open up trade with the Argentine Eepublio, with Patagonia, with the West Indies, to commence trade with Samoa, with Tahiti, to open up trade with Uganda, with the Upper Congo, f.nd other places far distant from us. Yes, that is the panacea of the h', when that reoiprooity was abrogated the country felt the disastrous influence of that abrogation in the severest manner, and there has not been a day since the abrogation of that treaty that Canada has not de- sired its renewal ; there has not been a day since the abro- gation of that treaty wht - it would not be in the highest de- gree desirable, in the light of Canada's interests, to have renewed that treaty ; and,as year after year rolled by, the de* sirability of renewing it became more palpable and greater .^ ■f 9 When the treaty was abroga'ted the Uoiied States had a population, probably, of thirty-five million souls, and to- day that nation has a population of at least sixty-two millions. To-day it has more than double the wealth it had in 1866; to-day it is a much more desirable country, or customer, to deal with than it was in 1866 ; and to-day it is infinitely more desirable to secure reciprocity with the United States in the interests of Canada than it was in 1866. That country with its sixty-two million inhabitants, with its fifty- eight thousand millions of wealth (ten thou- sand millions more than England) with its vast manufac> turing industries, its vast internal oommorco, its immense and growing progress and development, is a desirable customer for us to have ; and, notwithstanding all the restrictions upon trade, notwithstanding the commercial hostility between us, nature asserts itself, our geographical position asserts itself, and the trade of Canada, under all those adverse circumstances with the United States, is greater than the trade of Canada with any other nation of the world. Why is it that we have seen in the past one hundred years so marvellous a development in this country to the south of us. In 1776 thoy commenced with free trade be- tween thirteen States, and as one State after another has been added to that confederation the area and scope of this reciprocal free trade has been extended. The number of States banded together in this zollverein, or this customs union if you may term it so, have increased from 13 to 42. The population under this anangement has increased from three millions to sixty-two millions, and, as population has increased, ati the number of States have been increased, as the scope of the operation of these free trade infiuenoes have been extended, their beneficent character has become more and more apparent. Does any man suppose that if tariffs had existed between each of these States, or if the States were divided into groups with a tariff between one group and another, that we would have seen that development which has taken piaco in the United States within the last hundred years. No man of sense will assert that such would have been the case. This country with its different zones, its great variety of climate, its great variety of production — a country embracing within its own limits almost all the productions of the known world, —was a magnificent field for the operation of free trade, for the development of the influences and results that flow from free trade attd notwithstanding that their own fiscal policy with regard to other countries has been faulty yet , 10 the advanfages of free intercommunication between all these States has been so great, that we see the results before us to-day in the accumnlation of its great power, its greater wealth than any other country in the world, in its greater extent of manufactures than any other country in the world, and its ability to raise a greater revenue and under- go a greater stress in that respect than any other power in Christendom. To-day, Sir, we in Canada are situated outside of that magic circle. My friend the Minister of Finance the other night depicted in glowing and very powerful terms the repressing results of the existence of tariffs between the various Provinces comprising this Dominion before Con- federation,' He pointed out how those barriers upon trade restricted commercial transactions between the Provinces, bow great since the removal of those tariffs have been the developments of internal commerce, and now beneficient had been the consequence of that removal of the tariffs between the Provinces now comprising the Dominion. It struck me as being singular that hon. gentleman could not have gone further and realised how great would bo the advantage of sweeping away the tariff over a still wider area, how great would be the advantage of removing the tariff not only between the seven Provinces of Confederation but between these seven Provinces and the 42 States of the American Union and having a free intercourse between 49 commonwealths instead of seven. I think the argu- ment is one that he cannot fail to see th 3 force of. If the removal of trade restrictions is good for seven common- wealths it is better still for 49. If the seven Provinces derive advantages from unimpeded commercial transactions, the widening of that circle and the introduction of a greater number of commonwealths to that circle, through which free communication was the rule, would be conferring still greater advantages than those he pointed out in the case of the provinces comprising this Dominion. The position of our Canadian Provinces with regard to the United States is a })eculiar one. There is a stretch of conterminous lino from ocean to ocean. There is no moun- tain barrier between the two countries, there is no natural barrier of any character whatever, but they lie facing each other, and the very rivf^rs and inland seas that spread along a portion of this lino instead of being obstructions and bar- riers invite trade, and serve as highways for inter- communication from one to the other, and in spite of all those restrictions do secure an enormous burden of commerce between these two great countries. Now, Sir, if you look at the map, you will find that the T U Dominion of Canada is divided into foar distinct geographi* cal Bectionp, The Maritime Provinces are separated from Qaebeo and Ontario by a wide stretch of rocky, uninhab- ited country j Ontario and Quebec are separated from the fertile belt of the North- West by nearly a thousand miles of wilderness which is almost worthless for agricultural pnrposes ; the fertile region of the North-West is separated from British Columbia by a wide stretch of plain and moun- tain. These four geographical areas are distinct from each other i and in its geographical aflfinities each one is more a part of tbe United States for commercial purposes than a part of this Dominion. Take, for instance, the Maritime Provinces : The State of Maine projects like a wedge northward, separating them from the rest of Canada, and almost reaching the Si. Lawrence. To carry on trade transactions between New Brunswick or Nova Scotia and Quebec we have to use the Intercolonial Railway for hun- dreds of miles; while these Provinces can reach with faciU ity such markets as Portland, Boston, New York, Philadel- phia and Baltimore for a tithe of th^ cost which is today required to reach Quebec. The potatoes of Prince Edward Island can be laid down in Boston for five cents a bushel, or a little more; coal, lumber and all the other productions of these Provinces can be carried very cheaply to the great seaboard cities of the United States. The natural geographical affinity between these countries com- pels trade, notwithstanding tariff restrictions and com- mercial hostility ; and if thase restrictions were removed an enormous trade would be the result. Then, we take Quebec, possessing the gateway of the great lakes, the natural out- let of the vast country ^to the west ; and but for commercial hostility and restrictive tariffs the trade of that country would have gone down the St. Lawrence to the sea, and 300 miles of artificial water communication between Lake Erie and the Hudson River would, perhaps, never have been built. Before the construction of that water route, all the trade of western New York, Ohio and the west wont down the St. Lawrence ; and Montreal might have con- tinued to enjoy that trade, and might have been one of the great commercial centres of the continent to-day ; but for commercial hostility it might have been the imperial gate- way of the mighty west. But Montreal stands to-day on the St. Lawrence, with all its magnificent advantages and its magnificent site, a third-rate city. Quebec .has easy access to the great commercial centres of the United States by the Richelieu River, Lake Champlain, Whitehall Canal and the Hudson River to New York, and by railway lines iflP^HH" 12 ! t she can easily reach Portland, Boston and New York. All thcHo great conti es are at her very door ; thene are her nataral markets ; hor gcoirraphical affiniticH are with the Middle and Baetorn States* Then, if w j come wist to Ontario, we find that conditions compelling trade with the country to the south are still more potent. Wo find this groat Province resting upon four great inland seas, with the waters of Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior, washing her shores from XingstOQ to Port Arthur. We find this Province projecting like a wedge 420 miles south into American territory, from the 49th nearly to the 42nd parallel. We find that the commerce of Michigan, of Chicago, and the country west of Chicago, finds its hhorteat route to the ocean across the territory of this Province. We find new lines pushing to the Sault Sto. Mario, and leading across this Province to the sea. Wo find lincp from Minneapolis, from St. Paul, from Duluth and from Pembina con- verging at the Sault; and wo find, on looking at the map, that the shortest pofisiblo route from northern Michigan, northern Wisconwin, Minnesota, north and south Dakota, Montana, and a portion of Nebraska, to the seaboard, is right across the territory of this Province, from the Sault Ste. Marie eastward. Why, it iB the geographical key to tho energetic zone of this continent, that country lying between the 3Sth and 46th parallels of latitude, with its great centres of population, development and wealth. Ontario, I say, possesses the geographical key to this great region. She can reach with her prodaoLions, by means of this great line of inland seas, and with her rail- way lines, the great markets of this continent, with the utmost facility and ease; and her position for reaching these m'arkets is better than the position of Michigan, Indiana, or any portion of iho American territory to the west of those States ; and notwithstanding repression and restriction, she has a vast commerce with the great American centres of population. Why, within a few hours' ride of her eastern border in New York, with 3,000,000 inhabitants within 20 miles of its city hall ; two or three hours further on is Phila- delphia, with a million inhabitants ; a few hours further to the east is Boston, with 300,000 or 400,000 people ; close by is Buffalo, with a quarter of a million, Bochester with 100,000, and Albany with 100,000 ; just across Lake Brio is Cleveland, with 300,000; just across the boundary of her western peninsula is Detroit, with 175,000; and within easy reach of her western territory is Chicago, with 900,000 inhabitanta. I repeat that her geographical position enables her to obtain access to all these centres of population with W4e4^ 13 greater facility than any of the Woetern States, oxoept Ohio. Now, Mr. Spoakor, am 1 to Jbo told, is any sane n^an to be told, that this great Province, with its 200,000 square miles of territory,with its immense stretch of sea coast, with its agri- caltnral, its mineral and its timber resources, would not be vastly benefited by sweeping away those restrictions that separate it from its natural market ? ' Why, Sir, it is pre- posterous to make such an asFortion. To cons: V the question for five minutes is sufficient to convince any . oason- able man Ihat vast advantages would be secured to this Province by free access to the markets to the south of us. Then, we pass on to Manitoba and the North-West, and here again we have to pass through a wilderness of a thous- and miles which separates that country from the settled portion of the Dominion to the east. Here we find a coun- try which is