^'V^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) I.C l.i iria !1M 1.8 1.25 1.4 16 ^ 6" •. c-: '# .%'^. %^ e same satisfaction to myself, owing to my inability to follow him as closely as I would like, yet with great pleasure, to the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Martineau) I should have been glad to follow more closely the beautiful language in which lie addressed the House, but I was able to gather enough from what he paid to know that the right hon. leader of the House may congratulate himself on having secured in the hon. gentleman a very devoted and a very creduious follower in this House. When the hon. grntleman vent- ured to say that the leader of the Government and tiie Governirioni had redeemed al' their promises, I fear that, while he shows a disposition to give nnhoundcd credit to his leader, he also shows that he lias not given that ctreful attention to the siihject which alone would enable him to speak with authority. Instead of such an extravagant claim being well fou)\ded, the hon. gentleman will find that, when cliallenged to put his fmge." upon a single promise made to the electorate that has been fulfilled by the Government and its leader, he will be unable to do 80. (Hear ! Hear !) While speaking of the pleasure M^th which I have listened to these hon. gentlemen, I must not forget the veiy kind and complimentary references that were made to myself by the seconder of this Address. I should be glad to think that I was entitled to even half the commendation which he was good enough to bestow upon me. I Avill, however, endeavour, as we become better acquainted, to convince the hon. gentleman that, whether right or Avrong, in discharging the high and important duties that devolve upon me, I seek, at all times, to take such a coiu-se as will convince him that, though we may not see eye to eye, I am moved only by what I believe I owe to the House and to the country. (Applause). 1 THE CAUSES OF CANADA'S PROSrEKITY. My satisfaction in listening to the hon. gentlemen is all the greater because of the fact that I believe that, had. they framed their speeches with a single eye to give credit to the great party that I have the lionour to lead, they could not have made their remarks more conclusive or more pertinent to the subject. In view of the attempt by these gentlemen to convince their hearers that the advantages that Canada now enjoys have been due to the course taken by the Government of the day, the House will permit me, I am sure, a slight retrospective view of our affairs. From 1867 down to 1873 this country enjoyed a very gratifying de- gree of prosperity, so great as to enable the Government of the day to complete the great work of confederation by bringing in every portion of this great continent lying north of the boundary line and belonging to Great Britain, except only the Island of Newfoundland. When we retired from office in 1873, we handed over to our successors the govern- ment of a country in a highly prosperous and satisfactory condition. What was the result of the live years' administration of hon. gentle- men opposite ? Why, Sir, no person requires to be told that that five years of Liberal administration in Canada was marked by a period of the most intense depression, a period of the m 6 greatest commercial and financial difficulty with which any country was ever called upon to struggle. (Hear ! Hear I) I do not charge hon. gentlemen opposite, or their policy, as necessarily involving that result. The fact is that during the first five years of confederation Canada en- joyed a marked degree of prosperity arising from the protection which, under a very low tarilf, we enjoyed ov ing to the internecine war that existed in the great republic to the south of us. That happily passed av/ay, peace was restored, and tliese gentlemen were called upon to ad- minister the public affairs of the country, but instead of adopting such a policy as was demanded by the occasion, they persisted in nailing what they called their free trade colours to the mast, and refusing to adopt any policy for the protection of Cf.nadian industries such as was abso- lutely demanded. Sir, I need not remind the House that we on this side, in the discharge of our duties then as we are endeavouring to discharge them now, did not hesitate to point out to the hon. gentlemen opposite the course that, in our judgment, they were bound to adopt in order to rescue Canada from the most deplorable poverty and depression that tJiis country has ever seen since the beginning of confederation down to the present hour. Well, Sii, the hon, the Minister of Trade and Com- nicrce (Sir Eicbard Cartwright), in a moment of weakness, I suppose, made a frank confession to the House — I thinJc it was during the last session, or the session preceding it — ^in which he said, that they had really made up their minds as to the line they should take in the interest of the country, and he, as Finance Minister, had prepared a tariff, but just as he was about to bring it down, a brigade of free traders from the province of Nova Scotia made their appearance in Ottawa, and threat- ened the hon. gentleman that if he persisted in doing that, they would go into opposition and he would go out of office. (Hear ! Hear !) Well Sir, tlie hon. gentleman concluded that office was of more importance to him than the prosperity of Canada, and he abandoned his tariff which he had prepared, giving a considerable amount of protection to Canadian industries ; he abandoned that policy, and pui'sued that course of free trade folly which landed him and his Government in the slough of des- pond. And what was the result ? The result was that the intelligent electorate of Canada rose in its might on the first opportunity that offered, and swept out of power the hon. gentleman who had admitted that he was only a fly on the wheel and could not do anything in the interests of the countrj' — swept him and his colleagues out of power by one of the most overwhelming majorities that was ever witnessed in this or any other countiy. (Loud Cheers.) I only mention this as a prelude to what occurred. THE INAUGURATION OP THE NATIONAL POLICY. The party opposed to him, the Liberal-Conservative party on this side of the House, declared that if they obtained power they would im- mediately adopt the policy of giving efficient protection to every Cana- dian industry that could bo carried on properly in this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not say that we did not keep our word, they do lis the justice to say that when we came into power we fulfilled the prom- ises that we had made to the people of this country, and we brought down a protective tariff largely increasing the duties on the various pro- ducts that the people of Canada were able to manufacture. The result w.'ts that the country was changcMl in a marvellougly shon period of time from a condition of the most abject and deplorable depression into a condition of activity and industry. Under their policy, Boston and Now York were made the commercial capitals of Canada ; under their policy, money went out of Canada to a foreign country for the products that our people required ; under their policy, people finding no em- ployment in this country, were obliged to follow the money, and popu- lation was depleted, poverty was rife, and the only industry that these gentlemen were reluctantly compelled to recognize was that of soup kitchens for the poor. Now, Sir, what changed all that ? What was it that lifted our country out of that deplorable condition into which Lib- eral misrule had dragged it ? Why, it was that National Policy which, from that hour to this, has created a progress and a prosperity in our country such as we have never witnessed before. (Applause). What did these gentlemen do ? Did they do as we are doing now, hold up both hands for everything that was proposed by the party opposite that was calculated to benefit our country ? Not at all. These gentlemen ob- structed us with all the power at their command. The English language is not strong enough to furnish them with the terms of obloquy and contempt to pour upon this accursed policy of protection that they pledged themselves solemnly in the face of the country they would scat- ter to tlie winds the moment they reached power. Did they do it ? Sir, the country is prosperous, but it is not from anything that these hon. gentlemen have done. I stand here to-day in the presence of this intelligent House, I stand here to-day in the presence of a people as intelligent, as any to be found on the face of the globe, and I challenge these gentlemen here and now to j)ut their finger on a single act of theirs that has contributed one jot or tittle to the progress of the country. ( Hear ! Hear ! ) But what have they done ? They have done something to make it less prosperous than 8 ll/ otherwise would have been, as I shall hi able to show ; but when they say that thoy liavc contributed aught in any respect to the progress and prosperity of tlie country, I deny it, and cliallengethcm to the proof. "Wliy, Sir, we liave evidence to the contrary out of tho mcutlia of tlieir own supporters, their strongest supporters, that tho policy of Canada to-day, whether it be wise or unwise, is tho policy of the great Liberal-Conservative party that made Canada what it U, and that has produced every jot and tittle of tho prosperity that exists down to this hour. Now, I may say that we did have a wave of prosperity coming over the country, for these things usually go in cycles. What did we do ? RESULTS OF THE K P. "We not only provided for that which they were unable to provide for, the means of carrying on the Government of the country without rolling up a huge debt by deficits, but we were able to complete this gigantic work of confederation by establishing a great international highway from tho Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, in order to carry on the trade and business of the countiy, and to give llic means of intercom- munication to our own people. (Cheers.) Not only were we able to do that, but at the same time we expended no less than $3G,500,000, from 1878 to 1890. in deepening the canals so as to obtain a 11-foot naviga- tion, thus affording increased facilities for trade and commerce between the people of the several provinces. Having given evidence all over tho country in the erection of important public works as to what could be done for Canada, under such a policy as ours, the time came when a wave of deep depression swept over Europe, paralysed the commerce of Australia, paralyzed the commerce of the United States, and consequently affected Canada, as Canada must always be af- fected by the condition of commerce in the republic to the south of us. During this wave of depression in the United States, when GOO financial and banking institutions went to the wall, when millions of people were thrown out of employment, and when poverty stalked throughout that great countrj', Canada, thanks to the National Policy, inaugurated by the Conservative party, maintained a healthy financial and commercial position. I shall read to the House what I consider one of the highest tiibutes as to what the National Policy did for Canada during that period of depression, commencing in 1893. The late F . Mr. Wells, one of the most able and independent statisticians in America, wrote in the ''Fonim" in tho early part of 1894, when tverything was at its worst in the United States : In the Dominion of Canada, separated from ua on the north by an imaglnory line, there has been no pnnir, no unusual demand for money, no stopp.ige of industries, no restriction of trade, no Increased rate of interest; in short, nothing beyond the ordi- nary course of events, except so far as these events 1 may have been influenced by contiguity to what ,. iipj^C^f^^niay be termed a financial ryclone whose pathway ~^^of destruction was contiguous to, but not wH.hln, Canadian territory. That, Mr. Speaker, is high testimony indeed as to what the N"ational I'olicy did for Canada. I claim. Sir, and I am prepared to suhstantiate my claim in the face of any lion, gcrtleman opposite, that all the prosperity, all the increased trade, all tho increased revenue which hon. gentlemen opposite now so loudly claim credit for ; all is due to the great Liberal Conservative I'arty which laid the foundation of the National Policy, and laid it so solid that the winds of Liberalism and all the efforts of Liberals to de- stroy could not i)revail. (Applause). Take the statistics from 18G8 to 1898 and you will hrve further and even greater proof of what t'uQ National Policy did for Canada. Here they are : TOTAL TRADE. 18G8 $131,037,533 1898 301,091,730 ■ POPULATION. 1868 .. 3,371,594 1898 5,500,000 .. :. , ., EXPORTS, ALL KINDS. .m- -'^.b.- ■■-.:■/'' n 1S68 $57,507,888 1898 163,785,770 IMPORTS, ALL KINDS. 1868 $ 73,459,641 1898 140,305,950 TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANKS. 1868 $ 53,399,050 1898 313,014,635 ,*f. 10 SAVINGS BANKS. 1868 ". $ 5,057,607 1898 63,056,606 TOTAL REVENUE. 1868 $ 13,687,923 1898 40,555,338 xIEVENUE FHOM POST OFFICE. 1868 $ 616,802 lb98 4,686,650 MILES OF RAILWAY. 1868 $ 2,?78 1898 16,718 RAILW/iY EARNINGS. 1868 $ 12,116,716 1898 (:9,71o,105 RE^^NUE FROM RAILWAYS AND CANALS. 1868 $ 581,503 1898 3,117,670 I do not liesltate to say. Sir, that these figures give clear evidence of the imquestioned value of the National Policy to the country, for they show the greatness and tlie prosperity that Canada has achieved under the National Policy. To whom is this prosperity due : Is it due to lion, gentlemen opposite ? (No, No !) Is it due to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Ricliard Cartwright), who when he was threatened ■vvith the loss of offi-.e was willing lo sacrifice the best interests of Ca- nada so as to cling to oTice, although the people fctarved. (Eiear! Hear!) No, Sir, it is due, and ao one knows it better than hon. gentlenieu op- posite, it is due to that great party which elevated Cmada out of the position in which she had been placed by the maladministration of the Liberals, and raised it on a pinnacle of such grandeur that these gentle- men opposite, when chrrged witli the duty and responsibility of govern- ment, guailed before th(! thouglit of attempting to strike down with their unholy hands this policj which had done so mi^ch good for Canada. Sir, we have the greatest tribute to the benefits conferred upon Canada by the National Policy in t^ie very fact that the gentlemen now in power — who for eighteen long yea^ engaged in fierce and bitter denunciation of it, who pledged themselves solemnly that they would uproot and des- troy it — declare in the face of the whole world that the National Policy 11 is ont* that they dare not attempt to change. 