; 
 
J 
 
 -U, 
 
 vt*-t- 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. CHARLTON, M.P., 
 
 ON 
 
 CANADA'S TARIFF. 
 
 ' 
 
 fRADE RELATIONS WITH UNITED STATES, 
 
 EXi>OIlT DUTY. 
 
 REVENUE DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM RECIPROCITY 
 
 WEDNESDAY, 22\d FEBRUARY, 1893. 
 
 "1 piw— 5^ 
 
 difficult OUf. 
 
 -.v.^ _.ire folIo\. ^v 
 
 " '",. ami 
 
 's' - uic evils 
 . ^ uecome even more 
 
Jt> 
 
 eOmnia •jupcvat tlirtus." 
 
 Herbert Fairbairn Gardiner, 
 
 Hamilton, Ontario. 
 
 .^^VT^" Jsr irt!;-\i»",jf .1' /^ \yr 
 
 :.^ ^. w a* . " J^' twnr- 
 
 • * •• •• .• 
 
 .. ;"• • ••• • • 
 
SPEECH OF .AIR. CHARLTON, M.P.. 
 
 OS 
 
 CAXADA'S TARIFF. 
 
 DE RELATIONS WITH UNITED STATES. 
 
 EXI^ORT DUTY 
 
 REVENUE DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM UcClPROCITY. 
 
 mi 
 
 WEDNESDAY, 22.\i) FEIJRUAHY, 1^0.?. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. For the last fuurteen 
 yeare we have been engaged from time to 
 time in cliscussing the system of protection or 
 the National I'olicy. We have hail it dis- 
 cussed in varioas ways. Some speakers, lilvc 
 the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, have 
 discussed it for the purpose of making the 
 worse appear the better cause, for the purpose 
 of bolstering up the institution for political 
 and partisan objects, as is generally done by 
 speakere on the opposite side. Other speakers 
 h:ive discussed this question for the purpose 
 of arri\'ing at the truth, if possible, and of 
 a.scertaining whether the allegations made 
 with reference to this policy are correct. I 
 think that the evidences of revolt existing 
 in various parts of the country Avoidd indi- 
 cate most immistiikably th.at the public mind is 
 ari1\ing at the conclusion that the views of 
 tlie Government are altogether wrong and 
 that those who attack this poUcy do so on 
 ample and just grounds. We have had in 
 this House this session evidences of this feel- 
 ing of dissatisfaction. We have had motions 
 emanating from that side of the House against 
 the duty on binder twine, cotU oil au<l corn. 
 These are OAddences of a dissatisfaction ex- 
 isting in the ranks of the party opposite, 
 Avhich is not fully laid bare by the slight sur- 
 f.'ice indications we are permitted to note. 
 We have. Sir, evidence that this feeling of 
 inswurity, this feeMng of dissatisfaction is a 
 widespread one, from the fact that the Go\'- 
 emment itself proposes to modify its policy, 
 proposes to take into consideration the 
 various arguments that have been advanced, 
 to have commissioners make a tour of 
 the coimti-y for the purpose of examln- 
 hig Into the Industries of Canada, pro- 
 mising to be governed by the infor- 
 mation thus obtained in the modifications of 
 ti»'3 National PoUcy which they propose to 
 BWve. I presume, Sir, they will find the 
 tajiia difficult one. It is like taking out 
 
 stones from an arch, with the danger of 
 bringing down the whole structure about 
 their ears. The National Policy interests 
 are so interwoven with one another, are so 
 mutually dependent upon one another, that 
 one duty can scarcely be removed without 
 iiffectrng a great m;uiy industries. And 
 when the Government proceed to the con- 
 sideration of this question ;ind attempt tariflf 
 reforms, we, upon this side, shall watch, 
 with a great deal of interest and curiosity, 
 the result of the experiment they may be dis- 
 posed to make with reference to the reduc- 
 tion of duties. I do not believe. Sir, that 
 the thing can be done unless they change 
 their policy, and, if the position taken by the 
 hon. member for South Ontario is a correct 
 one, if the policy has confen-ed such bless- 
 ings and benefits upon this comitiy as the 
 hon. gentleman represents. I shoidd like to 
 know why the Government shoidd entertain, 
 for a moment, the proposition to motlLfy this 
 policy at all. If it is what the hon. go". tie- 
 man claims, we need no mcKlitication and 
 the veiy com"se the Government propose to 
 adopt is evidence that the Government and 
 the supporters of the Government are not 
 honest in the representations they make of 
 the blessings conferred upon the coimtrj- by 
 this policy. It is clear that while they are 
 urging that the policy is aU that cotdd be de- 
 sired, they aclmowledge, by their actions, 
 that it requires modifications, and that they 
 are compelled to consider the propriety of 
 making modifications. Sir, we are pass- 
 ing through a period of our history 
 when we may profit by the experience 
 of a much larger coimtry to the south of us. 
 We copied this poUey, Sir. from the United 
 States. We have put this policy in opera- 
 tion upon a s age much less favoiu*ab)e for 
 its operation than the United States, in a 
 country of more restricted resources and 
 much smjUler population, and so the evils 
 which have followed have become even more 
 