a natural part of the Missif^sippi Valley. Al- most a rebellion was provoked in Manitoba because its people were not able to secure access to the markets lying in tne Bouth. Their trade naturally tends to such cities as St. Paul, Minneapolis and Chicago ; and notwithstanding ail the restrictions placed upon it, an immense and ever grow- ing trade has sprung up between Manitoba and the North- West and those cities. And when we pass on to British Columbia, what do we find there? Why, nature decrees that British Columbia must have extended trade relations with Washington, Oregon and California. These are com- monwealths in the same geographical group as herself. To carry on commerce with the east necessitates crossing five ranges of mountains and a thousand miles of plain at great cost ; the incurring of this expenditure for transporta- tion is unnatural. Trade hy this outlet must be forced, and natural conditions compel British Columbia to trade exten- sively with the throf American States on the Pacific slope ; and to remove all the restrictions existing between British Columbia and these States would be to confer untold ^ benefits on the former. Take these four geographical groups of the Dominion — the Maritime Provinces, the Provinces of Qaebec and Ontario, the Province of4faDitoba and the Territories of the North West and British Colum- bia — nature has decreed that each one of the four shall trade more naturally and on more advantageous terms w'ith the country to the south of the line thar. with any other geographical group in the Dominion. Now, I say in each nature asserts itself, notwithstanding the policy of my hon. friend and his party, as shown in our trade returns of last year. Our imports for consumption from, and our exports to the United Statts acii other countries in 1888, were as follows : — :'l < I j 14 United States ,.,^^ $91,053,91S Great Britain 79,383,705 ' Another countries 22,612,482 $193,060,100 Our imports for consumption during the same year were : From United States. $18,481,848 do Great Britain 39,'i!9ti,7^1 do all other countries 15,066,631 $!0^,847,100 Our exports wore : To United States ^ $42,572,065 Great Britain 40,084,984 All other countries 7,645,951 $90,203,000 And this in spite of hostile tariffs — this by virtue of the decrees of nature and geography, and in spite of the policy of hon gentlemen on the opposite side. We imported from the United States over 89,000,000 worth of goods more than we did from Great Britain, and we exported to the United States $i,500,000 worth of goods more than we did to Great Britain, by virtue of the inexorable decreet of nature and geography* We had a period, as I said a few moments ago,'ot twelve years free trade with the United States, and during that period our trade with the United States developed to an extent which must teach a lesson that cannot fail to be understood, l^eciprocity was brought about in 1854. We began in 1854 with an export trade to the United States of 810,473,000. That was without the stimulating effect of free trade. The next year, under free trade, that export had risen ♦^ $19,316,000, an increase of $y, 000,000 — an increase of neiu ly 100 per cent, in one year under the operation oi free trade ; and during the twelve years, from 1854 lo 1866, that export trade to the United States increased from $10,473,000 to $39,950,000— an increase of 280 per cent, in twelve years. That included all the Pro- vinces now comprised in the Dominion. In 1851, the exporta of Old C»nada to the United States amounted to $8,649,000 ; the next year, under free trade, they jumped to $16,727,000 ^ and in 1866 they reached $34,770,000. And this, wiihoat estimating shortage in inland returns, which were very much less in 1854 than in 1866. Now, with an iocrease of trade between the various Provinces of this Dominion of 280 per cent, in those twelve years, with an increase of trade between Old Canada and the United States of over 300 per oent. in the twelve years under free trade, I wish to contrast the condition of oar trade since then under the M I fi Tfiin 15 policy of protection ; but before doing bo, I will eay that had the annual increase between 1855 and 186 i been main- tained to the present time, our exports to the United States alone would ladt year have reached $9j,000,OC9, and had the ratio of increase been maintained in the twenty-two years foUowjrg the abrogation of the treaty, that was maintained during the twelve years of the operation of the treaty, our exports to the United States last year would have exceeded $150,000,000. Mr. BOW ELL. Hear, heai\ Mr. CHARLTON. My ban. friend may smile, but I believe the exporlH would have been greater than are indicated by this calculation. Now, against this increase of $29,476,000, or an actual increase, estimating the inland returns shortage, which was $2,413,000 greater in 1866 than 1855, of $31,- 490,000 during this period of free trade— what have we to say with regard to the increase of trade since ? Our ex- ports last year were only $2,620,000 greater than in 1866, or, deducting difiference in shortage at inland ports between 1855 and 1866, our increase in exports in 1888, as compared with 1866, was but $1,622,000 against e31,490,0J0 in the 12 years during the operation of the treaty. This fact speaks volumes, and needs no comment. If the one policy gave this country an increase in exports ot $i 1,490, 000 in 12 years, and the other policy gave in 22 years an increase of $1,622,000, the two facts placed side by side, tell their own story, and need no comment. Great as were the advan- tages this country derived from free trade, those advan- tages were minimised by certain currency troubles that existed in the United States, at the close of the rebellion. From 1862 to 1866, the reckless gambling in gold, the de- preciation of American currency, the reduction in the pur- chasing power of that currency, greatlj dimioished the advantages that this country would have derived from free tradb had there been stable currency in the United States ; and when the Reciprooity Treaty was abro- gated, almost immediately following that event came a more stable condition of American currency and a revival of business in that country, and an improvement in trade in consequence of that revival. We had the good effects of reciprocity minimised by this condition of currency, and we had the evil effects of the abrogation of the treaty for the first few years minimised by the return of the United States to a sounder currency ; but even with these evils minimis- ing the advantages in the one o&se and the disadvantages in the other, the results, as I have explained them to you. / ^«S=! I !S^ 16 strikingly illuetrate the great advaDtages to be derived by this country from free intercoarse with the United States. What do our farmers remember about the years during ihe years which tlio Reciprocity Treaty was in operation ? Talk with any farmer who lived then, and he will tell you of the oxoolleut markets we had for oar produce and cattle and stock. He will tell you that buyers ewarmed in the coun- try, ho will tell you that there was at active demand for everything he bad — and these are the days the farmers look back to &a the bright days in the history of their country, these are the days they desire to see oome again, and these are the days they are going to vote to have come again. These are the days that my hon. friend's resolution promises shall come to them again, and they will try that resolution, at all events, before they are convinced that they cannot have them again. My hon. friend in his speech the other night showed, 1 was sorry to see, that he did not know anything of a definite nature about the volume of our internal commerce. He told us it was great, I believe it is great. Internal commerce is naturally very much greater than external commerce. We have a large rail- way mileage, we have an extensive business done on thosa railways, we have extensive transactions between the various Provinces of this Dominion -and also between various portions of the same Province, and I have no doubt that the internal commerce of Canada is a very large one, and I have no doubt further that, if the area over which our commercial transactions exist was ox- tended, those transactions would be increased over that area, and I think it is easily dem<;^,nstrated that the in- ternal commerce of the United States is in proportion very much greater than our own. In the report of Mr, Switzler, the chief of the Bureau of Statistics in the United States, the last report made, we find a rather astounding calculation. I col " s it startled me. It may be exaggerated or not, but ±i, is made in an official document of th<^ United States, and that statement is that the internal commerce of the United States in 1887 amouqted to $32,874,000,090. That is 360 times greater than the commerce of Canada with the United States, it is 170 times greater than the commerce of Canada with all the world. It is true that this is an enormous figure. It is two and e half times larger than the export and import trade of the world in 1880. It is twenty-five times more than the import and export trade of the United States in 1886. Whether it is closely correct or not, it shows how 17 vast is the volnme of commerce which couraea through the basinePB veins of Ibt^t groat oonntry, and enlivens and vivifies the groat induHti ies within its borders. If one will stop to consider how grand a theatre for unfettered oommeroial intercoufHe is iarnished by tbo northern part of the Amer- ican continent, he can never for !\ moment imagine that the policy of our hon. friend opposite ir a policy conceived in the interest of the country. Take this vast country, stretching from, the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, with its great sweep of sea coast — the Mexican Gulf sea cr.ast, the Atlantic sea coast, all along the States and along Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, along the coast of Labrador and up to the Arctic Ocean, and then the line of ocast from Behring's Straits to the State of California— take that great country with its intercommunication by meanH of its rivers and inland seas — the Mifisissippi system with its 16,000 miles of navigation, the rivers flowing into the Atlantic, the St. Lawrence, the Mackenzie, the Yukon, the inland seas and all those great arteries of communication stretch- ing throughout that country in every direction, and fur- nishing the moans of intercommunication; take all the range and varieties of climate which exist from the sub- tropic climate to the Arctic ; take its variety of products and consider that every known pr^uotion on the face of the globe can be obtained within its boundaries ; take its mines, its forests and its fisheries, its railway development, and estimate what will be the future of this great country and Hs future population when it has a population to day of sixty-seven millions. It is destined to be the seat of the greatest empire the world has* seen, the home of civilisa- tion. The best hope of humanity are centered upon this great land ; and the future development of the wealth and population of this country will be beyond our knowledge and beyond our imagination. We are now outside of this union, and we have been invited to participate in the advan- tages which may result from the intercourse which should take place between us ; and I say that every consideration of self-interest should induce us, if nothing else would, to break down the trade barriers which exist between us. Let those barriers be broken down, aild the ever-expanding and cumulative forces of trade intercourse cannot stop at the boundary but will go on increasing for the advantage of both parties to the agreement. Wo have nothing to keep us apart in connection with race distinctions. The French in Loasiana and the Anglo-Saxons in the other States get along easily enough and without difficulty ; so also we trust will the French of Qnebec and the Anglo-Saxons of North 2 i, < i 1 1 t ■ ~1 1 \ 1 I i i I 18 ' Amerios. Wo have Babstantially the Hame institations as- they have. We have a common langaage. We have simi- lar laws. We have religiouB affinities with oar neigh borp. There is nothing to prevent these two coaotties from living together in peace and amity, as far as their commercial relations are concerned. What are the forces which fight against the continuance of the barriers which impede trade ?