3ir, the National Policy so commcncls itself to the intelligent approval of the greit mass of the electorate of Canada, that these gentlemen, if they atten^pt to interfere with it, would be s\v^pt from office. (Cheers.) KO POLICY AND NO PSI^CIPLE. And how did they obtain power ? Not upon the issue of the National Policy, nor upon any other issue. Sir, these gentlemen opposite sit there representing no policy and no principle. I challenge any man in this o antry to point to one single particle of policy or one single prin- ciple that they avowed before the people, which they have since at- tempted to carry into effect. Tlicy obtained powei by inducing the peo- ple of one section of the countr}' to believe one thing, and by inducing the people of another section of the country to believe tlie opposite. They obtained power by delusive promises which they have never carried out. (Hear ! Hear !) I am prepared to show any hon. gentleman op- posite that there is not one si-iglc question of public policy to which the Liberal party in opposition was committed which they have attempted to accomplish since they came into power. I say that without any qualification whatever. A krge number of tbe hon, members of this House are perfectly familiar with these matters, and they know that Avhat I am stating is absolutely correct, but lest my hon. friends from Eaat Prince and jiiontmagny, who have not had the same opportunity to inform themselves, might think me mistaken, I will give them a little evidence of what I am saying. I will show these hon. gentlemen whose policy has madj Canada the cynosure of all cjc°; whose policy has enabled the Government of Canada to put in the Speech, as they have ' properl}' done, this glowing account of the magnificent position our country occupies to-day. Any speeches that emanate from my right hon. iriend, who with so much ability leads this JTouse, I liave always read with great interest, but not always exactly with approval. I am not alwr<,ys able to agree exactly with the view in which he clothes thor>c de- lightful and ^'xoquent sentences for which he is so famous. I have begun to think, Sir, when I read the speeches of my right hon. friend, that one of the most essential features of oratory is to be abb to say whatever the occasion may require without any reference to the facts. I will give my right hon. friend tho evidence on which I make that statement. In a very memorable speech, one which I am quite sure will become historical, for it was on*^ cf the most iranortant he had ever delivered, when all ita 9 m ) Vi 12 consequences are regarded — a speech which he made on January 4th, 1899, as reported in the Montreal "Herald," he said: If we ara now purchasing more irom England, England is purchasing more from us, and that is what we want. We want a market for our produce, and we find it in England. Thanks to our policy. Now, Sir, what was his policy? Wliat policy did the hon. gentleman curry out ? In the first place, the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken in supposing that those two things have any necessary relation to each other at all. The hon. gentleman knows that our purchases from Eng- land have heen relatively insignificant for many long years, long heforc he had anything to do with formulating a -nolicy. The hon. gentleman knows that o'""* ]nirchases from England have been infinitesimally emaller than our exports to England. EFFECTS OF THE BEITISH rREFERENCE. But that is not all, Sir. Wliat is the rcsu^: of this policy, this magnifi- cent policy which tlie hon. gentleman claims has made Canada what it is to-day ? Why, Sir, in 1897, the first j^ear for which the hon. gentle- man says he .-s responsible, England sent us $500,000 less than ehe did before his policy was dreamed of. That does not look as if Avhat England sent to us had any relation to the policy of the hon. gentleman. And while that was the case, there was an enormous, a gigantic increase in our exports to the mother country. Tliercforo, the hon. gentleman will see that the one statement has no relation to the other. The hon. gentleman is aware, I suppose, that his policy, while professedly a pro-British policy, was an anti-Briijsli policy; for under it, while England sent us in that year $500,000 less than she had done be- fore, the United States of America sent us $19,000,000 more than they had done before. (Hear ! Hear !) Was it because we had sent more to the United States ? The hon. gentleman knows that it was the very reverse. I take the last six months, and what has this wonderful policy done — this policy that the hon. gentleman lives upon, and for which he attained an amount of kudos in Great Britain that we were all de- lighted to see him obtain if it had onlv been done on a sound basis ? What was this wonderful boon that tlie right hon. gentleman said he conferred upon England ? The Right Hon. Joseph Chambeilain was asked in the House of Commons the other day by Sir Howard Vincent : "What is the increase of trade sent from England to Canada during the six months ending the 31st day of January ?" Wliy did he say the 31st day of January ? Simply because, as was admitted very frankly by the hon. Minister of Finance when at Sheffield, the treaties were not de- 13 noimcod, and the policy did not come into operation until the Ist day of August ; so that the first six months of the poUcy ended on the Slat day of January. "What was the answer ? What does the House suppose the increase amounts to, as the result of this magnificent policy that was going to secure fur us tlie trade of England as a grateful response ? Why, Sir, it amounts to 1 per cent, for the six months. (Laughter.) Some papers have got the statement that it is 6 per cent., which is an entire delusion. Mr. Chamberlain said : If you include Jul^ which you cannot include, because it is outside of the question altogether, and before the preferential rate came into operation, it would be 6 per cent., but for the first six months it was 1 per cent. And this is the policy on which the hon. gentleman prides himself. ^ IS THE TARIFF QUESTION A' DEAD ISSUE. But now. Sir, I intend to give an evidence from the Treasury benches with regard to this question upon whose policy the pre&ont great pros- perity of this country depends. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), at Perth last month, had occasion to malie a speech, and a very important speech it was. He said The tarlfC was a question that was settled, and was now a dead issue. No more talk in this House about a tariff ; we are done with that, he said. "Wliat more does he say ? ^ Because the Liberals had succeeded in -solving this great question, and the tariff was one their opponents, if they got a chance, would not change much. Why woidd they not change it ? Because it is their tariff, the hon. gentleman may say, and there is something in that. But b appose we had carried out our pledges, where would the prosperity have been ? I agree with him ; it would have been non-existent, and it was because they knew that they had either been deceiving and misleading the! people of this country for eighteen long years, or having grown older, they had as may be charitably supposed, grown wiser, and had come to the oon- clusion that other people know somethiiig about these matters as well as themselves. (Applause.) Well, it appears that the lilinis^^er of the Inter- ior has l)een taken severely to task by a number of people from Winni- peg who thought they were Free Traders. The Liberal party there had a meeting, at which they challenged this statement made by the hon. Minister of the Interior for the purpose of condemning it. The ground taken by the mover and seconder of the resolution condemning it was that if that were so, they had been grossly deluded — ^that if that were so they had, been deceived by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who had been one of the strongest supporters of a free trade policy, into 14 giving a support to a different policy altogether. A good many of the friends of the hon. Minister of the Interior said there must be some mis- take. Although it appeared in the " Globe " and all the other Liberal newspapers, they said there must be some great mistake ; it was impos- sible that a member of a free trade Goyemment could have made such a statement, and they proposed to defer judgment until they had ascer- tained definitely whether the Minister could have made such a statement. iffr. Jas Porter, however, — I do not know who he is, but he is evidently a very iutelligeni; man — said he believed that Mr. Sifton did make this statement, but did not condemn him for doing so because he thought the tariff was about as nearly perfect as it could be made. (Cheers and Laughter.) His opinion was — I commend this to the Minister of Finance — that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) saw he had made a mistake, and that Llr. Sifton was sent out to declare the real policy of the party and that the party shoidd stand by his declaration. Now, I want to know how these two kings of Brentford stand — whether the hon. Minister of Finance, who declares that only the thin end of the wedge has been entered and that the Government are going to keep on reduc- ing the tariff until some point is reached which he has not particularly indicatod is to prevail, or the hon. Minister of the Interior, who de- clares that the present tariff is a finality. I go with the Minister ox the Interior. I think that every man who has had an opportunity of study- ing this question will stand by the policy he has propounded, namely, that the tariff is settled and that that permanency of tariff, which iiu.y right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) discussed at Montreal a year or two ago and declared to be most essential to attain, has been ac- complished. It will be foimd that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is right and that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, having found he had made a mistake, sent his colleague to proclaim to the world that he was all wrong. But what does one of the hon. gentleman's supporters sitting behind him say on this subject ? These hon. gentle- men who are new in the House may suppose that I am drawing upon my imagination, but they will find that I can produce the evidence of hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that the matter is as I have stated it. THE LIBERAL TARIFF CHANGES. What does the Winnipeg " Tribune " of March 9th of this year say upon tnis subject ? It says : There Is something almost pathetic in the unconscious irony of Mr. Sif- ton's assertion that the present tariff is " one that their opponents, if t' ey got the chance, would not change much." Certainly not. W!^y should the 15 "opponents" change the tariff if they got the chance ? It is very largely the tariff which was in force when these "opponents" ceased to have the chance. Thus speaks the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Kichardson) : Does the reduction of one cent per gallon on coal oil, the reduction of 1214 cents duty on binder twine, the removal of the duty from barbed wire, and a preference on British goods to the extent of one-fourth of the scheduled duties, constitute the difference between the Tory protective tariff and "free trade as it is in England"— the avowed fiscal goal of Sir Wilfrid Laurier ? I do not require to dilate more on this point to show that whatever has been the policy of the present Government with regard to this mat- ter, they owe that policy to the Ijiberal-Conservative party, and it is by following out the policy of that party that they are able to boast, as they do, of the happy position Canada has attained. That policy, whether discussed by the Minister of the Interior or by the hon. member for Lis- gar is one, I am satished, the maintenance of which the people of Can- ada will demand in all its integrity, so as ijo give to Canadian industries that advantage to which they are entitled. But what have these changes in that policy which the editor of the " Tribune " pointed out done for Canada ? What has the taking off the duty on binder twine done for us ? It has closed down the binder twine industry and nearly doubled the cost. (Hoar ! Hear !) What has the reduction in duty on barbed wire done except to destroy the Canadian industry and substitute for it the American ? What has the reduction of one cent per gallon on coal oil accomplished ? It has led to the transfer of a great and important national industry of Canada into the hands of an American combine and trust that wants to render extinct everything in the shape of a coal oil industry in Canada. (Hear ! Hear !) I want to give to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)', who no doubt is quite sincere in thinking that it is his policy that makes the sun rise in the cast and set in the west, a little evidence that Canada was just omerging into the sunshine of renewed trade and vigour when he assumed office. It is an old saying that it is better to be lucky than rich, and certainly hon. gentlemen opposite may plume themselves on being exceptionally lucky. They came into power at a time when wc were just passing out of a condition of depression into a condition of unwonted prosperity, and I shall give the evidence. I find in the report just published for the year 1898 by the Canadian Pacific Railway Com- pany the statement : A much larger amount of grain from the North-western crops remains to be removed than ever before at this time of the year, and this, together with 16 zha most satisfactory agricultural anc" industrial conditions now prevailing in Canada, which are due in a great measure . To the accessloa to oflico of the Liberal Government ? Not at all. -to good crops and good prices, and to successful mining, gives promise to a large spring an 1 summer trafllc. Mi A PERIOD OF WORLD-WIDE RROSPERITY. If any person bo so partisan as to be able to shut his eyes to the fact that we were not only just emerging from a condition of great depres- sion into one of prosperity — that in Canada, in Europe, in England, Aus- tralasia and the United States, everywhere this was evident — but that we had besides the good fortune to have exceptionally good crops and instead of the farmer being compelled to take a poorer priice for his produce the price was doubled, so that he was practically made rich and the whole country benefited. I give to him these facts, which we can- not suppose the people are ignorant of, nor the fact that the great mineral discoveries in Nova Scotia, Lake of the Woods district, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Yukon — these enormous gold discoveries. poured millions of capital into oUi.