palpably manifest thau in the United States. ' 
 We are likely to follow tiie Uiiitie«l Stat<»s in 
 another respect. They ha<3 an <ek*ni»>n in 
 that country la.st fall, in whidi thsr pe«fie »1''- 
 clared themselves un-equivocallj" against the 
 " National Policy " of that country. Tw»> years 
 a^'o an overwheliiuu;: majority wcr-r r--mmed 
 to Cou;iress oppose! t<> this prtlky. an I. in 
 Xovenil>or last, a jires'-lent <pi.:o-»*l t.> the 
 existlui.' system w;is clectel by -5 larger ma- 
 jority than any of his i.redec.>*«>is t>r many 
 years. Th« rlefeat of protefti^n wa< ert^r- 
 whclnniiL,'. As we liav.- f-.Uowed tlbir ex- 
 airplt' in inslituthiK protection and bare stif- 
 ferrd all the ovils the svs-.-m =s '-t'c iL-tt^^d 
 to produce, so we aio likely to f^oJld v th'-ir 
 example in the next general el-crioa in 
 havin;^ an ovcrwhcliniu^- T..'T<^ilar v^-nlict 
 ajjainst this system recorded m CSanada as 
 has been n-iulercd apiinst ihi* *ime 
 «^ system in the Unilt^l Stat*« lajft f.ill. 
 vprotcriion. Sir, notwithsiandin^ all that 
 may be said in favour of ir. is ii?atibi<&^r more 
 nor li-ss than a species of shivery. Th.^ <L-ive 
 is d!^priv(Nl of the prxlnct of hi- 'Isir-nr and 
 is obliiied to work without c^n^eosaiion. 
 Tlio producinc classes in a c uttt wiier' 
 protection is in vomie ate depriv - - por- 
 tion of the prodticts of their la"'- - I are 
 compelled to pay taxes for ihf It^n-'^ --.f c<>m- 
 bines and monopolies : they fir- una Te tri- 
 butary to favoured cla-«;se<:. .^n'L n.« tte *»x- 
 tent that they suffer in this res5>eiet. tbey are 
 slaves undei- this system. ^It is a sywiera as 
 indefensible upon the broad piindp!<^ of 
 justice a;! slavery wliich is shmlhite and un- 
 conditional . What are the' farm<^r* of 
 this countiy compelle<l to do. nottwitb^tand- 
 imr all that my hon. friend from Sootfli On- 
 tario Qfr. Smith) says ? The 1k«l sentkniau 
 says the National Policy lias rf'diWE&'f the 
 promise made for it to create n tfrnxti ai.iriv'^t 
 wliich wovild absorb the proiurt'.'-ns >'i otir 
 farms. And. in the very next breaih. I.e tells 
 us that the farmers of Cinada <'iji»f»rt'd Li.«t 
 vear !«28.000,0(¥) M-orth of animali? '-" '^: "r 
 produce and .'>22.0<y».< tOO of tlj<'jr a-' d 
 
 products. Thus, in almos*^ th- saia _ nt 
 
 of time, he says that the XaTi^i. ; ; •.- 
 has made a market for the farm-r an.! ai3o 
 that the fanners have l>een obh;.'*^! fo export 
 .SoO.OOiXttOO of their pr<viuets. notirithsiandin? 
 the promise that the Nation:<i p.Jkr wo»iM 
 create a market which would : '•- :'• ^hetn all. 
 The hon. gentleman tells us iLat ■<» prices 
 of farm products are more i5atistafr!;ir»ry in 
 this country than Ihey were ii ISTSt. I 
 wonder the hon. sentieman did iMt btoA 
 when ho made that assertion. I wMi. Mr. 
 Speaker, that the farmers of tli&t e»mntry 
 could have the prices they had ini1«' the 
 ^lackenzie Administration. I wi*?3 wtr coa&i 
 have again $1 a bushel for bari^jr aad ?1.25 
 for wheat, Su-, if the farmers of Ihw er>Tmtry 
 could have the scale of prices Htxt w>-Tv* in 
 voisrue from 1874 to 1878, we woold not baye 
 the depression existing in this cnjnntiy wlik^ 
 does exist at the present moment. Tfe^ hon. 
 gentleman makes a comparison between the 
 