* What are the forces which forbid that these two countries shall remain in a state of commercial hostility with one another ? They are geogranhy, nature, racial affinity, buf^iDess interest, common sol. te, and the intermingling of the two peoples. We have now at least a million native Canadians in the United States, we have from a million and a quarter to a million and a half of the descend* ants of Canadians in that country. Do they exercise any influence on the opinion of that great people ? Wo have perhaps half a million of foreign immigrants who have gone there after coming to this country, and that is a mighty force which is drawing these two countries more and more together, and is impressing on the mind of both countries the desirability of free commercial intercourse and the absurdity ot maintaining the con> dition of things which now exist. I assume, then, that free intCrcourte is desirable, and perhaps I will enter a little more fully later into some particular reasons why it is desirable.' I ass t now that the Government of this country show practically no sense ot the importance of this ques- tion. I assert that they are trifling with the people of this country, that they are making an assertion that they have sought diligently to obtain free commercial relations with them, when they know, and every man of sense knows, that these overtures were made in a direc- tion that they knew were fore-ordained to failure. They have professed to make overtures for free trade relations upon lines which they have been told again and again woald never be accepted, they have studiously refrained from making overtures upon any line which was likely to be successful, and they have shown clearly and unmis* takably that they do not want to have free trade relations and would not take them on any obtainable terms ; bat they seek to allay the feeling in the country in favor of this exchange of trade by professing that they are seeking for and aro desiroas of free trade refations, and that they will obiain them as soon as the United States will grant them OD reasonable and equitable terms. Well, Sir, they will never get them. ' 19 Some hon. MEMBERS. Uear, hear. * Mr. CHARLTON. They will never get Ihem, becanso they will not saciifiee the iDterests of a Hmall minority of the population of thin country that are bloodiug the majority, they will not Hacriflce their intereHts for the interests of the millions of this country. They have been placed in power by a little clique of munufucturerH, by a hmall favored ring, lor whom the (^rovernment legislate, and whote interests are paramount, in the estimation of this Government, to the interests of the farmer, the lumberman, the ship owner, the fisherman, and the laborer ; and for that reason they will never ^et it because th»y will never seek for it on terms upou which ihey can obtain it. They have been Invited to oonr.o and got it. 1 have in my hand an invitation from the mouthpiece of the American nation, from their Minister of Foreign Affairs, to an hon. gentleman who no longer has a seat in this II use. A plainer and more urgent invitation to open negotiations with a view to obtaining freer trade relations, never was preferred by one country to another, a letter of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of St-ate of the United State, written on the 3l8t. May, IfcbT, to " My dear Sir Charles." Some hon MEMBERS. Oh, Ob. Mr. CHARLTON. Yes; it U a bad pill for our friends, and 1 do not wonder that it extorts from them that express sion of agony and pain. Mr. Bayard says: "It is evident that the commercial iatercourse between the inbab- itauta of OanadA and those of the Doited States has grown into too vast proportiona to be exposed much longer to thia wordy triangular duel, and more direct and re^poueible metboiis should be resorted to. Yoar own able, earnest and patriotic serviois in the Governmeut and Parlia* mem ot the Dominion are well known, and afford ample proof cf your comprehension of the resources, rapidly increasing intereats, and needs of tiritieh North America On the other hand, I belieye I am animated by an equal desire '. "^ serve my own country, and trust to do it worthily. The ii6meaiate difficulty to be settled is found in the Treaty of 1818 betw»ien the United 8tatea and Oreat Britain which has been quettio Vfxata ever since It was concluded, and to-day is suffered to interfere wiib and eeriously embarrass the good understanding of both countriea in th ■ important oomm^-rcial reUtious and interests which have come into beitg since it« mtification, and for the adjustment of which it ii wholly iuaiequate, as has bt^en unhappily proved by the events of the. past two years I am confident we both seek to attain a Just and per- manent settlement — and there ie but one way to procure it-~*ad that ii by a straightforward treatment on a liberal and statesmanlike plan of the entire cummercial rt-laticns of the two countries. 1 nj oommer- oial because I do not propose to include, however, ind'..eoti7, or by aof intendment, however, partial or oblique, the political ralations of Canada ana the United Statei, nor to effect the legislative indepen- dence ol either country." so Now, 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, in not that an overture inviting this country to enter upon negotiations for tho purpose of securing a modification, at least, of tho trade roAtrictioos existing between the two countries? I at^k if that is not an overture that should have been responded to, if wo had received it in a proper spirit, by an attempt, at least, to secure this modification of trade restrictions? Sir, I assert that it was an overture which was not met in the right spirit, and that no attempt was made by the Government of this country to meet Mr. Bayard on the lines that would have secured a modification of these trade restrictions— I assert that broadly On the contrary, this Government has pursued tovards the United States a policy of irritatioti, a policy of irritation characterised by the mode in which the fishery regulations were enforced, which 1 do not need to allude io more particularly, as it has been alluded to already. This spirit of irritation has been manifested in other respects ; it has been manifested in the treatment of the question of canal tolls. We have imposed upon vessels passing through the Welland Canal a toll of 20 cents a ton, and we have granted a rebate to those vessels going to the port oi Montreal ot 18 cents a ton. We have discriminated against the American commerce passing through that canal to the extent of 18-20, and that in face of that fact that our shipping has been permitted to ufo the Sault Ste. Marie Canal, an expensive work, costing over five million dollars, entirely free of charge. For years, ever since tho construction of that canal, the United States Gov- ernment has kept it in repair, and furnished a 1^ rce to op- erate its locks ; and every Canadian vessel that has passed through that canal has done so without payment of a cent. The same with the St. Clair Flats Canal; the same with the improvements of the Lime Kiln Crossing, and its expensive works which the American Government have permitted us to use entirely free of charge. In return for this neighborly conduct, we levy upon their commerce passing through the Welland Canal 20 cents a ton, and we discriminate against commerce going to their ports, by rebating 18 cents of that 20 cents a ton to all vessels going to Montreal. Sir, that is not neighborly treatment. Then, when we granted the free Jidmission of fruits, we destroyed entirely all evidences of friendly feeling and kindliness of spirit in this matter ' i that poor little contemptible tax of one cent a oasket on the baskets in which the frtiit comes; and the collection of that tax, I am told by fruit importers, in some cases led to serious loss on whole car loads of fruit. They were side-tracked, in order to 21 the jnsive edus 3orly h the ^ainBt that lat is efree ences this one fruit told iS on ier to go thrcagh the formalities of a customs entry; the owner lo some point in Oittario woold he required to come down and enter them, and by the time ho had got through the entry and- paid the one oent a basket on his purchase, the fruit, especially in the c&bb of poachefi, would be badly dam* aged in conseqaence of the delay. I have a letter in my pocket to that effect. No doubt this tux cannot yield anything of any cor8equenco; nuvertheloHS it is irritating in its character, more so perhaps than it would be if an amount of revenue of any coBequonce was realised from it, and it seems to me that nothing could have been more im- politic than the petty cheese-paring spirit manifested. Wo had this spirit manifested the other day in respect to a few ouilors coming over from Buffalo to engage in a friendly game with another party at Toronto, an'^ bringing with them an iUuminated address. They were required to give bonds that their curling stones would not be kept in Canada but would be carried back, and they were charged $1.75 duty oh their illuminated address that they wore going to prosen* to the curling club in Toronto. Well, it is $1.75 gained for the Government and bad feelini? engendered. I do not think this is wii^e conduct; I do not thin'c we are making enough, in the shape of revenue, to compensate for the effect upon friendly relations between the two oountries, by these small affairs. Thon wo have the raisii ^ of invoices. I know of one case where a party who wished to import certain malleable goodt^, went to the parties producing the goods in this country and offered them the cost of these goods with the entire amount of duty added. It was refused, and he imported the goods, and the Customs placed its own valuation upon thof^e goods and made him pay duty on 50 per cent, more than their cost. This is not the kind of policy that produces good feeling, it is not a kind of policy that is commendable or politic. Then we are greatly interested in sending fresh fi^h to the United States free of duty. We import a small amount of fresh fish from the Uniter* States, and we impose a duty of half a oent a pound on tuis fish, jeopardising the whole vast trade of this country with the United States in fresh fish — another s] 3oimen of the wisdom of the Government in their man t^ement of international relations. There has been, I am sorry to say, *"> unfriendly spirit manifested in many things. The* Amv . ^oans believa that spirit is un- friendly, and these manifestations have provoked resent- ment of a very serious character. It is believed in the United States that we have purposely made our fishery regulations oppressive and troublesome for the purpose of "7r=^ 22 extorting from them concessions, and, naturally, they say : " We will see you further before we will give you any con- cessions under these circumstances." If our friends will re^d iEsop's Fables , , Mr. BO WELL. We are hearing them now. Mr. CHARLTON — there is an instance related where the wind concluded that it would make a man open bin cloak. It blew upon him with great force, and the more the wind blew the tighter the man wrapped his cloak around him. It was found impossible for the wind to compel that matt to throw open his cloak. Well, it ceased its efforts, and then the sun shone out warm and benignant upon the man, and after it had shone a few minutes he unbuttoned his cloak. Warmer and warmer it got, and fiually the warmth of the sun compelled him to remove his coat And so it will be here. It is said molasses will catch more flienthan vinegar. 1 believe it is true; and if wo want to obtain concessions we do not want to provoke unfriendly conflict by seizing American vessels, charging one cent a basket on their pe^ch baskets, a duty on their illuminated addresnes and make them give bonds on curling stones. These are things we should not do. On the contrary, we want to treat them in a broad, generous and friendly spirit and thus engender that cordial feeling which will lead to trade concessions. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of. Finance the other night took the ground that^our progress had been in the highest degree satisfactory, that we had, I understood him to assert, very little to wish for, that, under all the circam- stances, we could not have expected to have progressed more rapidly or to have occupied a more favorable position than we now occupied. If our growth and de- velopment have been satisfactory, why there is no great reason to require change or modification of our com- mercial relations; and I propose to inquire briefly and in a very candid manner whether our growth and development have been of a satisfactory character. First with respect to increase of population. In 1871 we had 3,635,000 in- habitants; in 1881, 4,324,000 inhabitants, the increase being 689,000 souls, an increase of about Ibf per cent. I turn to the United States and find the increase in that country in the decade commencing one year earlier and ending one year earlier was 308, as against 18| in Canada. This is not satisfjictory. Here we have a difference in the inorease of population of the tw6 countries of more than 11 per cent, against ourselves, and there is no reason for it. This is a strong vigorous race in Canada, a race which I i we wonld naturally increase more rapidly than the population in the United States, and if our increase in population was 11 per cent, le-^s than that of the United States our ratio of progress and development is shown to be unsatisfactory by that one fact. As I stated a while ago, we have probably in the United States today one million of Canadians; last cen- sus showed 712,000 and the ratio of increase that obtained between 1870 and 1880 would give within a fraction of one million. All these facts prove that our progress has not been satisfactory. There is another matter which shows this fact still more clearly. The United States have developed in excess of Canada in many respects. They raised last year $700,000,000 worth of corn, a larger quantity of wheat than we raised per head, an enormous quantity of wines and fruits, of which we raised compara- tively nothing, a larger quantity of wool, more sheep, a vastly larger number of swine, in y)roporti()n to population ; and of articles that we do not produce, tobacco to the value of 843,372,000 ; cotton to the value of $264,1 17,000 ; sugar 145,0U0 hogsheads. In manufactures, where Canada pro- duced in 1881 to the value of $309,67t),000, the United States produced in 1880 $5,369,667,000 worth, or equal to five-tenths per capita in excess of our production. All industries, according to Mulhall, reached, in the United States the value of £2,281,000,000, Canada £167,000,000, or -equal to two- tenths per capita in excess of our production. Mulhall gives the wealth of the United States and other countries in 18!-0 in pounds sterling, that of the United States being £9,495,000,000, and that of Canada £550,000,- 000, a per capita excess in favor of the United States of five- tenths. This shows a vast development in that country as compared with Canada. In regard to public debt, not withstanding the plausi- ble explanation of the Minister of Finance, our posi- tion is a most unsatisfactory one. Our debt on the 1st February, 1889, was $236,370,564, or equal to $4?. 33 per head — I think the Minister of Finance made it a few cents less: The debt of the United States on the same date was $1,121,845,973. The Pacific Railway debts it is fair, under our mode of calculation giving the net debt, to deduct as good and valuable assets. They are about to make some arrangements by which they will amply secure the United States on a 3 per cent. 50-year loan, at which rate the Government can borrow the money. Deducting the Pacific Kail way debt, the principal and interest of the United States debt, February Ist, lb89, was 81,009,932,000, •or 116.82 per head on a basis of population of 60,000,000, i i ii 1 1 24 against $47.33 per head in Canada on a basis of 5,000,000. If we add State debis, as the hou. gentleman said we should do, the net ampunt of which is $170,000,000, this makes the total equal to a 7?er capita charge for national and State debts of $19.67, as against $47.33 in Canada. That is n'^t a satisfactory condition of things. The hon. gentleman, at great length, compared the expenses of this country with the exf^enses of the United Sates. I have prepared some statistics on these heads. I find qut debt has increased, since Confederation, $160,941,923, or three fold. The in- crease of our debt in the last ten years was $96,308,495. While our debt increased three fold, the American debt was reduced from $2,508,151, 'ill, in 1867, down to $1,121,845,- 973, February 1st, 1889, without deducting the Pacific Eailway assets, which are, in round numbers, $111,000,000. In the period since 1878 the United States have reduced their debt by $511,636,306, while during that period we have inert ased cur debt by $96,000,000. So in the matter of public debt, the comparison is a very unsatisfactory one for this country. Then we were told by the hon. gentle- man that the United States pays no judges except a few Supreme Court judges, and has no immigration and quar- antine charges, no governors to pay, no militia to sustain, no penitentiaries to keep up, and that if our expenditure had been on the same basis as that of the United S^tes, instead of having a debt to-day, we would have had a sur- plus of $48',000,000. I would ask the hon. gentleman how that calculation v^as worked oat. I would ask the hon. gentleman what would have been the position in this coun- try under circumstances such as those encountered in the United States from IStll to 1864, when a supreme struggle for existence occurred during which the American people accumulated their great debt ? Why, this country would have been ruined. The expenses under the following heads in the countries respectively, were as follows ; — United 3tAtea Peneioa Charges, 1888 f 80,288.508 Per capita, $1.33 Canada Pension charges, 1888 120,333 Per capita, 2'4 United States Military Establishment , 38,522.436 Per capita, 61*4 Canada Miliiia and Mounted Polioe , 2,136,143 Per capiu, 427 United States Naval Bstablishment 16,926,437 Per capita, 28-2 Canada Ocean and Rirer Service 211,462 Per capita, 4*2 United States Oocgreas. 6,892,115 Per capita, 9 Canada Legislature., , 807,424 Per capita, 16 25 United States Judiciary ...» 4,581,828 Per capita, 7 6 Ganadinn Admiaistration of Justice... m 678,814 Per capita, l?i United States Foreign latercouree 1,593,461 Canada, $20,000 United States Interest 44,715,007 Per capita, 74j Canada Interest ..., 9,823,303 Per capita, $1,98 4 United States Custom 219,091,173 Per capita, $3 65 Canada ».... 22,105,926 Per cnpitfl, $4. 42 i United States Customs and Excise 343,388,044 Per capita, $5.72 Canr.da Castoma and Hlzcise... 28,177,413 Per capita, $5.63 Customs and Excise i.a U S , 1868 $343,388,044 Payment on Public Debt, year ending 1888 112,163,781 231,224266 Per capita, $3 85 It must bo borne in mind that the United States, last year, reduced their debt by « 1 12,163,000. That came out ot their excise and customs duties, and that leaves their e:. I was glad to see how widely they are extended and how groat they were, and 1 found out another thing also ; I found from Ottawa to Port Arthur, wherever I went, one universal cry — and there was not a diBsenting voice to that cry — on the part of every man interetited in minerals, copper, iron silver, gold, and structural materials. They all said : " Give us access to the American markets, we are languishing for the want of a market ; we are cribbed, cabined and confined ; our energies are repressed and we can do nothing. Right across the line 1 i 1 l^H I I tii 28 are anlimited markets for the p odncts of oar mines, bat wo are debarred from that market by the trade restrictions that exist between the two countries." I heard this complaint so often repeated that I j^nally became aware— and T am sure that a very few men of this country are fully aware of it — of the vast importance of this question as regards the min- eral development, of this country. No other great interest in Canada is suffering so severely or would be benefited ^o greatly by the removal of trade restrictions as the mining interests of this Dominion. Now, what is the staie of our mineral oevelopraont as compared with that of the United States ? In Mr. Costo's report wo find it stated that the mineral production of Canada last year was 815,000,000; but he include s in that statement brick, coke, iron, steel and tiles. As iron, he gives both the ore and the iron ; one is a dapli« cate of the other. Th'e American report gives neither iron, nor coke, nor steel, nor tiles nor brick ; and when we elim- inate those articles from Mr. Coste's report for the sake of a comparison on a fair basis, wo find that our mineral pro- duction last year was $12,113,000, while the mineral pro- duction of the United States was $542,284,000, or a per capita excess in the United States over Canada of 3 '75, or nearly four times as much as ours. In these circumstances, we cannot flatter ourselves that our mineral production is on a satisfactory basis. Going into particulars, i find that the Americans produced per capita 12 times as much iron ore as Canada, 21^ times as much pig iron, 130 limes as mu h lead, 4'OS times as much coal, 16'15 times as much soke, 3-07 times as much building stone, o'2 times as much brick and tile, 4'25 times as moch lime, and 8 limes as much cement as we did. Conse- quently I arrive at the conclusion that our mineral develop- ment, compared with that of the United States, is by no means satisfactory. And when I come to sum up the com- parative development of these two countries, I find that in increase of population in a decade, our increa 29 merce with them, and 170 timos as much as our commerce with the world ; and in mineral development they exceed us according to the statement I have given. Now, from these facts I arrive at the conclusion that our progress is not satisfactory as compared with theirs in any of the respects that go to make up the growth of a great state. I assert that but for the exodus, this country "today would have had a population of 8,000,000 in place of 5,000,000, and the Province of Ontario would have had a population exceeding 4,000,000 ; and let any man picture to himself the condi- tion of things that we should have seen to-day if the Dominion had a population of 8,000,000 in place of the condition we find actually prevailing. Now, Sir, what is the cause of this state of things? Is it lack of energy and vigor on the part of the race that inhabits this country 7 No, Sir, it is not. There is not a more vigorous or energetic race on this continent or in this world than the population of Canada. Canadians in the United States are everywhere making their way, and are considered the most valuable element almost in the population of that country. Let two young men go to any bueiness house in Chicago or any other part of the west, having equal education and equal advantages, a man from Canada, and a man from the Middle or Eastern States, and in nine oases out of ten the Canadian will get the preference, simply because he is a Canadian, because oi the reputation Caniiiians have in the United States for energy, vigor and intelligence. Well, Sir, is it on account of bad laws or institutions ? No, Sir, it is not. The laws of this country are good; the institutionsof this country are good. It may bo that they have been badly administered in some cases ; 1 think they have. It is our buBine?8 very often to criticise the administration of affairs ; but on the whole, considering the circumstances surrounding us and , the diflSculties confronting the administration of this country, the administration of affairs has not perhaps been so very much worse than we might suppose was inevitable. But 1 assert that the laws and institutions of the country are in no wise responsible for the case I present to this Xlouse and the country. Well, Sir, is it for lack of natural resources? No, it is not. Our natural lesources in our fisheries, our timber, our mines, our minerals, and our soil, are enormous — resources sufficient, Sir, for one of the greatest na- tions of the globe. It is not from lack of resources, from want of energy or vigor in our people, it is not from any fault in our laws and institutions, that this country has not progressed as it should have done. Well, what is the cause ? ^ 30 i' I ! l! Why, Sir, it is defiance of nataral laws ; it is defiance of the reqairements of geographical affinity ; it is deOanco of race affinity ; it is defiance of the