- country within the past two years. When I heard the eulogium pro- nounced by the mover of the Address upon British Columbia, my mind was carried back to the time when, standing on the other side of the House, as Minister of Railways, I was fighting to carry the contract for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway that would give us communication from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I was opposed by a very able and distinguished gentleman, standing where I now stand — • Mr. Blake — who demanded : What object is there in saddling this country with an enormous expense for the jiurpose of making a railway to British Columbia, which is only a sea of mountains ? It was a sea of mountains ; but it turns out that that sea of mountains, as the hon. mover of this motion has declared, bids fair not only to rival, but to sur- pass, many of the most important provinces in this Dominion by reason of the splendid mineral wealth which is now being developed there. (Applause.) But, Sir, I give the right hon. gentleman another evidence, if any- thing more be wanted. In 1893, the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway were almost $21,500,000, and in 189 -t they had dropped to about $18,750,000. Was that drop due to legislation or to any action of the Government ? The right hon. gentleman knows that these things had nothing whatever to do with it. He knows that it was a question 17 of crops, a question of commercial depression in 1804, and that, who- ever had been in power in that year, the result would have been the saiiic. In 1895 the gross revenue of that road was $18,941,030, and the net re- venue about $7,480,950. In 1896, before the right lion, gentleman's policy could have had any effect, the gross revenue rose to $30,681,590, and the net revenue to $8,107,581. In 1897, with the good crops and the greater mining development and the increased capital brought into the countiy, in fact, with the wave of prosperity that was passing over this oountry, as it passed over the neighbouring republic, tlie gross receipts went up to $24,049,334, and the net revenue to about $10,303,775. In 1898 tliere was a further increase to $20,138,977 in the gross revenue, and $10,475,371 net. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will not claim that he put all this money into the pockets of the sharelioldcrs of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If he does not, then I say to him tliat the statement lie ventured to make — it was in an after-dinner speech, and, no doubt, some allowance must be made, particularly as the enthusinsni of his followers had, perhaps, carried him away a little — that this was due to his policy, is not well founded. I turn to another evidence, which, I think, the right hon. gentleman Avill admit is conclusive on this point. Let rae read from the report of Mr. Gage, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States : The foreign commerce of the fiscal year 1898 In many respects has been phenomenal. The export- ation of the products of both field and factory ex- ceeded in value those of any preceding year, and the grand total of exports was the largest ever rec- orded. For the first time In the hi.story of our for- eign commerce the year's exportation averaged more than $100,000,000 a month, the total being $1,231,482,- 330, against $1,050,993,556 in 1897, and $1,030,278,148 in 1892, no other year having reached the billion dollar line. "Was this due to the policy of the hon. gentleman ? Is it to this Government that the United States owe this that they declare toi be a phenomenal condition of progress and prosperity ? No, Sir; it is due to those causes to which I have adverted : it) is a question of crops — yes, and of prices. The crops may not have exceeded by so very much those of previous years, but when you come to send a hundred millions to Great Britain alone, as the United Slates did, and at double prices to the farmer that they have been able to obtain before, the hon. gentleman will see that the causes of the prosperity are entirely beyond anything that he has been able to do. But I am wrong, perhaps, in saying that 18 \' S § the hon. gentleman had nothing to do with this prosperity. They had, a littio. They rsu up the imports into Canada of tho products of the United States some nineteen or twenty millions beyond what they had been before, and to that extent their policy may be faiiily claimed to have contributed to the increase of the United States exports to which Secretary Gage refers. Now, let me give my right hon, friend another evidence to show) that this idea tliat it is in proportion to what you receive from a country that you send to that country, is an entire delusion. I have already shown that, while we were iccreasing hy mil- lions the exports of Canada's products to Great Britain, we were actually taking half a million dollars less from Great Britain than had been taken before. And what about the United States ? Why, Sir, the United States took from the United Kingdom, in 1889. $179,566,373 wortli, and in 1898 only $111,361,617, a decrease of $68,304,758. Now, if there was anything in the hon. gentleman's theory, how could these figures arise ? In 1889 the United States exported to the United King- dom $650,616,383 worth, and in 1898, having taken $68,000,000 worth less from England than they did before, they exported $981,131,110 to ]' igland, or an increase of $331,517,837. That, I trust, will prevent my right lion, friend from on any occasion venturing again to claim that the g^uestion of how much the products of Canada may be sent to any country depends upon what is received from that country. ' THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION. Now, Sir, I approach the subject that was so fully and so very ably dealt with by the hon. gentleman who moved the Address, and that is the Anglo-American rapprochement, as it was termed. Tho question is one of the greatest i^ossiblo gravit}', there can be no doubt about that; and I think I may venture to claim at the hands of hon. gentlemen op- posite that I fully appreciated that gravity in the course I felt i^ my duty to take in regard to that matter. I felt that if there was anything in the shape ot gratitude in the heart of man, it was simply impossible that the United States of America could fail to recognize the deep obli- gation under which they stood to Great Britain. (Hear ! Hear !) When all the leading powers of Europe approached Great Britain at the time of the Spanish war with a proposal to intervene on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for war between the United States and Spain, no intelligent person in this or any other country requires to be told that if England had adopted that policy, if she had joined the other powers 19 of Europe in interfering between the United States and Spaiii, it waa im-- possible that the arms of the former could have accomplished what they did, or tliat the results could have been what they were. There is no* doubt that in the press and among public men in a great many quarters- of the United States there was a warm and strong expression of gratitud& for England's course in that matter. I confess that although I had had some reason to take a somewhat contrary view, from observations I hatU an opportunity of making, I was greatly impressed with the oppor- tunity that was thus resented for a closer rapprochement between the members of the great English- speaking family. My right hon. friend will remember that I was obliged to treat a proposal of one of my friends behind me with a little discourtesy, advising him not to persist at this time in urging action on the part of this House that would be calculated to interfere in the slightest degree with what I looked upon as a very great and important movement. . An hon. MEMBER. And you were wrong. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. It really looks as though I had been. But as I sa)'', I felt that there never had been such an opportunity for Canada to obtain a fair and just settlement of the various questions in dispute that existed l)otween the United States of America and our owe country ; and so strongly impressed was I with that view, that when I came out from England and learned that a conference was about to take place between representatives of Great Britain, composed for the most part of members of the Canadian Government, along witli another very ' able member of this House, I felt at once that I must alter the course ' I had proposed to take, of carrying on a somewhat active agitation in the province of Quebec. (Applause.) My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte), I know, regards with great contempt any effort io- opposition to this Government that anybody can make in that province,, vvhich he assumes to be entirely his own special charge and care. But I must say that I do not place so low an estimate upon the intelligence of tbe people of that great province as to doubt that if they were prop-- \i %0 f ii v:. crly informed of the position that this Government occupies in regard, to iiinny (questions vitally alTccting that province, at all events, the relative proportion of lion, •,'ontlenien ?ittinle of Canada that those negotiations should be bj'ought to a termination, and that the represent- atives of Canada should return to their own country; that if it was found impossible to induce the United States to agree to a fair and just solution of these various questions, the matter should be terminated, and Canada should be left in a position to take such measures t;.-, I do not hesitate to say, are absolutely essential to command that respect on the part cf that groat republic that lies at the very foundation of securing any just "consideration for cvrj Canadian question. We liave tried the sunny ways, we have tried the pleasant means of accomplishing these o])jects, too long, and wc have tried them with such a thoroughly bootless result that the patience of the people of Canada is exhausted, and they say: Let us now — not retaliate ; no person talks of retaliation. No person raises the question of retaliation for a single moment ; but we say the time i'.as come when it is absolutely due to Canadian interests that the Avorld should know tliat we are not in the humiliating and dependent jiosition of being oblig^ed to crave as suppliants at the feet of the United States of ^Vnierica any consideration whatever. (Loud Cheers). We say tliat Canada has attained that position, and she enjoys that position to- day. Consider her attitude in whatever light and from whatever stand- l)oint you ma}-, wc say that Canada occu})ies a position in which she asks no favour from the L'nited States of America or from any other foreign country. Canada is so inagnificently endowed by nature with such rich and inexhaustible resources of every kind and character as to make it un- necessary for her ; and if it was necessary, no policy is more fatal to ai- tain the object in view than to present ourselves in the position of sup- l)liants. Now, Sir, those deliberations, in my judgment, should have l>een closed the moment the United States took so unreasonable a po- sition as thty did, accord infj to the official report given out by the Hon. 26 tl Senator Fairbanks and the Prime Minister of Canada, acting as the head of the commission. I say, th.i moment that point was reached, those negotiations should have been closed, and the r'^presentatives of Canada should have returned to their seats in this House of Commons of our country, in a position to take up those questions and deal with tbam, not in a spirit of retaliation, but in a spirit of adopting just such legis- lation as the interests of Canada demanded at their hands. WHY THE NEGOTIATIONS FAILED. V A great deal of diflBculty that has grown out of this question has bee j the disastrous result of the policy pursued by the right hon. gentleman who leads this Government. I must say, and I say it with regret, that in my judgment, from the hour the Government was formed in 1896 ^^^ until they went down to this inter- Aj ^ r^ /"^v-mSH^^ national conference or meeting in I ^s / W 1L (QSi^Si^ Quebec two years later, if their sole fipTY \^ LMW^^^^ ^^^ object had been to render it impos- JV y- Xy^^^^^^^wM sible for Canada to obtain any fair ~ ' ^ ^ and just anJ reasonable arrange- ments with the United States, they left nothing undone, during these t'P^o long years, that could ensure the accomplishment of that result. (Hear! Hear!) That is a very strong statement, but I will show the House, as briefly as I can, the ground on which I base it. What was their first step? The fiist unfortunate step taken by the right hon. Fi'^^t Minister was the last which any man acquainted witii diplomacy, or who had any knowledge of the subject or diplomatic arrangements, would have taken That step was to unbosom himself to a Chicago reporter. In that inter- view he took the last ground which any man charged with the duty of leading the Government of Canada ought to take. He said that he and his associates were the only men in Canada who were friendly to the United States of America, the only men from whori the United States could expect to receive such treatment as would be satisfactory to them. Was that calculated to strengthen the hands of the right hon. gentleman? Just the reverse. His btatement was not true. I do not intend for a moment to say that the hon. gentleman wilfully misstated the facts, but 27 that his recollection entirely failed him. His recollection of the history of Canada, his knowledge of the Conservative party in Canada, entirely failed him when he made the untme statement to a Chicago reporter that the Liberal-Conservative party in Canada was hostile to the United .States of America. Mr. SPEAKER. I think it is going rather too far to state that any hon. riemher of this House has made an imtrue statement. There are a great many other ways by which the hon. gentleman can express his ap- preciation of what the right hon. gentleman said. Sir CHARLES TUPPER. I do not intend for a single moment to in- sinuate that the right hon. Prime Minister made a deliberately false staterient. I draw the distinction between that and an untrue statement. Any statement is untrue which is contradicted by the facts. I have made a great many statements to-night which hon. gentlemen opposite will challenge as untrue because they differ from me on questions of fact. But I do not at all wish to be implied that I am charging the right hon. gentleman with deliberately misstatirg any facts. I