 exportation of produce from this aastry 
 and the imports into this country toe 
 various periods. And he takes a petfcid 
 of depression, a perio<l of world-'wi'ie 
 depression existing from 187.3 to 1^T'^. 
 .ind gravely informs us that becau.*- 
 there was not a great expan.sion of trad«i 
 at that time when there was no expanjq«»n 
 of trade in any of the nations on the glotj^. 
 the policy in vogue at that time, trie^ in 
 comparison with the one that suc^'^d^ded ii, 
 is thereby proven a failure. He speaks o€ 
 the desirabiUty of farmers changing tLeir 
 merlnKlM of work and mode of farming. I 
 sup{)ose the h<m. gentleman h< referring to 
 the two-rowed l)arley business. What he 
 ■iays reminds m(> ol' an Irisljiuan in the \\->-~i. 
 wfiose cellar was flooded i>y the bursijng 
 of a water pipe. He went to the 
 cit}' clerk to sin .alKmt it. and th»' Hiy 
 clerk told him that the citj- wouJd fix 
 tile fiipe ;Mid the water would be jtuuip*^ 
 out of his cellar. " But," he s:tid, " my lot 
 has been flooded, too." " Well." s:ud the 
 rlerk. " we will get the water off y'»nr lot 
 and it will dry up. and the tliing'll l>e all 
 right. " But," persisted the Iri-shman. ~ my 
 chickens are drowned." " Then." an<w^rf:4 
 the clerk, " why in thunder <lon't you nu.«>? 
 ducks V" So the farmer is advised to raise 
 ducks; they are advised to raise two-rowed 
 barley, or go into the business of fattening 
 eittle for the Englisli market. A great 
 many schemes are proposed for the bene^t 
 of the farmers by the enterprising G<j»t- 
 eiTinient; opposite, and these schemf-^ are 
 jtist now about as reasonable and soc- 
 cessful as either of the instances 1 gire. 
 Sir. the farmer of this country is besrinnfaig 
 10 realize, and it is not the Reform fiirmer 
 nlone who realizes it, that his surplus pro- 
 ductions are sold in the open marketJS of 
 the world. He must compete in England m 
 selling wheat with the Coolie lalx)ur of 
 India; he must sell in the open markets of 
 the world, and must meet the widest aol 
 fiercest competition from every producer of 
 the same article all over the globe, and 
 must therefore sell at the lowest rate, llus 
 is the condition of the farmer when he has 
 anything to sell aliroad. But he begins to 
 see that even Avhen he sells at home, the 
 price of the surplus product which is (shipped 
 abroad fixes the price at which he most 
 s»'ll in the home market. And, when he 
 > comes to buy, he finds that he has to Imy 
 in a restricted market. He is not .-illow*^! 
 to take advantage of the competition from 
 'iviuch he suffers when he sells, but he mofrt 
 make his purchases in a market from x^hich 
 I competition is excludetl and where the prif* 
 I of everj-thing is artificially enhaccoil. He 
 realizes that while he sells in the own lu^r- 
 ket he buys in a restricted market in which -. 
 the restrictions are for the benetit of rxin-/'''^ 
 ' bines and monopolies. The farmer is **&- 
 ginning to see that tliis state of thuigs :s, cce 
 that he cannot and must not sanction ; It is 
 one which he will vote against at tlie first 
 