requirements of common Benee ; it is because wo shut ourselves out from our nataral markets ; it is the want of continental free trade ; — that is the trouble with this country. We are told that the National Policy is a grand institution. Our friend the Minister of Finance told us the other day that he could not pacrifice that one little feature of our policy on any consideration whatever, He told us that if we could get commercial intercourse with the United States in natural prc- ductH, hhut out their manufecturea, and continue to foster our National Policy, we should be all right ; but as for sacri- ficing the National Policy, it was not to bo for one moment thought of; and in connection with that, the hon. Minister made an assertion that seemed to mo rather astounding. Ho was descanting on the desirability < f opening up foreign markets, and he told us in explicit terms that our cotton mills were able to find a profitable market for their products in those neutral, markets where they must meet British competition on equal terms. Jf that be true, if they can find a profitable market in China, India, and Japan, where they mu-st sell in competition with goods from Manchester with- out any advantage of taritf on their side, I want to ask why thoy cannot do it here — why it is necossaiy to have from 25 to 35 per cent, duty against those goods coming into Canada. I would like to know how that is; and I am afraid that if that is the case, this arrangement made by Secretary Fmrchild, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, against the protective tariff of that country, has a vast amount of truth in it which will apply to this country. The Secretary of State says in this annual report for 1888 : . <* Beside the vexed economic question aa to whether a country can make itself prosperous by a tariff, whether it can increase the relative average comfort of -its whole people by diverting a portion of its labor and capital from the employments which could be most profitably fol- lowed under natural conditions, thereby making certain of the necessar- ies of life more costly than they would be otherwise, there is a higher moral question which may well be asked, and that is, can a government be kept puie and free which, through the agency of its laws, offers vast pecunicry temptations to some kinds of budinesa ? '* 'I here are mauy indications that this qnestion must be answered ia the negative There are many proofs that large classes ot our bosiness men have come to depend for success upon their skill in manipulating Qovernmental agencies, rather than upon industry, intelligence *na honorable competition." Does the hon. the Minister of Finance know anything aboot that? " Is it not possible that eagerness for the money which men assnme oomei to thtm only throagn govemmnnt, may lead them to nse an aboat asflume 31 OTerKrowinft proportion of their gaias to poMSM aad influence the sap- poMd source of tbeir wealth. And will not the endeavor to make men rich soon become the chiff function of oar Koreroment ? is not this already the case ? If these daogJis exist, if they are not oyerestimated, then caa it be doubted that the true welfare of our people calls for the rescneof the government from them as speedily as maybe? This can only be done by severinf; government from private business ; steps should at once be taken in thftt direction, always, however let me re- peat, bearing in mind interests which may hare become established under present laws ; to the end that they may not suffer unduly while beneficent reforms are made." Now, I fear that is the case in this coantry, I fear that theee ioteresta which seek to control the government do, in a large measure, control it ; and instead of relying on their own energy, Bkill and capital, rely on undao favors from the GoVkTnment for the profits which they aetk to make. In fact, I am certain this is the caso. But supposincr we concede the National Policy is all it claims to be, conceding that it may actually create a home market in this country and will serve the purposes it is in- tended to serve, conceding all this, wo have to the south of us a country that has been engaged in the same business of building up a home market for too last 25 years. During that time they have impotr centuries. That ore can be easily reached, yet, under ^l'.^ depressing policy of this Government, we have only a beglgarly showing of 15,534 tona exported from On- tario while 5,023,000 lorg tons have been exported from Lake Superior. From the port ot Two Harbors on Lake Superior the shipM^ents from the Vetmilon mine on this range, in 1884, amounted to 62,124 tons, and reached, in 1888, 511,539 tons. There are vast possibilities for the development of this trade, but it can be developed- only on the conditioa that the duty shall be removed, and this ore ad- mitted to the American market free. Last year we produced ^ 24,827 tons of pig iron, and the United States produced 6,417,000 tons. The charcoal production of Michigan was 180,000 tons. If the duty were removed we could supply the whole of that trade as advantageously as Michigan. We could produce enormous quantities of iron in Nova Scotia. I am told by men conversant with the business that there is bat one point in America where iron can be produced at a our taioB was -e Itia. I lere is at a ?^ 33 cheaper rate than at Pioton, and that is at Birmingham io Alabama. With free access to the Arherican market, there is no reason why we should not see an enormoas prodaciioQ of iron in the mines of Nova Scotia, and of charooal iron in Ontario, where the timber is oontiguoas to tbe ore, and the iron can bo cheaply manufactured. In coal we produced 2,368,891 tons last year, while the United States produced 116,049,604 tons of anthracite and bituminous. Wo exported from Nova Scotia to the United States, 92,176 tons. Now, when 1 look at the position of Nova Scotia mines, thoy being the only coal mines on the Atlantic seaboard, being the most favor- ably situated for supplying every port on that sea- board, — when I look at the pot ition of these mines, I am astonitfihed that the ex|)ort8 should bo but 92,000 tons in one year. The New England States require, according to a rough estimate, 4,000,000 tons of bituminous coal a year, aud New York requires a largo quantity also. Were these duties removed, there is no do'jbt that Nova Scotia could sell to the New England States and New York three million tons, or thirty times the amount of the present export. There cannot be any doubt that an enormous development of the coal business of Nova Scotia would result from the removal of these duties. Then, with regard to copper, we have many mines of copper in this country, but many of them are not large enough to warrant the erection of smelting works, and copper mine owners tell me in every case that it wou'i be of great importance if they could ship their copper o the American market. At present, they are charged "" o cents per pound duty on the copper contained in their nes» Then there is the question of salt. We have in the Lake Huron basin probably an extent of 1,200 square milen of a salt district producing the beet salt on ' 'lis continent. The product in 1887 was 425,000 barrels^, wtiile the product in Michigan was l-i, 900,000 barrels. Were that market open to our producers, and were the duty on coal slack removed, there is no reason whatever why wo should not compete with the Michigan producer, or share with him the enormous product of 3,900,000 barrels a year. Then, as to building stone, we have at various points in Ontario marble, granite, freestone, and sandstone of the most excellent quality. At Nepigon Bay, on Lake Superior, there are immense quarries of freestone of a quality which stands the test of fire and frost better than any freestone in the market. We have mountains of marble. The Commission visited one marble quarry near Sanlt Ste. Marie, which was 8 If i!il^ 34 oIOBe to navigation, where vesBols could load the Bton» without difficulty. It was 5,000 feet wide, and bOO feet high, and it went down into the boweJH of the earth below the poHHibility of reckoning, aud it went back into the country for suvoral miicH. Bat for the duty on marble^ the manager told uh that he could do a very largo trade in that stone, and would, if the duty were removed, erect a mill for eawing and poliehing that would employ 800 men. In 1887, the United States produced $25,000,000 of building Btone and marble, while Canada produced only $558,491 worth. The exports of Canada to the United States of stone amounted to $65,800, of which Ontario exported $21,224. Thoro was the beggarly amount of $21,000 worth of stone of all kinds exported to the United States from On- . lario, as compared with the produce in the United States of $26,000,000 worth. The quarries of Ontario are ho situated that marble, granite, freestone and sandstone could be ex- ported, if it wtre not for the duties, at the least possible cost to Chicago with its 900,000 inhabitants, to Milwaukee, De- troit, Cleveland, and Butfalo— all first-class cities which are using great quantities of stone in construction every year j and we, with the facilities for conveying that stone by water, combined with the superior quality of our stone could defy competition but for these duties, though, as a matter of fact, we only exported this small amount of $21, OOU worth. Then^ as to brick, cement, lime, and soon, Canada produced in 1887 $1,6^3,625, while the United States produced $75,561,000. Of this we exported $238,625, of which Ontario exported $21,217. There is a great chance of development in this trade, and we have just as good a chance for reaching these great cities with this class of production as we have with stone, provided the duties were removed, and we could ex- tend our communication with more distant parts of the United States by means of the Erie Canal and other means of communication. In the production of these structural materials, the opportunity opening for trade with a free American market is without limit. The business might employ million, of capital and tens of thousands of la- borers but for the tariff. The total export of minerals from Ontario during the years from 1869 to 1888 was of the value of $17,675,391. Of that, $14,332,497 went to the United States, $3,340,317 to Great Britain, while $2,577 wert to all the rest of the world. We have vast mineral resources in Ontario, as well as in Bri^sh Columbia and Nova Scotia. We have silver and gold in this country. The Commission visited a silver district west of Port Arthur which, I believe, will prove to be the finest silver district on 36 leans itaral free Bight of la- from ,f the o the ,2,571 ineral A aD(i [ontry. rthur iot on this continent. I believe my hon. fViend the member for Algoma (Mr. DawHon) will bear mo ont in the statement tbat that it is likely to be the most productive silVor region known on the American continent* That district would re- ceive a vant development from the removal of trade restric- tions. It i8 trne tbat there in no daty on silver ore, bat, if we could obtain the introduction of machinery free of duty and could attract the attention of American capitaliHts to that rcfi^ion, wo would obtain a great impetus to the development of the silver resources west of Port Arthur and the gold resources near the Lake c^tbe Woods. I recently visited the pouth, and I saw that mil- lions of dolhtrs were pouring into that country, that , a masricul era of dovelopmect bad commenced, and that a new south was being created. Birmingham, Alabama, is a town of 50,000 inhabitants, which has grown up, I might say, like Jonah's gourd, in a night. I saw another city, called Bessemer city, with groat furnaces and rolling mills, where not a tree was out twenty months ago. 1 saw towns being built up, cities springing into exiotonoo, rail- ways under construction or recently built, and agriculture benefited by the vast amount of capital which was poured into that country, and I nsked myself: Why do we not share in this swelling tide progress ? The answer is that the duties keep the capital out. Americans look upon Canada as a foreign country. The truth is that the duties deprive us of the advantages which we might otherwise obtain, and of tbo millions of capital which would come in here, the railways which would be constructed, the cities which would be built, and the vast development of our interests which would result if those duties were removed. I believe that in five years, with free trade with the United States, our mineral production would receive a development eqtial to $20,000,000 a year, and that would involve an expenditure of $12,000,000 per annum for labor alone. I want to know if the laborers of this country are not interested in a policy which, in minerals alone, would add, in all probability, $i2,000,000 a year to the expenditure 'for labor. Now, I wish to call "Attention to the Provinces in this Dominion whose experts of the produce of Ganeda to the United Stales exceed their exports to Great Britain. First, we have Ontario, which in 188H ex- ported $123,074,733 to the United States aod 14,000,360 to Great Britain. Nova Sootia exported 1^,1 15,641 to the United States, and $1,823,832 to Great Britain. Prlnoe Bdward Island exported #915,961 to thft United SUitea and 3i IT iil !i '\ !' 