want that to be clearly understood. I would not use the word if I thought it were of a personally offensive character, but I am bound to say that, whether un- true or not, the statement of the riglit lion, gentleman is disproved by the whole history of Canada from the first hour of confederation down to the present. There never was a party in this House or country that recognized more than did the Liberal-Conservative party the great im- portance of having the most friendly relations, both socially and com- mercially, with the United States of America. (Cheers). I hold that as a cardinal principle, and I say that the Conservative party have acted upon ti .it principle from the first hour of confederation down to the present, and shall prove directly, out of my right hon. friend's own mouth, that he was mistaken in bringing that charge against us. SIR JOHN MACDONALD'S TREATY. "What are the facts ? Everyone remembers that in 1871, the Right "Hon. Sir John Macdonald was sent to Washington, as a joint High Commissioner, to negotiate a treaty between Great Britain and the United States. What happened ? He did negotiate u treaty. There is not a gentleman on the other side who will contradict me when I say ihat there never wat: so critical an hour in the relations between Great »:l i ! f-l i 28 Britain and tkf United States. Everyone kno\ys that the seizures made by the "Alabama" during the civil war in the United States excited the most intensely bitter feeliugs on the part of the United States towards Great Britain — a feeling not cor fined to one, bat shared by all parties. At that critical honi-, the Right lion. Sir John Macdonald Avas sent down to Washington, as one of a lligli Commission, to negotiate a treaty for the settlement of that "xViabama"" question and certain other ques- tions that M'cre in controversy Ijetwejn the United Stutcs and Ciaiada at that time. Well, Mr. Speaker, a treaty was negotiated and signed, and its adoption was moved on the floor of this House. I shall have oc- casion directly to draw the attention of the House to the attitude taken by the Conservatives on the one side and the Liberals on the other, as to what should be done with regard to that important treat}, Init f!'rst let me refer to the remarks made by the right hou. First Minister to tht Chicago reporter lie said ; The Liberal Cov^^rnmcnt, which has jus' taken office, de.slres and Intends to signalize Its administration bv a renewal A renewal, mark you, Mr. Speaker- of the neighbourly relations with our friends across the border. As you have suggested, th-^ relations between Canada and the United States have not been as cordial for some time past as I hope they will be in the future. Borne years ago, when considerable friction had been created by the Nortli Atlantic fishery troubles, I tooli an opportunity to say that the question should be adjusted in a friendly manner, becoming an enlightened and friend- ly people, by the simple process of give and take, and I do not a^e now why an arrangement should not be made resembling that effected by the Treaty of Washington in 1871 and the treaty of 1S54, whereby not only the Ports but the inshore waters of both countries were thrown open to the fishermen uf botli on equal terms, and the markets for the fish of the two countries made equally free. I may just in passing refer to that unfortunate mistake of my right lion, friend in supposing that the treaty of 1S71 contained any such pro- vision. It was not a question of give and take. It was not a question of free markets for fish in return for free fishing, but a question of the fisheries of the two countries being mutually enjoyed by the fislicrmen of both and of an international tribunal ascertaining how much should be paid by the one country to the other — whicli entirely changed the whole eom])lcxion of that arrangement. That international tribunal met at Halifax, and by its award the United States wore compelled to pay $5,500,000 to Canada and Newfoundland for the use of their fish- 29 tries, over and above the value of their own, and the admission of our fish free during twelve yeai's, or something like $500,000 a year. There- fore the position taken by my hon. friend was entirely a mistaken one, and one that, I do not hesitate to say, met him at the threshold of this commission. AVhen he had ascertained the true position and was asked by the United States : Do you adhere to your proposal which you stated to a Chicago reporter you were prepared lo make, namely, a proposal of give and take, and give up your inshore fisheries in return for free ad- mission of fish in the markets of the United States, my right hon. friend was obliged to say no. You had to pay $5,500,000 for the use of our fisheries, over and above the advantage of the free import of our fish into your country, and I cannot agree to anything of the 1 — and that closed that question. And I am as satisfied that that took place as if I had heard the conversation between the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. "Well, Sir, that treaty was submitted, and I now come to the evidence upon which I stated, that while the great Liberal-Conservative party have always been in favour of the most friendly, cordial, social and commercial relations with the United States, and have proved it again and again, hon. gentle- men opposite are the men who, on the floor of this House, denounced in unmcasLiired terms efforts that Avere calculated to bring about that harmonious settlement of the questions at issue. The Hon. Mr. Mac- kenzie, then the leader of the Opposition, in 1872, when the treaty was considered, said : We believed, however, that there was a limit beyond which we ought not to go. He did not believe that national health, national glory and national pride were always to be purchased by making sacrifices to what is justly called the peace-at-any-price party. It was manifest that -f we on fhis con- tinent, hemmed in as we are by the people of the United States, whcse pol- itical policy had been sinjjularly aggressive That was the language, Sir, of these gentlemen, who are so devoted in their friendship to the United States. . yielded up to so-called peace every advantage we possessed within our territory, it would soon become a question of how far it would be possible to pursue that policy and retain any trace of national life and public spirit. ALFXANDER MACKENZIES' ATTITUDE. I wish that the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was on the floor of this Parliament to-day to stand up and maintain, in the face of hon. gentlemen oj)posite the position he took on tiiat occasion. For, although the treaty was one which should have received the approval of this House, there is not a word in that quotation that does not come home WI«i!|pil^H 30 k to every gentleman in this House as one that a self-respecting people would he expected to support. Mr. Mackenzie again said : He felt that on no consideration ought we to yield our honour at the shrine of mammon, that on no consideration ought we to have bartered away our heritage for t'ls questionable equivalent of money. I would like to ask the right lion, gentleman if he has not been en- gaged in those negotiations, the close consideration of what amount of money should he paid hy the United States for bartering away one of the most sacred rights of British subjects ? Enough has leaked out to let us knov.' that it was a question whether one of our most important na- tional assets, and one of the dearest rights a British subject can enjoy,, the right of going about on the high seas, following a legitimate calling, should not bo bartered away for money — putting a price, as the hon. Mr. Mackenzie said, upon one of tne dearest rights of the people of this, country. Xow, I wish to call attention to what the Hon. Mr. Blake- said : As to their being now a critical state of relations between the two coun- tries, there would be the same then — the same hectoring, the same blustering^ and bragging, if only for the purpose of retaining the fishing privileges. I wonder if my right hon. friend and his associates have not been en- during of late a good deal of that hectoring, of that blustering and brag- ging which Mr. Blake describes here as the mode in which the statesmen of that great republic are apt to press their claims. Mr. Young, who was. then a leading member of this House, and a member of the Opposition,, representing an Ontario constituency, said : The whole thing was a shameful sacrifice of Canada's interest, and this was gen^^rally admit- ted, and the member for West Durham had fully proved it. This was no reason why the treaty should be ratified. He had seldom heard more pal- try reasons than those urged by the Government In pressing the acceptance of the treaty. Where would these sacrifices end ? They would never end so far as the United States were concerned and as long as Canada was on the map. These are the sentiments of that party who have boasted again and again, and have dinned into the ears of the Americans until some of them have been foolish enough to believe it, that the Liberal party were alone w'^ing to make a fair and friendly settlement of the questions be- tween the two countries, I say that this is not, in my judgment, the way to succeed in a diplomatic struggle, such as the hon. gentleiuan has been engaged in. Mr. Mills, the present ^Minister of Justice, said : We should feel entirely satisfied that, before the treaty was ratified, wa M 81 did not make a mistake, and that by one fell swoop we should not destroy the hopes and blast the prospects of this country. And, holding up the treaty in his hand, he said : Here was the hole through which America would get possession of this-' country. Mr. FOSTER. Is that our Mills ? Sir CHARLES TUPIER. OUR Mills— the present Minister of Jui^- tice. And tliis was how he spoke of the Treaty of Washington of 1871,- and there is not a man in Canada to-day but would hold up both- hands to have it enacted or to have had it remain in perpetuity as "^ set- tlement of the questions between ■ the United States and Canada. That measure was received by the Liberal party with denunciation, though they now arrogate to them- selves the credit for bringing about' a renewal of friendly relations. When was there a rupture, with the* Conservative party in power, of the- friendly relation between the^ United States and Canada? Mr. Mills continued : ■. j(| (n\f He had not much confidence, judging by several previous treaties, in the ability of British statesmen, and the Oregon territory dispute would prevent him placing much reliance in the moderation and Justice of American states- men. So much for the evidence I give as to the statement made by the right hon. gentleman, that it was necessary to bring the Liberal party into power in order to get fair and reasonable arrangements made with this country. Does the right hon. gentleman think I have not answered completely his statement and shown that, if there has been a strong at- titude of liostility ever taken on the floor of Parliament toward the United States, it was taken when the Conservative Government were making a fair, friendly and excellent arrangement with the United States, and that arrangement was being denounced as a base surrender' of the rights and interests of the people of Canada ? 02 "Well, Sir, what happened then ? Why, Sir, wo have the right hon. gentleman hiinself noUvithstanding all these iierco denunciations of the United States by ^^.d Liberal friends, by the leaders whom he followed, no sooner clothed with power than he rushes into the arms of a Chicago reporter, and unbosoms himself of tlie statement, that what he wants to do to prove his a/Teclion to the United States is to adopt this very treaty that had been denounced in unmeasured terms by his friends and col- leagues. But I Villi give the hon. gentleman's own words to prove what he said. I won't say, after the gentle hint that tlie Speaker has been good enough to give me, that ic was untrue, but perhaps he will allow me to say it was inaccurate — I will prove from the mouth of the right hon. gentleman himself that his statement was inaccurate. On July 1st, 1897, at a dinner given in London, the right hon. gentleman says : I am sorry to say that there are still too man'- causes of friction remain- ing? between Great Britain and the United States. When I aay that the people und the Government of England were not blameless lie was referring to the civil war, and on that I altogether differ with him. yet for all the troubles ' ' Mark this. This is the language oT the same gentleman who says now that the Liberal party are the only i)arty to whom the United States can look for fair and friendly arrangements. lie says : yet for all the troubles which have arisen since the Civil War, the blame, in my estimation, rests not with England, but with the United States. 