opportunity he has to do so. He fe3ls se- 
 rert'ly the >?igantic burdens .lie (Jovcrii- 
 ment' has phiced upon him. ile iiuds that 
 he must pay interest on .$<jO.<xXl.<V.<) of debt 
 incurred in subsidizing a railway built to 
 the lands of the North-west, the result of 
 whieh is to bring tliem into competition with 
 the cheaper fertile lands of that country and 
 ro depress the prif,'(> of his owi productions. 
 He is paying interest upon a debt oontractal 
 for building canals in which he had no in- 
 terest, which were built for the trade of the 
 western states of America. He is paying in- 
 terest upon a sum amounting to nearly 
 S250.000.(KX>, a debt of $50 a head resting 
 upon every man, woman and child. Everj* 
 man, woman and chUd is required to pay 
 over .«2 annually in interest upon that debt. 
 He is helping to pay the fxpens*s of an ex- 
 travagant Government. He is paying inter- 
 est on the railway .subsidies that the tiovem- 
 ment have granted from time to time for 
 political pui-poses, in order that they might 
 make somebody solid in some particular rid- 
 ing, and at the same time have a oliance to 
 toll these subsidies to the extent of 20, ao or 
 40 per cent for election purposes. He is 
 bearing all these burdens, and he is dis.satis- 
 fled. there is no question about it. There is 
 a feeling of unrest in tlie coimtiy, as my hon. 
 friend says, and that feeling of unrest is not 
 confined to Lilieral farmers. It is wide- 
 spread, it is general, it pervades all parts 
 • and all classes ; and those who are uphold- 
 ing this system, when they next apr»eal to 
 the countiy, will learn something alwjut the 
 extent of that feeling of discontent tliat now 
 exists among the farmers of this coimtrj-. 
 Sir, the farmer is learning some more les- 
 S'jns with regard to political economy. He 
 is learning that the numljer of dollars of 
 duty paid by him and extracted from his 
 ["M-kHt, is not a correct measure of the loss he 
 sustains in consequence of this system. He 
 Ls beginning to understand that eveiy dollar 
 >f duty upon an article is so much added 
 to its cost, and that before that article 
 reaches him, there is added to that duty the 
 profits of the wholesaler and the retailer, 
 making it at least 40 per cent more, and that 
 for every dollar the Government receives, he 
 pays $1.40 at least, in many cases. $1.5<J. He 
 begins to understand the question of inci- 
 dental taxation. He begins to imderstiind 
 that the policy of protection is not to reaUze 
 revenue, but to exclude goods from the coun- 
 try, and that the real operation of protection 
 is to enable the manufacturer to raise the 
 prices of all the goods that he pi-oduces to a 
 point just witliin the amoimt for which these 
 giXKis can be imported and the duties paid ; 
 ami that, consequently, on all articles of do- 
 mestic manttfacture, the farmer is paying 
 what those articles would cost, if bought in 
 the open markets of tlie world, and in addi- 
 tir)ii to that, he is paying to the manufacturer 
 [almost the sum of the duty tliat the Gk)vem- 
 ment would collect. If these goods were im- 
 I ported. The result of this is what? Last year 
 
 c U 
 
 the duties were $20,550,000. The duties. a«ld«l 
 to the cost of the article and the profit 
 from those duties wliicli tlie wholesjile and 
 retail de:dei-s made, juuounted to over $8,0»J'>,- 
 <J00, over 40 cents on the dollar. That wa.s 
 the incidenud uix Uie fanner [»aid. If the 
 basis is correct, whicli is established by many 
 .Vmericau political eccjnouusts, that for every 
 .^3 of duty paid into the Governnien: the 
 farmer pays $5 of incidenbil Uixaiiou to tlie 
 domestic manufacturers, then Uie incidenuii 
 tax the fanner has paid in consequenc*' of the 
 existence of tlie duties up )n the clise of 
 go<)fLs that is brought int<j the coimtry. ami 
 manufacturwl in tlie countiy, lias amounted 
 to $o4,000,000 more. So the loss of the con- 
 suming cla.ss of fanners is the amoimt of the 
 duty. $20,550,000. the profit upon the dutj-, 
 which is practically a part of tlie lirst ccst, 
 $,S.OOO.0<»0, and the incidental taxaiiijn. or the 
 enlianced cost of the domestic g(X)ds produced 
 in this (^ountry, $42.(X)0.(M)0. or the sum of 
 $(>4,tXKX000 extracted from the pockets of the 
 consumers of this countiy in order tiint the 
 Government may realize a duty of $20,550,000. 
 Now, this may not be mathematically 
 correct ; of course, it is an approxi- 
 mate calculation It may l>e more ; it 
 probably is more. It may be less ; but in any 
 event the sum is enormous, and the farmer 
 Ls being bled in these ways I have mentioned. 
 Now. this is a wasteful system. Of course, 
 it would be better to resort to direct taxation 
 than to compel these men to p:iy three io one. 
 or even two to one. on the amount of customs 
 taxation that is collected. Now. Sir. the asser- 
 tion is often made, and was made by my hon. 
 fiiend from South Ontario, that goods are 
 cheaper than they were ten years ago. 
 Suppose they are. The question is : Are goodg 
 as cheap as tliey would be if the duties were 
 removed ? 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. Clieaper. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Some political economist 
 opposite says they are clieaper. I su]rpr.>se 
 coal oil is cheaper than it would be if the 
 duties were removed. According to his 
 theory, double the duty, and it would be still 
 cheaper. The question is : Would goods l)e as 
 cheap as they are. or cheaper than they are. 
 if the ^^luties w^ere removed ? and the answer 
 of any sane man would be. Yes, and they are 
 dearer to the extent of the duty in almost all 
 cases. If goods ar^ cheaper than they were 
 ten years ago, the question is how much 
 cheaper would they be if the restrictions ux>on 
 tr;xde were removed ? That is the quesrtion 
 we have got to deal with, and the other is 
 quite foreign to the inqtiiiy. Now, the system 
 of protection is one that enables the manu- 
 facturer, in many cases, to ch:irge a higfier 
 rate for his goods than he can 
 afford to pixxiuce them for. It Ls 
 