1 «i- Ill : ! i'lji i'i' J|il III ilil i i| 86 $80,626 to ^reat Britain. British Columbia in the same year exported $2,228,385 to the United States, and $1,029,110 to Great Britain. So thatj from those Provinces, there were $29,334,710 worth of exports to the United States, and $6,933,928 to Great Britain. What does that teach ? Here are four of the seven Provinces that export to the United States almost five times more than their total exports to England. When I come to the classification of these exports, the produce of Canada to the United States and the exports to Great Britain, I find the follow- ing; UQited States. Great Britain. The Mine , $3,341,308 f 478,260 The Fisheries , 3,123,863 1,644,901 The Forest » „;... 10,622.338 8,932,177 Agricaltural Products 10,306,278 4,292,640 Miscellaneous Articles 701,616 66,340 $28,095,393 $16,314,318 This shows the vast volume of our trade with the United States, and the character of that trade ; it shows that four Provinces of the Dominion have enormously greater trans- actions with the United States than with Great Britain. In the items of agricultural produce exported from Canada to the United States and Great Britain, I find the following, and this is a tab^ > worthy of careful scrutiny : United States. Great Britain. Horses Sheep Poultry...... ».....« Bgers Ilides, horns and skins. Wool Barley , Beans Hay Malt ., Potatoes ,. t Vegetables $2,402,371 1,027,410 122,222 2,119,682 516/220 223,126 $ 36,760 211,881 1,962 262 26,634 6,488,317 124,214 800,632 164,145 367,670 93,102 700 64,781 973 ^9 $14,427,900 $343,220 Sir, these returns require no comment. They show how vast our trade is with ihe United States, and they show that in all these important productions our trade is almost exclusively with the United States; and the constructive loss of the country through being debarred of access to that market that we enjoyed between 1854 and 1866, is actually and positively beyond computation or belief. N^ow, the duty paid on our exports of $37,323,161 to the United States last year amounted, at a rough estimate, to $5,750,000, of 37 Mine Fisheries Forest Horses No. Horned cattle No. $ • ^ •••«#* Bwine.... Slieep < Kprgs Hides and skins Wool Barley .... Wheat Hav Malt , bueh. Potatoes bush •••••4 •• •••• • ••ft* «••••• •«<■•• No. No. doz $ lbs. bush. bush. tons. United States Production. 542,284,000 42,636,000 291,586,000 13,172,936 49,235,000 44,346,000 43,644,000 286,000,000 60,000,000 457,218,. '>0 41,796,000 1 8,273, OCO 168,051,000 Proportion. ■TbT TT B which $2,600,000 was upon our agricultural products. It is an intorcBting question, and I referred to it last year, it is indeed a matter of prime importance^ to understand the bearing' of the case—who pays this duty — of probably 85,750,000 on the productions of Canada that went into the United States, oa which duty was collected in that country. Now, I propose to examine the proportion that our imports to the United States bear to the total production of that country in the ^ame line : Canadian Export. 3,341,803 3,123,853 10,623,388 19,925 40,047 1,276 353,999 14,147,739 515,220 954.189 9,360,521 777,698 84,063 193,164 2,486,441 Now, Sir, under these circumstances, with the small volume of our importations to that country as compared with the production of the same article in that country, it is prepos- terous to suppose that the duty levied upon these articles depressed the price of the enormous bulk of these several articles in that country to whose amount the volume of our importations bore such an insignificant proportion. We paid the duty. We receive for our horses, for our coal, for our barley, for.every article upon that list that we exported to the United States, just exactly the amount received in that country, less the duty taken from it. In fact, that is not a fair statement of the case, because we lose more than that. The purchaser of an article for importation into the United States, if that article is for sale, and he expects to make a profit upon it, will add his profit to the amount of the duy, as it is a part of the cost. Then the existence of trade rC'triotions all operates to prevent competition and to keep out a certain class of buyers. Whenever a purchase is made for importation to the United States, the purchaser must take out a consul's certificate ; he makes the en'.ry at the Customs and runs the risk of seizure. There is a large class of purchasers who do not care to embark in trade under these conditions, and we are suffering from these disadvantages in the duties. idHH MiM If II I I i! til i'i 1 i;; i i!il 38 First of all, we lose the amount of the daties; then we lose the profit that the dealer importing these articles to the United States receives upon this duty, which is part of the cost; then we lose the benefit of that active competition which will exist in this country if the purchaser is free to trade without any restrictions or any customs regulations to deter him. 1 believe it is a fair calculation that there is a loss in these three reppects of not less than 810,000,000 a year on the importations from' this country to the United States. That is the amount that would bo realised under the present system of import- ations from the United Stales as measured by the returns of last year, to say nothing of the increase of trade that would ensue if the duties were removed. The rate of duty paid upon our various exports to the United States are, on coal and iron ore, 75 cents per ton ; canned fish, about 20 per cent,; lumber, 81 to 82; shingles, 35 percent. ; horses, cattle, Bwine and sheep, 20 per cent. ; wool, 10 cents per pound ; barley and wheat, 10 cents per bushel ; malt and flax ^eed, 20 cents per bushel ; peas, 10 cents per bushel ; hops, 8 cents per pound; butter, 4 cents per pound ; hay, 8^ per ton; potatoes, 15 cents per bushel, &o. Let us see what we Duy from the people of the United States. Among other thing we bought last year, in large quantities, coal, iron and steel manufacturings, tools, pianos and musical instruments, paper, coal oil, printing presses, watches, clocks, furniture, books, cotton goods, cordage, glassware, plated ware, boots and shoes. India- rubber goods, castings, hardware, iron, sewing machines, straw goods, hats, jewelry, &c. We pail in duty last year 87,131,000 on dutiable goods of the value ot 8^7,097,680, imported from the United States, and imported from the Bame country free goods amounting to 821,384,168. We paid in addition profits upon duty as part of cost amounting to 83,000,000 more, and between the loss to this country on importations from Canada into the United States and on importations from the United States into Canada on dutiable goods, we were 820,000,000 worse off than we would have been under free trade. So much for the advantages which would be derived from the re- moval of the present restrictions between the two countries. I am occupying the time of the House longer than I had intended, but I wish before resuming my seat to refer briefly to the objections raised to this policy of unrestricted reciprocity. L de.'^ire to meet, as well as I can, any and all the objections raised by hon. gentlemen opposite or by their friends in tha country with 39 respect to it. First, they tell ua — and I have met this objeo- tioD in a measure before — what is the use of this agitation ; in what respect is your position difiorent from our own ? We are in favor of reciprocity with the United States, you have not a monopoly of that principle, we are in favor of it. I deny it. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not in favor of it, because they persistently refuse to make advances to secure it on terms which they know are the only admissible terms, and if they will not accept admissible terms but insist on seeking to secure impracticable terms, it is no use of their talking about being in favor of this policy. It cannot be secured on the terms they propose. Eeciprooity in natural products the United States will never grant. Why ? Because the former treaty did not work to their advantage or satisfaction. What was the volume of free importa- tions each way during the 12 years from 1S55 to 1866 ? The free importations from the United States to Canada amounted during that period to $124,872,283. The free imports to the United States from Canada amounted to $239,792,284, or almost double. The treaty did not work satisfactorily to the United States. Everything we wanted to sell to the Americans we sold to them, but we did not allow them the privilege of sending to us the products and manufactures they could exchange for our natural products, and it was not a fair reciprocity treaty. And, Sir, if we wish to have a fair reciprocity treaty now, it njust be unrestricted reciprocity, a treaty permitting unrestricted interchange of commodities of every nature and character between the two countries, and that is the kind of reciprocity treaty the United States are willing to grant and it is not the kind of reciprocity which our friends on the Government benches are willing to accept. The next objection is, that we cannot get unrestricted reciprocity, that it is no use agitating about the matter or talking about it or holding out inducements to lead the people to believe that it is a feasible project. I deny it. I think we have abundant reason for saying that this is not BO. We have as a reason the resolution of Congress passed the other day by a nearly unanimous vote, and which only failed to be taken up by the Senate by a technical objection being raised by a single member to its immediate con- sideration, although it nad been unanimously reported by the Committee on Foreign Kelations. But for that oiroum- Btance we would have had the resolution of the House passed by the Senate . Mr. MoNElLL. What was the resolution ? I if ■■-TT' im SS iili liiil iii iili i iiiii : I 40 Mp. CHABLTON. It was a roROlution of Mr. Hitt in favor of commercial union. It indicates, on the part of the United States, a willingness to treat, for unrestricted reci- procity is one of the outcomes of commercial union, and commerciai union is one way of arriving at unrestricted reciprocity, and another way is that which we prefer, and we are warranted in the belief from the passing of this reso- lution, that a good opportunity is presented to enter into negotiations for the attainment of our object, and that they "would be willirg to grant us terms somewhat ditferent to those which they now propose. At all events it is worth trying. This objection that we cannot get unrestricted recipiocity is negatived by the passage of this reso- lutior, and at least we are warranted by its passage in attempting negotiations to secure unrestricted reci- procity in a difierent way from that in which it is pre- sented lO us by the resolution passed by the House of JRepresentatives The feeling in the United States, and I saw it evinced in Wai*hington when I was there lately, is an unmistajxable desire on the part of American public men to cultivate friendly relations with Canada, to impress upon Canadians who visit their capital, their desire to treat us fairly Siid in a friendly spirit, and to show that they are reudy to enter into a reci- procity treaty on a fair and equitable basis. There can be no doubt we can get it if we desire it, and the assertion that we cannot get it is not borne out by the facts. The next objection is, thai it h disloyal. To whom is it dis- loyal ? If a policy is calculated to benefit the great mass of the people of this country it is not disloyal to them, because the highest requirement of loyalty is to be loyal to your own people and to promote their best interests. It may be a disloyal policy if you take into consideration exclusively the benefits accruing to a small ring of manufacturers in this country. It may be disloyal if you take into consideration the interests of another ring of manufacturers in Great Britain. Our imports from Great Britain last year amounted to the value of $39,000,000. We will assume they were all manufactured goods. I do not believe unrestricted reci- procity would diminish that trade ; it would increase our prosperity atid our purchasing power, and the tendency would be to increase rather than diminish the trade with Great Britain. But we will suppose that trade was obliterated, that we blotted out the entire importa- tions to the value of $39,000,000, what interests would be u.