'There I am giving the very best evidence of the inaccuracy of the state- ment made by the right hon. gentleman. But there is anotlier (question I am asked by tlie organ of the Liberal party if there are not two Tup- pei's. They are good enough to remind me of the statements which I made in this House when I was asking this House to accept the treaty of 1888, negotiated at Washington. Now, what was that treaty ? That was not a treaty in which wo were at the feet of the United States ask- ing for arrangements. ;^: THE FISHERY DIFFICULTY. .; ,. That treaty grew out of a proposal made by Mr. Bayard, then Secre- tary of State for the United States, to myself, proposing that we should meet and discuss the question as to whether the Atlantic fisheries diffi- 33 J culty could Hot be disposed of. At that time^ as the House knows, the relations between the United States of America and of Canada were in as serious and unpleasant a position as it was possible to imagine. Congress had passed a unanimous resolution, and the President had ratified it, authorizing a declaration of non-inlercoTirse with Canada ; and ihore was not a i)aper on the Republican or llu Democratic side of politics in the whole of the United States, so far ao I am aware, that was not denounc- ing C'lTinda from day to day for the most inhuman and unfriendly treat- ment of the fishermen of the United States. There was, however, :po foundation for tliosc denunciations, because ihe Government of the United States had itself abrogated the treaty of 1871, and we were then thrown back upon the treaty of 1818, which was then brought into operation, and which had been suspended by the later treaty. In justice to Canadian rights avo were compelled to seize their fishermen if they came into our waters and trespassed upon our fishing grounds. ^Yoll, at that time, as I say, the relations between ihe two countries were of the most unpleasant character, and Iler Majesty's Government appointed three plenipotentiaries, of whom I had the honour to be one. The Eight lion. Joseph Chamberlain was the leader of Her Majesty's represent- atives. We went to Washington, and after some two months of negotia- tions wo succeeded in making a treaty, a treaty so favourable that the Parliament of Canada — although at the first blush lion, gentlemen op- posite denounced it as very wrong and improper, as they always do any- thing that comes from the Conser\ative party — the House of Commons unanimously adopted it. That treaty was sent down by Mr. Cleveland to the Senate of the United States, with the declaration that it was a fair, honourable and just settlement of the whole question, and ho urged the Senate to adopt it. That treaty may bo studied by any lion, gentle- man in this House, and he will find that evei-y single contention on the- part of Canada as to our rights under the treaty of 1818,, is conceded in it ; and I will give better evidence, directly,, than that as to its value. As we had great reason to doubt whether it would receive a two-thirds vote of the Senate, we followed that up by a modus vivendi, to go into operation pending the ratification of the treaty, or until by proclamation it was cancelled. That modus vivendi is in operation to-day ; that modus vivendi is one that both President Cleveland had sanctioned, and that Mr. Harrison, who succeeded him as the Republican President, also declared in his inaugural address had caused all the friction to cease between the two nations. I did not hesitate to urge the adoption of that treaty upon the House of Com- U 34 '■^ I % n .. ^mons, and was fortunate enough to obtain the unanimous sanction of this House to tliat treaty. But I say more. I put it to my right hon. . friend again — he v/ill perhaps say lie is not in a position to answer mo — but I say tliat I believe that he offered substantially the re-enactment of that treaty to the United States of America on the present occasion as a settlement of the Atlantic fisheries question. I have reasons for making this statement, because, as hon. gentlemen are aware, despite all efforts to maintain secrecy, a great deal will leak out, and it is impossible to prevent the press and certain parties from getting a good deal of this . information. Now, I come to the next step taken. My right hon. friend sent down ■ to Washington the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister -of Trade and Commerce, to see if they could induce the United States .io consider a reciprocal trade arrangement. Well, how did they come back ? They came back ..-ith the Dingley tariil, largely increasing the duties upon lumber, after the late Government had gone out of ofTice, and with a more stringent alien labour law than existed before. I am not sui-prised that these gentlemen came back intensely disgusted with the Reception they met with. Then, what was the next step in this drama ? We then had the Minister of Finance coming to the front, and with a great shout of loyalty that was to echo and re-echo through- out the whole British Empire, he declared to this House, and to the people of Canada, that the Government of Canada had made up their minds, as the United States had given them the cold shoulder, and were not disposed to entertain any of their proposals — they had made up their minds to adopt the policy of giving a preference ; • British trade in their tariff. I won't go into all the history of that tariff, because it is too well known to require repetition. But we all know the very un- fortunate blunders that the Minister of Finance and all his colleagues fell into on that occasion. Now, Sir, one of the very first elements of success in diplomacy is that the men who are negotiating with you should have some respect for you, that the people with ~liom you are called upon to negotiate these matters should believe that you know: ,fiomething of the subjects upon which you are talking. Ml 35 THE LOYALTY CBY. "Well, when they found that the Minister of Finance and the rrime Minister of Canada owed — and I explained before dinner that these gentlemen owed the National Policy to us, owed all the prosperity and progress that has taken place in Canada under their regime, to us who preceded theni; more than that, I say they owed this loyalty cry to us. Where Avould tliey have been if they could have carried out their policy of 1891 ? Would they have been in a position to pose as men determined -to build up the British Empire if the Liberal-Conservative party of Ca- nada had not been able to beat down their disloyal — I do not say inten- tionally disloyal — but I say their disloyal effort to break down British Institutions in this country ? (TTear ! Hear !) What was that policy which the Liberal-Conservatives of Canada defeated at the polls ? It vas to adopt the tariff of the United States for Canada against the rest of the world, Britain included ; it was that Canada should turn her back on England, and discriminate against Great Britain. And when the Minister of Trade and Com- merce (Sir Richard Cartwright) was asked : Suppose this involves discrimination against England, his answer was : We cannot help that, we are determined to have unres- tricted reciprocity and free trade on this continent of North America, let England say or do what she likes. Sir, I stand here to- night to say that this loyalty •cry of the Liberals which has stood them in good stead, and which' has covered their breasts with decorations, was only available to them because we defeated their attempt to undermine British institutions on this continent, (Cheers). Have we not good evi- dence on this point ? Look at the London "Times," the day after the general election of 1891, in which the Hon. Edward Blake puts on rec- ord for all time the declaration : That he had to leave their ranks be- •cause he would not fight under false colours, and because their policy ^ "i^'ii n 30 "WOfl '^no that would loud to the commercial subjugation of Canada to the Uniicd States, whicli would involve ultimately the loss of British insti- tutions. (Ai)pluuse). "When this tarill' oC tlie Liberal Covcrnmcnt was brought down, the right lion, tho rriuie Minister was told from this side of the ilouse, that it would nuL accomplish what he ahncd at, that there were two treaties in the way fatal to his policy, and that ihcre were several countries that under his resolution were entitled to the i)rivilege given ; when he was told that, he held up his right hand and I can see him standing there in all the majesty of his position auu power declaring to tliis IIouso and to the world that he and his Government had studied this whole ques- tion and they had come to the conclu.sioii that there was only one coun- try in the world that could on joy the advantages which the resolution ofTercd. I need no', detain the House longer than to say that he and his Govcrmncnt soon found they were wrong in that from top to bottom and that they had been trying their prentice hand upon a subject which they did not understand. At last, down in Shcineld, at the great annual dinner there, the Minister of Finance Qh\ FieldLng) had the manliness to say, and I give him credit for it , "We have no preferential t'lriff, but Ave intend to have one next year. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Eichard Carlwright) maintained that this first resolution of 189G was open to all the world, nnd to a large extent ho was right, but what about the resolution of 18U7 ? Why, this Government that claim to be the friends of the United States of America, and to consider above and beyond all the importance of meeting tho wishes of that country, this Government absolutely put upon the Statute-book a discrimination in favour of Great Britain of 25 per cent. A SHAM rREFEKENCE. !|4 r-!4 "W^ll, it wf o a sham preference. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Field- ing) with that wonderful ingenuity of his — I do not like to call it by a harsher term — managed, before he took off the 12| per cent to put that or a little more on, so that when he gave his 25 per cent reduction it was more like 12-J- than 25, as he himself knows. I have shown i\lready that this was comparatively wortlilcss to England. It has no doubt em- barrassed a few industries in this country, but so far as the trade of Great Britain is concerned, at tho end of six months under this pro- fessed discrimination in favour of England, the trade returns show that Great Britain sent absolutely one per cent more of their products to Ca- nada under this magnificent boon which was supposed to have been con- 87 f erred upon them, than they sent before. I cannot imagine gentlemen who had any idea of approaching the United States of America for a reciprocity treaty, stultifying themselves more completely than they did in this matter, even if they had l^een offered u premium for doing so. (Hear ! Hear !) Wliat they did in this respect was had enough in all conscience, but they did worse. While fdl'ng the country with this great shout of loyalty to the mother land (to whom we owe so much and were 80 aiixious to pay a portion of our debt) they turned round and gave to the United States of America everything they had to give and without 4iny quid pro quo whatever. We on this side of the House told thom in 1897 : Your tariff is a delusion ; you are pretending to i-nJcc a British tariff while you are making a pro-American tariff, and, Sir, the result has been that at the end of the first year of this tarilT, there were $500,- 000 less imports into Canada from England, but $20,000,000 more im- ports to Canada from the United States. AMiat did the ablest man — I do not hesitate to say it although he is not in the Ilouse — that repre- sented Canada on this Commission, Mr. John Charlton, the hon. mem- ber for North Norfolk — what did he say ? Did any person ever hear before of a body of gentlemen engaged in an important diplomatio ne- gotiation, sending one of their friends out on the stump in "Washington and in Chicago, to lecture the people of the United States of America in reference to the subjects that were under consideration of the confer- ence. It may be a new mode of diplomacy, but it is not likely to bj a suc- cessful one. AVhen they proposed in tliis Ilouse to make corn free, did not the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Chariton) tell them ; If you contemplate any negotiations with the United States of i.Vmerica, you had better reserve something so as to give you a basis for negoti- ating. But the policy that prevailed on that occasion and that over- rode the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. mcmljcr for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was the policy of the right hon. gentle- man who leads the Ilouse, who, when formulating that magnificent policy that v/as to startle the whole of British North America when it came to lights said ("Hansard/' 1893) : The great trouble we have always had in our dealings with the American Republic has been simply this, that the Canadian Government has never been generous in their treatment of American citizens and the American Re- public. If we have favours to give, if we have concessions to make, we should give them and make them gracefully. • Well, Sir, he lias tried that, and where does he find himself ? He low- ered the duties on iron, on wheat and on flour ; he made corn free, and lie increased the products sent from the United States into Canada by 38 over $20,000,000 per annum. That was carrying out his mode, and '\\hat did he get by it ? Why, Sir, when he went down to negotiate these trade arrangements at Quebec, nis hands were emp'y. lie had given, away everything he could give, and he got nothing for it. He has not got thanlvs' or recognition or anything that is valuable to a public man ; and he has only succeeded in bringing his country into contempt. (Hear ! Hear !) I say it advisedly : I say, the feeling throughout the wliole of this country is that the position of Cane. 2 j, would be infinitely hi "-her, stronger and better to-day, if that commission had never b( on heard of. We have been suing and imploring on the platform and in the closet and everywhere ; we have been begging favors from the United States of America, when there is not a countrv on the face of the globe that is in a better position than this Dominion of Canada to present a bold front and to say that we are in a position of inde^iendence that will enable us to d'^al fairly and justly between man and man, but that we ask no favor and no affection from any person whatever. Well, Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), no doubt, was confronted with this little statement when he went down to engage in these negotiations. The hon. gentleman visited London in 1897; on which occasion he delivered himself of an address before a section of the London Chamber of Commerce; and what did he sav? He said; — In 1895, the lapt year he had access to the tables. Great Britain took $60,000,000 of Canada's produ;.t3, while the United States took only $40,000,000; Can- ada took from the 'Jnited States $60,000,000 of her proc'ucts, and only $30,000,000 from the mother coun- try. "When the Liberal party came into power In Canada, they thought something should be done to reverse that stat-s of affairs. If it had been brought about by natural causes, those causes might well have been left to work out their own result ; but when they saw that it had been produced by artifi- cial means, they determined that all the obstacles in the way of the development of trade between Canada end the mother country should be removed. Kow, Sir, what did the hon. gentleman mean by that statement? He meant this — and it means nothing else — that the Consciiat've party in ibis country had been di.scriminating against the mother countiy and by unnatural means forcing the trade into United States channels. That is what it meant, and it meant nothing else. And now. Sir, we have the declaration, that, when this hon. gentleman wont to negotiate a re- ciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, they said: We 89 thought you were altogether opposed to having any trade with the- United States. Are you the same gentleman who lield up to execra- tion the late Government for having by unnatural means increased the trade of Canada with this country? If these are your views, wL„fc do you mean now? Do you mean to say that you do not intend to carry out thj solemn pledge you gave on the platform in the City of London to the English people and the English merchants, that you and your