 a well-known fact that Canadian purohasere 
 can go to tlie Unite<l States and buy gooda 
 for importation into Canada cheaper than the 
 merchants in that country can buy them, 
 in many cases 20 or 30 per cent cheaper, for 
 i the reason that the tariff enables the Am- 
 
erican manufacturer to bleed his own cus- 
 tomers where he has control of the market ; 
 and If a foreianer comes there to buy and the 
 manufacturer has to coiupet<^? ^^ith out^^lde 
 parties, then he puts the prict> down to the 
 level where he has a fair prolit, which is 20 
 or 30 per cent less, even than he sells to Ins 
 own customers. We have an in-<tance of this 
 lilnd in Canada in tlic Corda;:e Company at 
 Halifax. You can ixo to St John's, Newfound- 
 land, and buy corda;.'e made by that company 
 2 cents a poimd cheaper tlLui in Halifax. 
 Why is that ? Becjuise they are selling it 
 in ilalifax. protected by tiie tariff duties, at 
 2 cents a pound more than a fair profit for 
 matmfacturiiij; it ; iMit if they are selling it 
 in NeA\'foundland tliey have to compete with 
 cordage companies elsewhere, and tliey have 
 to sell it at a figure which affords them a pi-otit 
 which malce-s it desirable for them to sell 
 there ; but it does not ennble them to get 
 the price thoy can get in Halifax where th(>y 
 have control. Wo lind that illiLstrated in tlie 
 history of tlie cotton companies in this coim- 
 try. The enormous dividends they are pay- 
 ing, tlie enomious sums they are carrying 
 to rest, all iiidicatp tJiat they are mailing 
 higher profits than they are entiiled to make, 
 and the tariff constructed by hon. gentlemen 
 opposite is a machine designetl for the pur- 
 pose of enabling these concents to bleed the 
 consumers of the coimtry by_ charging prices 
 greatly in excess of the price at which they 
 might afford to miinufacture thosi' goods. 
 and at which they would manufacture them 
 if they were subjected to competition. Now, 
 in view of all these facts wo have a demand 
 for a sweeping tariff reform, and if lion, 
 gentlemen opposite can give iis that 
 reform, all right. If they cannot give 
 it, the people will, in my humble op- 
 inion, trj- somebody else upon whom 
 will devolve the duty of doing it. As 
 to how fast we should make tliis change, of 
 course, that is a question to be considered. 
 We have the manufacturers to consider, we 
 have the farmers to consider, tlie lumberman, 
 the fisherman, the mine owner and the 
 labourer— we have all these classes of inter- 
 ests to consider. Heretofore wo have been 
 considering the interest of the manufacturer 
 only. Of cour^-e, we must not lose sight of 
 his interest entirely, we must not wantonly 
 do him an Injustice, but we must not let him 
 profit at the expense of the other producing 
 classes of this country. We must endeavour 
 to do justice to all, and to remove these 
 enormous and unjust burdens that exist vm- 
 der the National Policy system in vogue to- 
 day. 
 
 I propose, Mr. Speaker, to review very 
 briefiy a few of the points made in the debate 
 hitherto. It is a question, of course, that has 
 been pretty well tJirashed out, to use a com- 
 mon expression, and I shall not have very 
 much to say upon it, I shall not go into it as 
 extensively, or treat of so many 
 subjects, as I should have done • had 
 I spoken earlier in the debate. I wish to re- 
 
 fer briefly, at the outset, to some statements 
 made by the Minister of Finance in liis 
 Budget speech with respect to a question of 
 v«'ry great importiince to one of the leading 
 interests of the country, I refer to tlie lumber 
 interests, and I refer to the statement,s made 
 by the hon. sientleman with regard to the in- 
 tention of the Government resptx-ting the ex- 
 port duty on logs. I hiul not ih' pleasure 
 of listening to the speech of the Minister of 
 Fin:ince. but I find in " Han .sard " ho is n*- 
 ported to have said : 
 
 Tlic facts (if tlie oasi' are tod.ay tliiit a liKist waste- 
 ful, and I lielicve i-ntirely niinfcfssary. drain is Ijeiiig 
 made en the rinibfi- rcMiurtcs uf this country under 
 jpiisi lit mnditidn:-. 
 