^ected? How much capital is invested to pro- duce those goods? Not more than $20,000,000. How 41 ill Id many operatives are employed ? Not over 26,000 ; at leapt not over 100,000 are directly or indirectly employed in connection with our importations from Great Britain last year. Is our policy disloyal which would benefit five millions of C:.nadian8 at the expense of the owners of $20,000,000 of capital, and ^.t the expense of 100,00U people in England employed in manufacturing the goods we import ? My sense of the requirements of loyalty would lead me to prefer the interests of 5,000,000 here to 100,000 people in England. My sense of loyalty would lead me to prefer the interests of English capitalists who have invested $600,000,- 000 in Canada to the interests of British capitalists who have invested $20,000,000 in manufacturing English goods imported into this country^ The true loyalty ia such as promotes the interests of our own people at home, and that is the object of the policy we advocate. Then we are told that England would not sanction such an arrangement. I do not know about that. England did sanction a treaty called the Brown Draft Treaty, which amounted almost to unrestricted free trade, which put a very large number of articles on the free list. Hero is an incident which has a bearing on this case: " In 1874, when the Reciprocity Treaty was being negotiated by Minister Thornton, the lilnglish QovArnment instructed mm to modify it at the suggestion of the Canadian Ministry and make such additions to the list of American goods to be admitted free into Canada as the Oanadiaus desired." He did so and made out a long list of American articles to be admitted free of duty, so long that it was almost free trade. Not one of these articles coming from England was to be admitted free of duty. This draft of a treaty was sent to Lord Derby, who answered that the whole proceed- ing was approved, and the English -Government assented to the arrangement admitting American goods free to. a ' British colony, where a tariff of 20 or 40 per cent, was to be laid upon the same kind of goods conning from England or any other country than the United Slates. That was done by Lord Thornton and Lord Derby in 1874, and in view of that precedent, I do not think we have any reason for saying that if we desire unrestricted reciprocity with the United States and arrange the basis of a treaty, that Eng- lac'd would refuse assent to that treaty any more than she refused assent to the Brown draft treaty of 1874, The next objection raised against this treaty is that it woald lead to annexation and it strikes me that the Govern- ment party are a* little inconsistont in this matter, when they state that this policy will lead to annexation, that the ii.l' I ! ! li! Americans want annexation and that the Amerioans will not give us a treaty. There is an apparent contradiction there. The charge that this treaty will lead to annexation implies a good deal. It implies that the treaty will work so well and that the prosperity of the country under this treaty will be so great that Cana- dians will want more of it, that they will want to go the whole figure and not only have commercial union with the ynited States but political union as well. Now, I think, Sir, that the fact is that unrestricted reciprocity would give us jast exactly what those who want annexation would desire, that is free trade relations with the United States. I do not believe there is one man in a hundred in this country who is an annexationist because he. is dissatisfied' with our poli* tical institutions or because he believes that American poll* tical institutions are superior to ours, bat be is an annexa* tionist because he desires to see this tariff wall broken down and he sees no other mode of obtaining that object than annexation. Give to that man the advantages that follow from the obliteration of those tariff restrictions and you give him all he wants and he ceases to bo an annexationist. Just as in 1854, following the manifesto of 1849 which was signed by many of the friends of the party opposite, the existence of the annexation party ceased when the reci- procity treaty of 1854 was agreed upon, and we heard no more of annexation during the continuance of that treaty. We would not hear of annexation now if we had unrestricted reciprocity with the States. lu any event I am disposed to take the prosperity that will result from this arrangement and run the risk. The future will take care of itself. Nature has destined these two countries to liv^ on intimate terms, nature has decreed that we should be geographically and commercially very closely allied with each other, and the endeavors of our friends on the opposite side to prevent the consummation of this decree of nature reminds mo of the reported efforts of Mrs. Partington who one morning went down to the Atlantic beach and attempted to keep out the tide with her broom. You cannot keep back this tide of commeroial free relations between the two countries. You cannot pre- vent these two peoples from securing free intercourse with «ach other. Your efforts in this direction will be surely unavailing. The people are bound to have this continent open to free play and interchange of these mighty agencies that have vivified the United States and made it the great nation which it is to day. The population df this Dominion will be satisfied with nothing less than this and those 43 paltry objections that are raised by the party to power will DC swept away by the people as cobwebs disappear before the brush of the sweeper, and the tide will roll in as it did that morning down at Long Branch when Mrs. Par- tington stood on the beach and tried to keep it oil with her broom. Mr. FOSTER. That was a fable. Mr. CHAKLTON. Not so much a fable as it is an illustra- tion of the pucy eflorts of man to counteract the forces and oppose the decrees of nature. The next objection that is raised to unrestricted reciprocity is that it will lead to direct taxation. Well, this was a serious difficulty, and although as I have shown we will save in this arrangement twenty millions a year to the people of this country besides the prospective profits resulting from greatly increased trade, yet the people would not hesitate I presume if they thought that these twenty millions of dollars were to be purchases at the expense of direct taxation of two or three million dollars a year. Bat I do not believe that direct taxa- tion would be the result, and I know that perhaps this is the only really plansible and strong objection to the consumma- tion of this arrangement. Now, Sir, I wish to-night to indulge in a little theory in regard to this matter ; a little theoretical speculation upon a branch of the argument that is not exactly pertinent to the subject. "We have from the United States a proffer of commercial union, and it is something that is not expressed in the resolution before yon. We expect if we make this arrangement to get it on a different basis, but as a mere matter of theory and to get into a region of speculation I wish to enquire for a moment what will be the probable result to ns as regards this question of direct taxation if nnrehtricted reciprocity is secured upon the basis of commercial union — a basis be it observed which as I have said we do not propose to accept, a basis upon which we are not proposing a treaty, but it is only fair to give some degree of attention to this proposal so as to enquire what its effects would be. The United States customs last year amounted to $219,09 1,V73, their excise tax $124,296,871 or a total of $343,388,044. Our customsand excise amounted to 828,177,412. Under com- mercial union the total customs and excise of each country would go into a common fund. Now on the supposition that this arrangement was talked of that common fund would have amounted last year to $371,5^5,456. This arrange- ment would have however involved a sacrifice of the duties collected by the United States upon Canadian imports as m liiil 44 well as duties collected by Canada upon United States im- ports, amounting to an aggregate of thirteen million dollar?. The consolidatod f'urd would be diminished by that sum, and deducting that the total would amount to S358,56r>,4')6. The percentage cost of collection woald bo some- what reduced on this fund by the taking away of the interior line of customs houses in both countrios. This commc-n fund would bo divided on the basis of population, giving to as ono-thirteenih, or we would lose one-thirteenth ot tho total loss that resulted from the loss to both countries of tho revenae derived by each from the importations from the other, and it would leave to us a share, on this basis of division, after deducting this •13,000,000 fiom the consolidated fund of $27,582,000, or $595,000 less than the royenuo derived last year from cus- toms and excise. But if the United States should reduce their tariff, as they propose to do, to the extent of 340, 000,- 000 and we should deduct from that consolidated fund »40,C 00,000. in addition to the 813,000,000 joint loss of revenue, we should then have, as our share of this revenue, $24,500,000. That would be the financial aspect of the case under commercial union. Now, we must always bear in mind that our tariff on importations from outside countries would bo somewhat increased. We must also bear in mind that those two countries are expanding rapidly, that oar expansion would be much more rapid than it is now, so that the tendency would be to have a largely increased revenue year by year. But if we were limited to the same rate as at present, we should have 03,676,000 less revenue from cus- toms and excise taxation under the circumstances named than we have at present. Could we make good that deficiency ? We must bear in mind that we would save the cost of our whole interior line of customs houses. We could easily make a large saving in our militia appropriations ; living ou terms of peace with our neigh- bors, we would not require to prepare so fully for war. We could make a large saving in expense on publio works, in subsidies, in the cost of the civil service, in the cost of the franchise. Then, we would enjoy an increased pros- perity in trade, and the extension of business would, produce a great increase iu the traffic on Government rail- ways and consequently a large expansion in their earnings, enabling them to wipe out that annual sum which we have to contribute to make up the deficiency in their expenses, and probably produce a surplus in their earnings. Under this proposed arrangement of Mr. Hitt, if we were to nego- 4& tiate on that basis, I assert that if it wero carried into prac- tice, there would be no revenue diflficulty whatever to meet. Next, I come to the consideration of the question of anrestrioted reciprocity. This is more difficult. Last year we had a revenue of $28,177,000. If wo should enter into this Arrangement, we would sacrifice the duty on American importations, amounting to $7,131,000, which would leave us a revenue of $21,100,000. Well, that is a considerable shrinkage. Of course, we have to consider that the new ariangenjent would greatly intJrease our population, our resources, our trade, and our wealth, and that the exodus would be stopped. Mr. WHITE (Renfrew). Would it not increase our im- portations from the United States ? There would be no revenue from them. Mr. CHARLTON. It might increase our importations from the United States ; if it did not, it would be of very little use. . It would double and treble our importations from the United States. The profit derived by our farmers irom their trade with the United States would be three times as great as it is now. The ability of our people to pur- chase would be vastly increased, both from the United States and from all foreign nations in the world, and that would increase our revenue ; there is no doubt of it. Our hon. friends opposite will insist on looking upon Canada as the country it is to-day with 5,000,000 inhabitants, increasing at the rate of 18 per cent, in a decade, instead of Canada V would be then, with rapid expansion, rapid growth, rapid increase of population, importations and wealth. But can we make this revenue up? We can. What was our revenue in 1880? It was $18,479,000, and we had a deficit of $1,543,000, making our expenditure in that year $20,022,000. Now, how rapidly did we increase that ex- penditure fror^ 1880 to the present time ? Ought we to increase it faster than our population has increased ? 