Gov- ernment intended to change all that, and to see that Canada would not take more from the CFnited States than from England, and give less? Now, Sir, what is the result? Why, Sir, instead of the' lion, gentleman having accomplished that by this sham preference given to England, but a real preference to the United States, he brought about that discrimination in favor of the United States and against England that he had denounced, and here it is. In 1 895, the imports from the United States were $54,d34,000; in 1808, under the policy of my hon. friend, the imports rose to no less than $78,000,000, or $23^366,000 more than had been brought fiom the United States under the tariff that he denounced, and that he pledged himself to the English people to remedy. What would such astute men as Senator Fairbanks and the late Mr. Dingley — ^whose death we very much de- plore — think when they were asked to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with gentlemen who had shown, either that they did not know what they were talking about, that they did not understand the subject with which they were undertaking to deal, or that they were most unfriendly towards the Unitel States of America and determined to have as little to do with them as possible? While our imports from the United States exceeded our imports from Great Britain by $30,000,000 in 1805, our imports fror\ the United States exceeded our inxports from Great Britain by $46,000,000 in 1898. United States by the tariff of on the Treasury benches was free list given to the world, The free the hon. 72 1-2 per cent, of the total and the free list enjoyed by list given to the gentleman now sitting Great Britain, was only 17 1-7 per cent. Wts that brought about by natural causes ? The hon. gentleman said this disparity in the figures was not the result of natural causes, and he and hip Government were going to see that all that was changed. They have changed it, and changed it with a vengeance; and what is the result of all this.'' The result is that ihf^SQ astute gentlemen with whom they were negotiating, found that Ihey were dealing wi'h men who did not understand tlic subject with which they were charcred, or, if they did, they had placed themselves in a most unfortunate position; and when they went to ask 4U 1« the United States to make a commercial arrangement witli a Govern- ment that had jnit on tlie Statute-book of the country a pt-eferencc for England, what was their position ? Why, Sir, they were met at once : Gentlemen, arc you the same men who, in 1891, made those speeches in which you declared that all that Canada required to make it tha most splendid country in the world, all that Canadians required to make them rich and prosperous from one end of the countiy to the other, was to get unrestricted reciprocity with us? If you are the same men, if you have not changed your principles, v/e are ready to negotiate with you; but if you have turned your backs upon yourselves, and if, instead of wanting imrestricted reciprocity witli the United States of America and discrimination against England, which in 1S91 you declared you wero ready to adopt, you want to give a preference to Great Britain, then you are not the same men, r.nd we have been deluded. We gave you, in l^he last general elections, from one end of the United States to the othe", ail the support and influence wc could give you, b ^\y ^ss and in every other way, to bring you inlo power ; and now, havmg got power, the men who told us tliev were heart and soul in favor of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States and discrimination against England, have put on the Statute-book discrimination against the United States. Yes, yoi. say, that is quite true; but see what we did for you last session. we madt-' corn free; we reduced the duties on iron, wheat, flour and aV these other articles. Well, they replied, no doubt you did that in your own interest. We presume you were in such a miserable position in Ca- nada, so dependent on the United States, that your own interests forced you to do that, and we do not intend to pay you for what your own in- terests compelled you to do. In 1S9S Canada took from the United States $3G,000,000 o" -^v^- mcsiic manufactures, exceeding the importation of these manuffo' i" from Great Britain by at least $0,000,000. From England, the mistress of the industrial world, wc imported $G,000,000 worth of manufactured goods less than from the Uivted States — not raw material required for our manufactures, but the manu- factured goods themselves. On August 1st, Consul General Bittenger, of Montreai,..^ gentleman who, like most of the Consuls General of the United States, is thorough- ly alive to the interests of his own country, sent this report to his Gov- ernment, and I ask my right hon. friend to read, mark, learn .ina in- wardly digest his report on the position into which they have reduced this country, notwithstanding all their professions. The Consul Gen- eral reports to his Government at Was^liington that: — ^ -11 Comparing the trade of last year with that of 1893, the United States pro- ducers have a tar better position in our niarlcet than ever, and the British producers occupy a place not nearly so favourable as that which they for- merly held. :•■-! . .:,'"-.i, ''■•''„":' ' . ■•■ ■■.-■"■, -/Vi"-'.'" -;. ^!v y.^; 'i..-: ■;■; Is it any wonder that associated w'dli gentlemen who, as I have shown — and I have followed them, step hy step, from the hour they got into pov.'er down to the hour they went to Qiiehec — is it any wonder that as- sociated with tliese gentlemen who, during these two years, did every- thing that a Government could do to mnke it impossible to get any in- telligent American to listen to their proposals at all, after having given cvorA'tLing a ailahlc away and having nothing left to give, that great man who led the I>ritish Commissitn, should, at the end of six months, have been forced to give utterance to thq,t tmhappy wail, which found oxprcssicn in r.lmost liis last words : ''It is to bad ; we have spent six months here now, and have got nothing but a broken leg." That is the position, and I repeat that had this Government been formed with the object of making it Impossible for us to ever obtaia any favorable trade arrangements with the United Stiites, they could not have worked harder or more successfully to accomplish that result than they did in their two years of labour before they went to negotiate this treaty at Washing- ton. THE ADJOUEXMENT OP THE CONFERENCE. Well, I had occasion, wben this treaty ended in this deplorable fiasco — for every person cannot but regard that as the position to-day — when it was f( und that on a question of great importance to Ct.nadr . the ques- tion of the delimitation of tlie 1)0undaries between the United States and the Canadian North-west and British Columbia, when it was found that tlie only terms upon which the Americans were willing to have an arljitration at all were absolutely insulting to any man of intelligence engaged in negotiating such a question, to state that in my judgment liie adjournment to the 2nd of August was a mistake from every pos- sible point oC view. (Applause). If the negotiations hud then been termi- nated — as terminated they should have been — with the question of the boundary, which they had shown themselves utterly incapable of dealing with, left unsolved, we had Great Britain to look to, which is liound by every principle of justice and ri He so com- ]>letely recognized the Im])erial as well as the Colonial importance of this great work that he agreed, on behalf of tho Imperial Government to bear one-third the cost. He agreed that if Canada had to pay £150,000 be would ask the Imperial Parliamont to supplement it with £75,000, Thus, a little over a million dollars was provided to tho hand of the leader of the present Canadian Government. And why has the work 45 not been done' Because tlio right lion, gentleman refused, in the first place to accept the contract coming from the best possible source ; and, in the second place, because he has been, sending one of his colleagiies, •who is supposed to have the matter in hand, backwards and forwards — whether ho wanted to keep him out of Canada I do not know; (laughter), but unless, that lion, gentleman finds an unsinkablc ship, which I be- lieve he is now searching for, lie will I fear disar)pear altogctlier. Tliis gentleman who has been specially charged witli the work of bringing about the completion of this great project is the same gentleman who, after he became a member of this Government, went before the Board of Trade of Quebec, and denounced the Fast ^vilantic Service. I do not think that is the way to accomplish this work. What did the Fast Service, as we had arranged it, provide? Xot only would it have put us in. most easy and rapid communication with the mother country, not only would it have enabled Canada to deliver the mails in the city of Xew York twenty hours earlier than, they could be delivered by a direct line from Southampton to Kew York — this advantage being given us by our geographical position — but it would have brought a tide of travel and traffic through this country that would not otherwise como to it. (Cheers). ]\Iore than that, the contractors were obliged to provide most ample cold storage at any time when demanded by the Government. "What did that mean? It meant an increase in the value to the whole farming population, of Canada of their meat, eggs, butter, fruit and all other perishable articles. A system of cold storage has enabled Aus- tralasia to triumph over ten thousands of miles of distance, to triumph over an equatorial climate and to surpass Canada in the butter markets of Great Britain. Tlie cold storage system has enabled the Fnited States, which have established depots in various sections of the country, . with cold storage cars and ample cold storage in their Atlantic steamers, to put on the tables of the peojile of England tlu'oughout Great Britain all these articles in prime condition and at the earliest possible moment. There is not a farmer, not a man engaged in agricultural ])ursuit3 of any kind but would have been greatly enriched by the adoption of that service. Where is it to-day ? I was glad to sec that the Board of Trade of Quebec, had memorialized my right hon. friend and bogged him to accept the proposition which the President of the Canadian racific Eail- way odored the other day. According to this memorial the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway — in his speech which was delivered be- fore the Quebec Board of Trade and a large assemblage of people, de- clared that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were anxious to see this work done. They were willing that any one should do it, willing 46 ■fi II i to join any person in order to accomplish it, but, if there was nobody «lse, they were willing to take it up and put on a fast service of a com- plete and efficient character for the million dollars which, I say, was provided to the hand of the leader of the Government before we left office. (Hear! Hear!) Not tni hour should be lost. Already wo have lost two years in this most important matter, and I trust that no more time will be lost, but that the subject will be taken up and dealt with vigorously. '^ EXPORT DUTIES. "Well, take another question. Those who have studied the question, are perfectly well aware that the policy to which the Minister of Fi- nj:nce obtained the unanimous approval of this House last year, ought now to be put into operation. My lion, friend was good enough to con- sult me, as I would have consulted him under similar circumstances, as to how this side of the House would regard the imposition of an export duty upon logs, spruce, pulp- wood and nickel ore ; and I stated to my lion, friend at once, that, so far as I was concerned — and I thought that would also be the opinion of the lion, gentlemen on this side "of the House — we would be prepared to support that policy. He obtained the power; lie has got it on the Statute-book today. Now, Sir, the "Globe" newspaper, the ^-gan of the present Government, has declared that all these j)roposals to have fair and friendly relations with the United States have failed — not that they are hung up, but they use the word "vetoed" — now that they are vetoed, they call upon the Government to adopt a Canadian policy, and to put an export dutv on these articles in the interests of Canada. What is our position ? We are shut out of the United States by the imposition of enormous duties upon the pine lumber that they require, and that the interests of their people call for in the strongest manner I "Wliat is our position ? Wliy, Sir, I do not believe that lion, gentlemen opposite have ever read the information ■contained in two octavo volumes published by the Senate vi the United States in 1890. These two volumes are replete with evidence, mark you Mr. Speaker, the sworn testimony of many witnesses. The Senatt of the United States appointed a commission, who, traversed the whole -country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, all along the boundary, from Esquimault and Vancouver, in British Columbia, to Prince Edward Island. They took the testimony of the best men and the ablest ex- perts in that country. Sir, if any man who is proud of his country, wants to know what position Canada occupies, he has only to read that .sworn testimony. What did they say on the Pacific coast? They said. tmm 47 at San Irancisco, at Seattle, and all those places: Why, your proposal to have reciprocity with Canada would kill us. "We have not a pound of bituminous coal on the Pacific coast; we are depending upon Nanaimo. So superior is the lumber of the forests of British Columbia that free trade in lumber would close down every mill on the Pacific coast, because Tve cannot begin to compete with Canada. And so all along tho line. They found that we had coal both on the Atlantic coast and on the Pa- cific coast. They found that we had forests far transcending in im- portance anything that the United States possessed. Every man who has studied this question, knows right well that within a comparatively few years the United States will be dependent for their lumber upon these magnificent forests of Canada, covering such an enormous extent ■of country. Take tlie question of the fisheries. At the international tribunal held in Halifax in which the Minister of Marine and Pisheries took part, he is aware, Uiat, after all the sworn testimony that could be obtained from the highest experts in the United States, that com- mission declared that the value of the fisheries of Canada, over and above the right to enter all our fisli free in the markets of the United States, was $5,500,000 for twelve years use. Then, take tho question of agri- culture, and look at the condition of things in the two countrior>. In the United States, the population has almost overtaken the consumption, and will at no distant day overtake it. One of the highest authorities in the United States, who had been twenty years consul at Winnipeg, de- clared that north of the boundary line were three-fourths of the remain- ing uncultivated wheat fields of North America. MINING LAWS, Take the question of minerals. Why, with the boundless wealth of British Columbia, every one knows, that all we have to do to get fair consideration from the United States is to adopt their mining laws. That is not retaliation. There is no retaliation in one country adopting the legislation of another country. It is said that imitation is the sincerest flattery ; and you simply say : We have such a high opinion of your wis- dom in making laws that we will make a copy of your laws and apply them to yourselves as you apply them to us. ( Hear ! Hear ! ) What would be the result ? Why, Sir,, we know that in these rich mining districts, tho Eossland district, the Slocan district and the Boundary district, which are to-day attracting the attention of the civil- ized world, gigantic fortunes have been made by American citizens, just xis they are now making them in tho Canadian Yukon country. So I £ay that we occupy a position to-day that enables us to say to them ; if 48 r P^; '% "We will adopt your laws, and you must give to every Canadian in the United States precisely the same advantage that we give to Americans in Canada. If wo did this, their laws would be swept from their statute- books in a month or as soon as they could pass the necessary legislation. (Applause). 