 And further : 
 
 It is well that this matter slidiild nndi'ivo nicist; 
 striuus and calm considcratieii, uttfily reniDxcd from 
 i |)aitisansiii|i or tiadc r(]iri>^al>, nr tlic like, iijion it- 
 j iiwii hrciail and sutticiciit liaj>is. 
 
 ! And still further : 
 
 It (the KdVcniiiicnt I will not cmisidcr that it is <\i- 
 I haritd froni takinjr the coiii<c that is slmwii to 1m- ini- 
 ; |icrativcly necessary hecause any [icisons have, hist 
 I yeai- or this year, on the existing.' state cif thinj.'s. 
 ' lio'iyht limits (ir in\e>teil in tiiiihcr land< in uui 
 ' country. 
 
 That is to say, that no vested interests in 
 : tills respect are to be considered. He will 
 ': consider vested rights in manufactures, but 
 i llie vested rights of a man investing hLs 
 I money in timber limits will not receive any, 
 i consideration from tlu^ Government wiiat- 
 ' ever. Tlie Imulier industry of tliis country 
 has Ijeen in a depressed condition for a 
 good many years past, tmtil last year. Last 
 year the lumbermen of Canada ' were pros- 
 perous. They liad nearly readied the con- 
 dition wiaen the shackles on the trade were 
 entirely removed. The duty on lumber going 
 into the American market was $1 per thou- 
 sand on wiiite pine lumber, the export duty 
 had been removed, and the lumber trade 
 was in a higli degree of prosperity. The 
 condition of the trade was satisfactory' to 
 those who were engaged in it, and the indica- 
 tions with respect to it were very clearly 
 ; shown by the resiUt of the timln'r limit sale 
 held by the Government of Ontario last fall, 
 wiien 000 miles of timber put up at auction 
 and sold to the highest bidder realized bon- 
 uses of $2,300,000, an enonnous sum. and 
 one much in excess of the bonuses re- 
 ceived on any previous sale. I quote this 
 sale as indicating the state of prosperity and 
 the buoyant feeUng existing in the lumber 
 I circles of this country. Now, it will be 
 I borne in mind that this trade is one wiiich 
 the Government does not foster ; on the con- 
 trary, it is a trade upon which the Govern- 
 ment imposes burdens. The National Po- 
 licy bears heavily on this trade ; the duties 
 upon chain, axes, saws, aU kinds of tools, 
 ^ blankets and material used in the lumber 
 , camp have beei. endured without a murmur. 
 ' The Grovemment have conferred no benefit, 
 ' they have not fostered the trade in any way 
 
whatever ; on the contrarj-, they have im- 
 posed heavy exactious ou the trade ; nud 
 the effect of au aimouucemeut siu-h a.s that 
 made by the Muiister of rinance a week 
 ago, to-day, is a disquietuij; one. Here are 
 meu who have imrehased tlmlx'r, and ihe 
 time of the year has ariive<l when tht-y will 
 be making contraet.s of sale. Tliese logs 
 will soon be ivachiug the mill, they will soon 
 imdergo the process of manufacture into 
 lum1)er. and buyers will come to purchase. 
 On the one hand, the buyer does not know 
 whether the cxpoit, duty will be reiiuposed 
 and lumber duties go up in llie United States 
 in consequence ; and tlie seller, on the other 
 hiuid. does not know, and this suite of tm- 
 certainty is embarrassing to both purchaser 
 and seller, and has a demoralizing and ini- 
 fav(Mirable inlluence upon that great trade. 
 Sir, I should like to inquire why tlie Govern- 
 ment feels it iucuuil)ent upon itself to harry 
 this btisiness. Th(>ir policy has lieciv one of 
 change. They tirst leviitl an export duty of 
 ^1, then they put it up to ."<J. tlien they in- 
 creased the duty to i^.',. they then put it back 
 to $2, then, under llie statutory provisions 
 of the McKinley Bill, ihe.v removeil it, and 
 tliey are now considering wliat they hail 
 better do next. The lumber trade does not 
 know wlmt the (ioveninient intend to do. and 
 in this case, as in the case of all important 
 industries, uncertainty has a disastrous effect 
 en the trade. I regret that the Minister of 
 Finance saw lit to make such an aimotinci'- 
 nient in his Budget speecli. He would have 
 acted more wisely if he had m.-ide his inves- 
 tigation lirst and arrived at a conclusion :is 
 to whether a change was desirable, than to 
 thst make the announcement he did a wet-k 
 ago. With respect to the t'xport of logs, the 
 American luuit holder wotdd. in the great 
 mfijority of cases, prefer to manufacturi' his 
 logs in this coimtry ; but there are degrees 
 of uncertainty, in various respects, tliat de- 
 tor him from doing so. In tli<^ lirst place, 
 the Ontaiio Government hiive refused to 
 make the tenure as regar<ls Crown dues p<'r- 
 manent ; they have refused to give the limit 
 holder a Crown dues' rate of $1 per thousand 
 with The assurance that this will continue 
 for a fixed period, and the American is left 
 ignorant as to how soon that regulation nia.\- 
 be changed, and tmcertiUJi as to the moment 
 at which the Ontario Government may in- 
 crease the dues. Then the attitude of the 
 Government here is another factor that de- 
 ters the American lumberman from engaging 
 in the construction of mills in Canada. He 
 can tow liis logs over to the United St.ates 
 and suspend his operations next year, if ne- 
 cessar5% but, if he builds a mill, he invests a 
 large sum, and the profit on that 
 investment depends on his ability to use the 
 mill continuously year after year ; and if he 
 is subject to uncertainty as regards the tenure 
 of the Crown dues by the Ontario Govern- 
 ment, and the additional uncertainty wiiether 
 there will be an export duty or not and whether 
 there will be an increase of the American im- 
 