1 think not. I think our expenditure to-duy should bear that proportion to the expenditure of 1880 that our popula- tion to-day bears to the population of 1880 ; and if that pro- portion bad been maintained, our expenditure • today would not have been increased more than 20 per cent., or $4,000,000, which would have left the revenue from Custcms and Excise last year at $:J4,022,000 ini^tead of $28,1.77,000. Now, can we raise that $24,000,000? Can we get our expenditure back to that figure ? I think we can; I know we can; but to do to be a greater inducemec:. than so there would have thai, which rests on ,7 - I 46 the Minister of Fioance now, something more than a bare degire ; it wonld have to be the imperaiive indaooment of neoessity, and under that pressure the thing oould ]Se done. How could it be done ? We could save 8200,000 in the cost of the collection of customs revenue, because we would not need so many custom houses as we have now. Wo could abolish such custom houses as that recently establiHhod at Ilagersville for the benetit of Mr. Montague. We would save 8100,000 in the cost of the collection of excise revenues; we could save 8:^00,000 of the expenditure on immigration, or for the matter of that the whole cost of immigration ; we could save 8500,000 in the cost of militia; in our appropria- tions for public works, we could save 81,000,000 or 81,6U0,- 000 ; we could save on civil service, and superannuation, if necessary 8260,li00 at least; we could arrange our tariif on sugar so as to take the money we put into tho pockets of the refiners at present and put it into the revenue, and at the same time secure to our people their sugar as cheaply as they get it now ; in that way wo could save po(-sibly 81,750,000. Then, the increased earnings on Government railways, owing to increased business, would probably amount to 8750,000 a year. , And all these items would sum up to about 85,000,000. I think we could meet the expenses under the rigid economy which would be necesjary ; the thing could be done, and it would be a benefit to the country. Our expenses to-day are enormously great. The United States in 1840, with a population of 17,000,- OOOj spent but 8-4,000,000 a year on the army, the navy, pen- sions, Indians and mitoellaneous appropriations— everything in connection with the administration of the Government j and we are told that we cannot get down to the same limit with a population of 5,000,0000, a population less than one- third as great. I do not believj it ; 1 believe the thing can be done, and done easily. Then, other sources of revenue could be discovered. If necessary we could readjust the tariif. There are articles in the tariff on wbich duties could be imposed, if it were necessary to subject the country to that deprivation. Then, it must always be borne in mind that there would be an enormous saving to the oonn* try in the cost of goods imported, and in enhanced prices received for goods exported, besides prospective gains re- solting from large operations in trade. The next objection is that the Yankees wonld make our tariff. Well, that wonld be rather humiliating, fitit they certainly would not make it under unrestricted reoiprooity the only basis on whioh we (Hroposo to seoare this ari'aDge* ment. It gives as perfect control of oar tariff, and the onty 41 >VLT ley nty Inty concession we would make to the Americans would be the admission of their goodn free of duty. That dismiescs the charge, so far as the scheme before the Hoase is conoernod. But even under commercial union, the Americans would not necessarily have control of our tariff. In the arrangement of that treaty, there would be two parties to be consulted, and each party would possess exactly as much power as the othen One party will be Canada, the other the United States. The smallest iota of difference between the two powers wilh regard to that treaty will prevent the consum- mation of it. We must consent to every feature of that tariff. We must have granted to us such terms as wo would require with regard to any future changes in that tariff. Wo would be one of the contracting parties with the same power and weight as the other j and unless that power be conceded, it is not necessary to make a treaty. It is preposterous to say that we will delegate lo the United States the power to make our tariff under such an arrange- mont. In our owu hands will be the regulation of every detail of the treaty and of e^ery detail regarding the mode in which changes shall be at any subsequent time brought about. , . The next objection is that it will ruin our manufactures. I might say with justice and truth that our manufactures are ruining us. I might say that they are bleeding our pro- ducing classes in this country. I might say that they are a great octopus which is sucking the life blood out of all except the small favored ring, and I do not know that I would sympathise very much with these men if they were punished. I do not believe, however, that it would hurt them ; and if it would, I do not know that I would sacrifice the interests of the farmer, the lumberman, the fishermen, the miner or the laborer even to save the manufacturer. I would proceed upon the sound old adage, of the greatest good to the greatest num* ber, and if the policy was to benefit a thousand men and only injure ten, I would not feel bound to do any more for the ten than extend them my sympathy. But I do not be- lieve it would injure the manufacturers. I find a remark- able tendency in the United States to expand in manufao- lures in the newer districts. I find by the census returns from 1871 to 1881, that the increase in manafactures in the Dominion was 40 per cent., and that in Ontario the increase was 38 per cent, in those ten years. I-flnd that in the older manufacturing States, the increase in manafaotares, in the ten years from 1870 to 18>}0, has been as follows : — sag 48 MasaarbuBetts 14 percent. New York 37 do Oonnecticut.. ^ IS do New Jersey 50 do Pennsylvauia .... 6 do Michigan - B9 do IllinoiB 101 do Wisconsin 67 do Minnesota 228 do Iowa , ...M ,^,„ fi2 do California. 74 do In evory one of the newer States the proportion of inorease has been vaBtly greater than in the old manufaotaring States, The figures showing inoroAse for a decade are as follows :-— 1871 to 1881. Canada $88,000,000 40 per cent. Ontario ^ 43,283,000 38 *< 1870 to 1880. , Massachnsetts 77,223,000 14 " New Yorli ., 295,602,000 37 " Oonnecticut 24,632,000 15 «« New Jersey 85,143,000 6 '* Pennsylvania 32,984,000 6 " Ohio , 78,586,000 80 " Indiana 39,389,000 36 •« Michigan 56,000,000 69 «« Illinoia 209,224,000 101 "« Minnesota 52,965,000 228 *< Iowa 24,511,000 52 " California ^ 49,624,000 74 " In some of the priooipal cities of the west the increase in production of manufactures from 1870 to 1880 is as fol- lows : — Louisville | 36,000,000 Chicago , 249,000,000 Milwaukee 43,000,000 Bt. J -lis 1 14,000,000 B« ;i8C0 « 78,000,000 ■^ dm 50,000,000 "* ^v>t very much alarmed about the manufactures iS country. I do not take any stock in the doctrine of Canadian inferiority. I do not believe in it. I believe that with equal chances we can compete with the Americans. I believe that we have the energy, we have as cheap capital, and cheaper labor, and I see no reason under Heaven why, with the whole market of this continent open to our nuinufaotures, we should not have an equal chance with the Americans. It is certain that there would be a great impetus in certain natural lines. For instance, the produ> tion of lumber could not fail to be greatly increased. In the production of planed lumber, the American tariff abso- lutely prevents our engaging, while if the duty were re- moved we would find millions of dollars invested in it in I I 49 ibis coantry. In tho production of doors and sunhos, hoase trimmings, we are preoludod by tbo American tariff. Yet this itt a vast business which we would otherwise naturally, to a great extent, control. In the manufacture of furniture, woodun ware, leathor, for which we have special advan- tages, wo would inevitably vastly increase our businesH. We would increase the manufacture of iron and woollens, and there is one branch where the chances for expansion are limitless, that in the manufacture of papor from pulp. Wo have the facilities for this branch, in the possession of limitless quantities of the poplar and other woods required, and would naturally supply the continent with this article, the business in which would amount to millionH of dullars a year. I have no fear as to the reeult of free trade on tho manufacturing business in this country. Here and there perhaps a little exotic industry, pampered into existence by a high tariff, would bo swept away, but as a whole our manuiactures would vastly extend their business under the operation of free trade. Now, bomo of our friendn opposite— for it is not a party issue at present — propose an offset, and this pro- position is at least an indication that there is a feeling of unrost in the country. It indicates that there is an acknowledgment of the desirability, if not the necessity of some change in the condition of Canada. That scheme proposed by them is Imperial Immoderation. I have no doubt that in some respects a clot-ier union of the colonies with England would be advantageous to the colonies, based how- ever upon one absohtely fiecossary concession upon the part of England, and that is the enactment of discriminatory duties in favor of the colonies. If England will give us the corn laws again ; if she will place duties upon food and lumber, wool and raw materials imported from any country besides the colonies', and admit the productions of the colo- nies free, we would have advantages in the English market very great as compared with other countries, and it might be worthy of our consideration whether we would not go into such an arrangement, But have we any reason to suppose that she will ? Have we not every reason to suppose that Bbe will rot ? Have we not the express declaration of her leaders, not of one bat of both parties, that England will never consider for a moment the propriety of levying 4aties upon the raw materials and the food of the people. She never will, and if sbe does not, then the scheme has no attraction for us. We would have our burdens increased by this arrangement, we would have an undue and undesirable interfereni^ with our &momonj, wl ^ WQuid not be desirabli^ 4 H w^ HH ii: !! i m 50 ^ . for ns to hare our affairs settled by the Parliament at West- minater in which we had a small lopiesentation of twenty or thirty members. We would never corisent to such a thing. We want no share in paying the expenses of England's foreign wars ; wo do not want to assist her in fighting the Afghans in Afghanistan, or the Arabs in the Upper E:,'ypt, or the Zulus in South Africa. Vf^1 do not want to bear % share of the oxpense of maintainir'g her army or navy. Such an arrangement would largely increase our burthens. We might be call'^d upon, if England required it, to furnish a large quota troops to help her, and we would prefer ta run our own concerns, attend to our own business, and trade on equal and unrestricted terms with our neighbors to the BOUth. I am happy to say I am about through, and I feel as much relieved as my friend oppo