1 ventured to say here, a year ago, that our true policy was to adopt their mining laws ; and what was the result ? I pointed out, at the opening of the session last year, that their eagerness to take ad- vantage of the Yukon gold fields afforded us a good opportunity to ob- tain from the United States fair and just consideration for our own peo- ple, and within one month after I made that statement upon the iloor of this House — I do not know whether it was propter hoc or post lioc, but I merely state the fact, that within a month after that statement was made, a Bill was introduced into Congress giving Canadians on tho other side of the boundary in Alaska the same privileges that Americans had on the Canadian side, in the Yukon country. And so, I say that in ti'.e interest of Canada not an hour should be lost ; in my judgment, with regard to the Alien Labour law, with regard to the mining laws, and with regard to everything that touches the comity of the two peo- ples, we should simply say to those gentlemen ; We are anxious to make the most friendly, the most fair and just arrangement that can be made, but what you mete out to us you must ex[)ect to receive in return. We are bound to protect the interests of Canadian citizens on this side of the border, just as much as you are bound to protect the interests of Amer- ican citizens on your side of the border. ■% THE CONSERVATIVE lEOH POLICY. Xow, take the question of the iron policy of 1887. I have been oc- casionally taunted with the failure of that iron policy, but it is only by gentlemen who do not know anything about the subject. Where would be the iron, trade of -Canada but for the legislation of 1887 ? That i)olicy would have accomplished everything that the most san- guine expected from it, had it not been for that which no maSl at that day could foresee, namely, that in a few years pig iron would fall to half its then value. I am glad to see that the Legislature of Nova Scotia is moving in this matter, for I believe tliere never was a time in tho his- tory of Canada when there was such a magnificent oportunity as there is at tlic present moment for the adoption of a comprehensive policy for the production of iron in this country, to give emjiloyment and to create I may say, a world-wide industry. So important do I consider this mat- ter that I ventured to approach the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Customs, and put before them th* 49 evidence that if they would by Order in Council carry out the policy they had committed themselves to in regard to the extension ot the bounty system on iron, capital coidd be obtained to set going at the earliest possible moment gigantic iron works ir Canada that would rev- olutionize the whole of that industry. I am gad to say that the Xova Scotia legislature is approaching tliat subject, a^^d I trust this Govern- ment Avill follow that up by such an extension of the policy to which not only the late Government, but the present Government are commit- ted, as will build up a great iron industry in Canada. (Cheere.) IITTER-IMPEEIAL TREFEEENTIAL TRADE. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word upon tlio subject of inter- Impcrial preferential trade. It is very well known that this is a matter upon which my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lauricr) has committed himself in the strongest possible way. I do not intend now to recrimin- ate, I do not intend to refer to any question of violated pledges or any- thing of that kind, because I am sincerely anxious to promote a question that I believe lies at the very foundation of national progress in Canada, and which will give an impetus to our p^reat agricultural community •which cannot possibly be overrated. My right hon. friend and several members on the other side of the IToupc liave said : "Well, your intcr- Tmperial preferential trade is all verv^ well but it is impossible to obtain. I want to draw their attention to the fact that within a few weeks we have evidence of tlic most conclusive character that there never was a time in the history of our country when the Government had such an op- portunity of securing a greet boon in the interests of the people on that very question. I was laughed to scorn when I advocated the adoption of a small duty upon corn and upon other products, and I was told that England never would be induced for a single moment to do anything of the kind, so that I was expending my efforts in vain. I again appeal to my right hon. friend row, in view of the statement in the London "Times" a few days ago, iirging the British Government of the present day to grapp'':! at once practically with the great question of placing the taxation of the country upon a proper basis by the imposition of duties upon wheat and sugar. Therefore, on the very highest authority we have it, that the case is placed in such a position that all that is necessary is active and zealous co-operation on the part of the Canadian Govern- ment to accomplish, at no distant date, this great object. (Cheers.) I dare say you will remember that it was only a short time ago that a very illustrious personage — I thought at the time a little out of order — ^gave 41 m 80 I l\ ■^> his opinion to the public in tho city of Toronto to the effect that it was quite impossible that countervailing duties on sugar in England could ever be entertained. Buc, Sir, we find now that Lord George Hamilton, the Secretary of State for India, says that the Government propose — and the Indian Government can do nothing without the sanction of the Imperial Government — propose to consent to an Order in Council passed by the legislative council in India, which imposes countervailing duties- on all sugars that come into India in competition with their own. So the whole case is given up, and all we have to do is to stand shoulder tot, shoulder and to ask the British T' '>vernment, which at an early date will impose duties upon corn and other ])roducts, to leave the colonics in the enjoyment of that advantage they now possess of having free ingress to- the British markets, so tliat the duties, if applied, might extend only te foreign countries. I press that policy as one of great importance on tliei right lion, gentleman and his friends. THE PACIFIC CABLE. I intend now to say a word upon the ( 'ion of the Pacific cable* and I would like to ask my right hon. friei what position that ques*. tion is to-day ? When I attained office, cue of my first acts was to ap- point Sir Mackenzie Bowell and Sir Donald Smith, now Lord Strath- cona, in conjunction with Mr. Fleming, now Sir Sanford Fleming, as an. expert, to go to England to represent Canada at the cable conference,. That was caused by the fact that I went at the head of a deputation- composed of all the agents general of the colonies to press upon Mr. Chamberlain the appointment of a commission upon the subject of a Pa- cific cable. Mr. Chamberlain, who is known to be a man of great finan- cial ability and commercial experience, on that occasion stated that having examined the subject thoroughly, he had come to the conclusion, that it involved no responsibility whatever, because he believed that the cable would pay for itself, and that in fact, at no distant date, instead, of it being a charge upon the public revenue, it would be a source of in- come. I consequently had no hesitation in authorizing the commis- sioners representing Canada to agree if they could not get better terms^ to be responsible for one-third of the cost of establishing the Pacific cable. This cable would make Canada a great highway, not only witH China and Japan and all the east, but also with Australia, and in that- way would immensely promote trade. As a matter of Imperial import- ance, as a matter of strengthening the defences of the Empire, it is im- possible to overrate it, and when wo satisfied ourselves that practically no monetary responsibility would be involved, I did not hesitate to give 01 the Canadian commissioncre the authority I have referred to. Well, lliis matter has hung fire. The right hon. gentleman will correct mo if he has been miarepresented, bnt in the "Standard" newspaper, wliich is one of the nuKst reliable organs of the British Government, I find it stated that when the Pacilic cable was jiroposed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the gentleman \vho took exception to it was my right lion, friend the Premier of Canada. It was slated that ho (Sir "Wilfrid Laurier) declared that he altogether failed to give his confidence to the calculations that liad been made in reference to the scheme by the pro- moter, and that could refer to no pei-son, I take it, except Sir Sanford Fleming. Sir Sanfonl Fleming has given years of hi.s life to the study of this important question, and when his views were subjected to the most crucial test any expert's views could be subjected to, tenders being asked from eminent cable constructors for the laving: and maintenance of the cable it was found that Sir Sanford Fleming had overrated the cost. Therefore I reaid with astonisliment of the cold water that was thrown on tliis project by my right hon. friend when he stated tliat he al- together distrustecw administrations appeared in t^.o years. The country was ruined financially and commercially; no legislation could pass, except as a matter of compromise, and the position of the country was deplorable. Wliat then? In 18G 1 a conference assembled at Charlottetown for the purpose of forming a legislative union between Nova Scotia, New Bruns- wick and Prince Edwt*. d Island, and the Governor General of Old Can- ada wrote to the governors of the three provinces, asking for the admis- sion of the representatives of the coalition Government of Canada, which had been formed upon the principle of obtaining either the confeder- ation of Britisli ISTorth America, or, failing that, to separate Upper and Lower Canada and unite them federally. We received that deputation with open arms; we heard their statements, and when they pointed out to us the deplorable condition in which Canada was, that her 6 per cent bond securities were forced down to 71, and that the business of the country was paralyzed, we listened sjrmpathctically to their statements. As a result, we adjourned to the city of Quebec, and in October, 1861, there met there tliiriy-three gentlemen, representing, not one party nor one province, but representing both parties in Upper Canada, Lower Ca- nada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Both parties were represented from every province except Newfoundland, which does not come into the question, as it does not form a part of the confederation. At the Quebec Conference we came to the conclusion, after long and careful consideration, that it was our duty, as citizens of British North America, as men who wanted to preserve intact the glori- ous British institutions we possess, to consider this question of the union of British North America. And, Sir, what was the very key-stone of that union? I will read the statement of the great leader of the Liberal party of that day, and I believe it will be accepted here as absolute evi- dence that without that principle being embodied into the confederation of Canada, no union could be accomplished. He said: "^ 63 The rery essence of our compapt la that the union flhall be federal and not legialatWe. Our liower Canada friends have agreed to Rive ua representation \oy population In the Lower House on tne express nondltlon that they shall havo equality In the Upper House. On no other condition could we have ad- vanced a step; and, for my part, I am quite wllllnif they should have it. In maintaining the exlHthur sec- tional houndarles^ and handing- over the control of local mattpra t^ local bodlc-s, wo Tocog-nize, to a certain extent, a diversity of Interests, ind It ig qnfte natural that the protection for those intrrpsts, by eanallty in the Upper Chamber, should be denmnded by the leas ntuaeroois provinces. Mr, Speaker, today I speak, not only in the pfreaence of this House, but o'' tlie country, when I aay that no union, no confederation coiilcl have been achieved except upon the principle that representation by popula- tion in the House of Comraiooia should "be safeguarded by an independent Senate^ whose meTOhers were nominated by the Crown for life, and in w^ich Quebec would hare twenty-four members, the same as Ontario, whose popiilation was much larj»er, and Xova Scotia, l^fiw Brnnawick and Prince Edwcrd Ishand should together have twenty-four Senators also, al- though their population was much smaller tlian even that of Quebec. (CTiceTs.) What is this proposal which is now made? It is a proposal to strike at the very foundation of this principle of confederation. I Iwrand every man. in the ^eat province of Ontario who would support puch X proposition, as fiuilty — not fif treason