 port duty, contingent on the imposition of the 
 export duty, he naturally refrains from mak- 
 ing an investment, ami continues to carry 
 on his btisino!** as he has done <luring two or 
 tliiee years past, towing logs and sawing them 
 at mills alrea<ly built, rather than making in- 
 ve.stjuents in lixed plant in this country under 
 tlie Conditions 1 have named. The triith is 
 tiiat at the present moment the advantages 
 are in favour of sawing Imnber in Canada. 
 The Imnberman who tows logs to Michigan 
 does .so at a disadvantage. 1 m:iy take my 
 own ease. I gave a contract last year for 
 .-i.iwing a certain quantity of logs in Canada 
 at .'?:'. per thous;ind. which include«l towin.g 
 .ibout 10 mih's to the null. It costs .$1 per 
 MiousaiMl to pay tlie American duty, 
 and ^2.'2'> freight to Buifalo or TVmawanda, 
 New York, making a total of $0.25. If I had 
 towed tliCKse logs to Michigan, the co.st 
 of towing to Saginaw wotikl h.ive been $1.50, 
 the expense of towing the logs up the Saginaw 
 lliver to the mill from '.','> cent.s to r.o (-ents. 
 on -Ml aver.ige 50 cent.s, the cost of s:iwing 
 there .S2, freight to Tonawanda or ButfiUo. 
 .'<2.25. wiiicli makes exactly the same sum 
 as the cost of placing that lumber on the 
 Buffalo market, .saAvn either at a Canadian 
 mill. situattHl .-is the one was wiiere 1 did my 
 sawing, or taking the logs to Saginaw and 
 saving them there. In the one case the $l 
 per thousand duty w.is saved, but the dis- 
 advantages almost exactly <-ompeosated for 
 that. T'^here was. however, the risk of towing 
 not taken into account. I presume that no 
 eoinpany of under%vriters wotild insure log 
 rafts at 10 per cent, and men engagtHl in 
 log lowing generally place the percentage of 
 loss as eqnal to 75 cents per thous.in 1. 
 
 Mr. OBRIEX. The hon. gentleman talks 
 of lowing logs to Saginaw and sending them 
 to market at Tonawanda. What about the 
 freight fl^►ul one place to the other ? 
 
 Mr. CHAKLTOX. The freight is the same 
 from (Georgian Bay ports as it is from 
 8:igin:iw. The difference in favour of 
 sawing in Canada would be whatever 
 the risk was in towing, whether it is 10 per 
 cent, amoimting to about .$1. or 75 cents, as is 
 generally supposed. The Aineiic.an who tows 
 his logs to Saginaw to saw is placed at 
 a disadvantage equal to this towing risk. 
 Under the<e circimistanees the Americans 
 would be glad to build mills in Cannda, and all 
 that is necessary to secure a transfer of the 
 business of manufactuiing from the American 
 to the Georgian Baj- side is to give a sense 
 of stvurity and i)ennanence. first, as to the 
 Crown dues of Ontaiio. and second, as to the 
 policy of the Canadian Government 
 If that were secured, we would see few^er 
 logs towed, and more lumber sawn on this 
 side. 
 