to his country,, because it may suit Qntaxio — but I brand him as guilty of the worst description of had faith in going back upon the pledge under which the province of Quebec and the smaller provinces were induced to enter into this con- federation. I am not surpiserl that the First Minister was obliged, in company with his friend the llinister of Public Works (Mi. Tarte), to hie himself away to Quebec to dragoon the leader of that province into giving support to such jt proposition. They found, after all their com- munications had failed, that the Legislature of Quebec was about to rise without giving them support in this matter. And why ? Because there is Bot an intelligent man in the province of Quebec — and I say it fear- lessly — who knows what he is doing, who recognizes what this project would be, that docs not know ^hat by supporting it he is cutting the throat of hi» prorince. (Hear I Heart) >I leel. Sir, that now, in the last years — ^I might almost mj isL the last months, or hours — of my life, I irould be only too glad to be exempt from the labour and difficulty whick such work involves ; but I feel that I would be faith- 64 less to the Crown, faithless to Canada, faithless to this great Em])ire to which wo helon^, if I did not consecrate every hour of my life to raoetiiip on the tliropliold this dire attempt to suhvert the Ycry foundations of this Canadian Confederation. I have not a complete knowledge of the French language; hut, Sir, I will make it my business- to visit every ])art of the province of Quebec, and, with the assistance of my able friends and compatriots on this side of the House, I shall bo prepared to meet the ]\Iinister of Public Works or the Prime Minister of this Government, and let it be fairly debated in the presence of in- telligent men, Avhetlier Sir George E.Cartier, Sir Etienne Tache, or Sir Hector Langcvin, would not Imve burned their hands off in the tiro before they would have assented to a confederation on any such princi- ple. I do not hesitate to say that no power could have induced either Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island to have any lot or part in this Confederation if they had supposed that any party which obtained power, as this party has obtained power could, without the due sanction of the people of this country, lay their unholy bunds on the ark of confederation itself, and endeavor to destroy that work which I need not say to this House has made this Dominion of Canada a countiy of which every Canadian can be proud. (Cheers). Now, Sir, what is the reason that it 'il not in the Speech? Will the right lion, gentleman tell us why, having come fresh from Washingto?! to announce that this was the policy of his party, he has been prevented from pu ' ag it in the Speech, and submitting it as a subject for this House to deal with? The right lion, gentleman knows that before jio can take one step towards the subversion of the constitution of Canada in this regard he has to have not only the authority of this House, but the authority of the Senate of Canada. There is not a man sitting in that House who docs not hold his position for life imder the authority of an Act of the Imperial Parliament ; and the Imperial Parliament never was known in its history to go back upon its solemn pledges and declarations as a legislative body, (Applause.) What, more? Why, Sir, the unanimous vote of this House and of the Senate of Canada would not accomplish the object unless every province in this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific that is a constituent part of this eon- federation, on duo notice and after an election, ratified it as well. In 1893 you spoke of a reform of the Senate. Some suggested that th6 members should be elected by the people and some that they should be elected by the legislatures. You now propose that the relative propor- tions should be changed, because when the Senate and the House of Commons disagree you propose to turn in the House of Commons to 6S awamp the Senate, and to entirely ignore the /ery basis of security upon which the confederation of this country \vm built. Well, Sir, what is your excuse ? The " Globe " nowapapcr tells urf tlu't the first crime for which the Senale of Canada ought to bo beheaded '^a that it i-atiGod the Canadian I'acific Railway con- tract Why, Sir, can anybody imagine a man witli the hardi- hood to say in the face of the people of this country that that which has made a nation of Canada — for we were a paper nation without it — that gigantic work whicli has given ua coininunication from end to end, which, has made a great country of Canada, and without which wu would be comparatively helpless today, was a wrong to Canada? The charge is that too much Mas given. Let me meet that charge here and now. It is not true — I may say that, Mr. Speaker, when I am talking of the "Globe", at j^II events. What is the fact? The fact is that when all tho subsides were given — and I give to the right hon. gentleman the testi- mony of a man whose word he will take as soon as that of any man living^ and that is Lord Strathcona — that after all the resources of the Canadian Pacific Eailway C<)mi)any, witli all llieir subsidies, were ex- Jhaustedb, aad the work was likely to break down and collapse in 1881, it was saved in that critical hour by Lord Strathcona pledging every dollar of his private resources to raise money to carr}' the enterprise through. And then it would have broken down and failed — I do not hesitate to 8i.j , because I happen to bo in a nosition to know — had I not been able to come down to this House in the session of 1881 and induce it to make a loan of $30,000,000 over and above evei-ything else that was given. What more? Why, Sir, the "Globe" says that Mr. Bh'^e made a great speech in opposition to this contract. So he did; but he made another great speech out on the coast of British Columbia, when he had the manliness to say that when he had opposed the construction of the Can- adian Pacific Railway, he had no conception of what that great western country was. (Cheers.) THE DRUMMOND COUNTY & YUKON RAILWAY BILLS. Now, Sir, I do not intend to follow this subject further than to say that the grounds which the right hon. gentleman gives to tho people of Canada for this attempt to subvert one of the most important institutions of the country is the crime the Senate committed in rejecting the Driim- mond County Railway contract and the Yukon Bill. Let me turn his attention for or" moment to those two que?;! ions. I do not intend at this hour to go into them at any length; but I will say this, that the statement that is put foiward by the "Globe," and also, 1 think, by the right hon. gentleman, that something of this kind was contemplated in the proposed wmsf^^ fm^ 'IPP' 66 / ' constitutior of Australia, ia entirely incorrect. (Hear ! Hear !) No such, proposal as this has ever been dreamed of in any part of the civilucd Avorld before. The hon. gentleman, if it is original with ' im, may have the satisfaction of knowing iliat no gi-cat mind has ever jumped to the same conclusion f /' he did. But supposing it was the case in Australia; the position there is entirely different. In Australia the legislative coun- cils " :^ now elected by nianhuvju suffrage, the same as the houses of as- sembly, and it is j^roposed thot the Senate of Australia shall also be elected by manhood suffrage. But is it proposed that when the two Houses diiler they shall be lurncl in to vote together ? Not at all. Wliat is proposed in the constitution of Australia is thai, if there is a deadlock between tlie Senate and the Ilouse of Commons, both Ilouses shall be- dissolved, and after they have come back from the election thej will then vote in a common chamber and decide the question. There as no necessity, therefore, for this proposed machinery. The hon. gentleman knows right well that when the Senate, in the ex- ercise of an impei~ative duty, rejected the Government railway scheme, all he had to do to make that scheme law was to dissolve the Ilouse of Commons and get a majority returned which would pass that bill over again, and thus remove the difficulty, because in that ease the British constitution comes into j^lay. (Cheers). Under that constitution, when- ever the House of Lords rejects a Bill from the House of Commons, they do it because they do not believe that the promoters of the Bill repre- sent the country. It is then the duty of the Government of the day, if they still insist on the Bill, to dissolve the House, appeal to the coun- try, and get a new Ilouse of Commons to pass the same Bill 'ipsissima ^erba,' and the House of Lords will tlien accept it without the slightest hesitation. Therefore, as there is to be a dissolution in Australia and an appeal to the country before a vote is taken, how can any man say that there is any paralkd or exarrple to be found in Australia for what is iicre proposed. That proposal is to take away all the security which the present constitution of Canada gives to tliC smaller nTO^inccs. I do not intend to detail^ the Ilouse further than to show what are the facts with regard to the Druniraond Ccunty IJaihvay Bill. Does the right h.on. gentleman not know that he has himself confessed that he and hi*i Government were all wrong in that measure, and that the Senate were right ? Does he not know that the public records of this country prove that by the rejection of that Bill the Senate of Canada saved some- thing like a million dollarg to our people. That is the i>osition, and the right hon. gentleman finds himself hoisted by his own petard. That which he aBSumes as a ground of complaint against the Senate of Ca- 67 nada is one of the highest claims they have to-day to the confidence of the mass of the people. Sir, what about the Yukon Bill ? On that Bill, as the right hon. gentleman knows right well, his Government stands equally condemned by what has subsequently taken place. What has taken place since the House last met ? I shall not go into the whole story, because the hour is too late, but he knows that tixt Minister of Public Works sent one of his ablest officers, Mr. Coste. '.t .hat Stikeen route and over the Bennett Lake ::nd "White Pass, a. '' n-^at has been the result ? Wliy, his own officer has condemned xuq Stikeen river route altogether, and de-^lared that under existing circumstances, Dawson City can be reached from Victoria in seven or eight days. Therefore, so far as these measures are concerned, the Senate of Canada enjoys the proud position of knowing that at a most important time, when mil- lions of public property, untold millions almost of public property were at stake, they stepped into the breach and protected the people of this country against measures that are denounced by the Government's own officers, and against fi Government which, if it dared to dissolve tho House and appeal to the country on these iniquitous measures, would have been wiped out of existence, let, the rejection of these measures is the ground now talvjcn for attacking the Senate of Canada. I must apologize to tlio House and my right hon. friend opposite for having occupied their time at such length, but I must throw the respon- sibility on these gentlemen, wli have so mismanaged the public affaire of this country as to demand this too lengthy criticism at my hands. ^ / I N DEX Australia :— Cold Storage from 45 The Proposed fSenate 60 Cable.Pacific 60 Cold Storage, on Fast Atlantic Steamers 45 Australasian Competition 45 Depression, 1873-1878 6 How Canada almost escaped de- pression of 1891-181)7 9 Export Duties . . 40 Fast Atlantic Service :— The Agreement with the Allans 44 Supported by Mr. Chamberlain 44 Cold Storage on Steamers 45 Fishery Difficulty, The 32 Gerrymander proposed by Liberals 59 Henniker • Heaton's Imperial Penny Postage 53 Herschell, Lord, His Qualifications .... 20 His DisappoiuLment 41 Imperial Penny Postage 52 Mr. Mulock's Stolen Glory 53 Mr. Henniker- Heaton's Efforts 53 Mr. Chamber'" m Pijj ; vL. 'Penny Postage 54 Sir Wilfrid I aurier not Ready to Agree to Proposal 54 Mr. Mulock's Absurd Proclamation 54 Who Paid for Mr. Mulock's Blun- der 55 Mr. Mulock's Proposal for Three Cent Postage Rejected 55 People Must Pay for Penny Post- age .' 56 Iron Industry^he 43 India's Sugar Duties 50 Joint High Commission :— British Assistance in Spanish- American War IS American Gratitude to Britain 18 Sir Charles Tupper's Attitude to- wards 10 ^Lord Herschell's Qualifications 20 Lord Herschell's Disappointment, . 41 Failure of Negotiations 22 Alaskan Boundary 23 San J nan Precedent 24 Adjournment a Mistake . *w . . . . . 25 Why Nv^gotiacions J^'ailed 20 Treaty of Washington, 1871 27 Sir John Macdouald's 'Ireaty. 27 Hon. AJexander Mackenzie s Atti- tude 29 Treat} of 1888 32 Adjournment of Conference 41 Cause of Adjournment 42 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid : — Sir Wilfrid's speech in Montreal .. , 12 Sir Wilfrid's Interview, Chicago. . . 28 Throws cold water on Pacific cable scheme 50 Blames the United States in Eng- land 32 Charges Canada with ungenerous treatment of the United States. . . 87 Liberals :— Have no Policy— no Principle 11 Tariff Changes, by 14 Proposed Gerrymander , . 69 Mining Ijaws 47 Mulock, Hon. Wm. : — Imperial Penny Postage 52-56 National Policy: — Inauguration of 7 Protection, success of 8 Growth of Population, Wealth and Trade 9 Results of 8 Pacific Cable :— Cable Conference 69 Mr. Chamberlain favors it 60 Cable would pay for itself 60 Sir Wilfrid Ijaurier throws cold water on cable scheme 60 Preferential Tariff:— l']ffects of British Preference 12 A substitute for Unrestricted Reci- procity y SUm A Sham Preference ?A> The United States favored 3J Imports from the United States under present preference 40 Imports Trom Great Britain under present preference 40 India's Sugar Duties 50 Increased British Trade one per cent, in six months 13 Prosperity :— Between 1807 and 1872 5 World Wide Prosperity 16 Phenomenal Prosperity in TInited States 17 Cause of Canada's present pros- perity. i Protection, Success of 8 mebiscite, The 51 Retaliation:- 'niitatiou not retaliation. 47 Senate :— Threatened destruction of the Senate 61 ' George Brown's attitude on Sem.ie. 61 Senate the keystone of Confedera- Mon..;..7* 02 Senate a safe guard for smaller pro- vinces 62 Quebec's interest in Senate 64 Rejection of Drummond Countyand Yukon Railway Bills 65 The Australian Plan 66 Tariff:— Is it a dead issue? 13 Effect of Liberal Tariff" Changes. ... 14 Treaty :— The Treaty of Washington. 1871. ... 27 1888.... 32 Sir John Macdonald's Treaty 27 Yukon : — Mail Service 67 Telegraph Service 58 Washington ; — Visit of Sir Louis Davies and Sir Richard Cartwright 84