 With ivgard to the depleting of our 
 limits, which the Finance Minister laments, 
 let me inquire : What were these limits sold 
 for ? Was the purpose in selling these 
 limits to prohibit the buyer from cut- 
 
6 
 
 tin;: th»> timber. •>r was it intended, after 
 selling him the limits, to thro-v obstructions 
 In the way ot cariyin>r on his business V 1 
 think, on the contrarj', that these limits were 
 sold to the buyers for the ymrpose of behi),' 
 worked. I think that the Governni«'iit solil 
 them, fii-st of all. for the purpose of securing' 
 sueli rt'veiine as it could by receiviii;: 
 boiuises at the sale. and. secondly, for se- 
 rurin;; Crown dues on the timl)er as it is cut 
 by the owner and sent to the markets. Now. 
 with rejianl to the depletion of the forests. 
 The province of Ontario contains 107.<X)0 
 square miles. Less than •jr),0(M> square miles of 
 that is under cultivation. Thj Government 
 have pl:ie<Ml under license, since Confedera- 
 tion. le.ss tli;in IK.iK.Ht .squ.-ire nules of timber. 
 The amount placed iindi'i- lieeiisi" Iteforr 
 ConftHlerati<m was iL'.-'iOO square milfs. 
 and I venture to sa.v, that, on at least oin -third 
 of that area placed under liceus(> since Con 
 federation, not a stick has yet been cut. and 
 the amotmt of timber remaining on the othei- 
 two-thirds is more than one-half the total 
 quantity ori^nally theiv. If tliere are 2."».0(»(i 
 square miles of cultivated land, and li^.OOo 
 miles of timber land, imder license. I'e luct 
 that 47,fKy» square mil.'s from tlie 1'.>7.<>(mi 
 s(|Ti.ii"" mil -s .in 1 .\on have th' amouiii of 
 ludii-ensod territory and forest Ian 1 in private 
 hands in tlie jirovince of Ontario, whi -h is 
 ir,7.()00 out of the totjil cost of IDT.OOO square i 
 miles. ' 
 
 Mr. REID. What about the water V Is 
 there any included in that ? 
 
 Mr. CHAKLTOX. Of lh.> ainoimr put : 
 under license before and since Confederation, 
 the quantity now said by the Crown land au- i 
 thorities to be actually und»'r license is less 1 
 than lO.OfMi square miles, which covers water 
 as well as land. It is estimate<l that there 
 are lOT.'HKt square miles of territory in tlu- 
 province, at least ^'>0,^y(H) square miles of this, 
 besides the ;i mount covere<l b.v license, is in 
 forest. Now. Tb.cre is not mon^ tlian one- 
 tenth f>f the forest area of Outtirio imder 
 license to-day. and the policy of the province 
 of Ontario has been a careful and conserva- 
 tive policy. The Government of that pro- 
 vince is wide awake to the necessity of con- 
 serving their timber resources, and it does 
 not intend to bring this territory into market 
 faster than the wants of the country require. 
 It intends to resene a vast area of unoc- 
 cupied lands, and. consequently, the alarm 
 that is felt with regard to the depletion of 
 the forests in that province is unnecessary 
 and imfounded. If only about one-tenth of 
 the total forest area of that province is under 
 license, surely lion, gentlemen will realize 
 that the alarm felt about the depletion of 
 the forests of the province is without foim- 
 dation. 
 
 Mr. SPROULE. That is not what Mr. 
 Phipps, your commissioner, said in Toronto. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. I cannot tell what Mr. 
 Phipps says. Here on one hand is the area 
 
 of the province, here the amount of culti- 
 vated laud, here on the other hand the statis- 
 tics as to the amount of that lanl placed 
 under license and the amount remaining, 
 anil you put the two latter s uiis together, 
 and the b.ilance is the unoceuiiied territory, 
 which amouius to 1.".(mmm» s(iuare miles 
 at least, which is not coveri'il l»y 
 license, and which is still under timber, and 
 from my personal obsen\atiou I can say that 
 th(> iK'st timbere<l seKitions of Ontario are yet 
 to l»e placixl under license. But it mav be 
 asked, wh.v do the people export logs ? 
 Simply because it is to their advantage to 
 do so. Wh.v does the lumlH-rman of Maine 
 export his logs to Canada ? Kecaasi' it is to 
 his advantage. Wh.v <loes the hnnberman on 
 the (Georgian Bay exi»ort his loirs to the 
 T'nited States V lUH?aus;' it is to his advan- 
 1;ig<'. Business men wiU figure up these 
 tilings for themselves, and if vou do not in- 
 terfere with tliem they will make tliat use uf 
 their property which is most tonduciv;' to 
 their prosperitj", and every time you do in- 
 terfere ^^^tll them you are dioug niiscliicf 
 ratlier than good. AVe might as wel talk 
 a 1 lout depleting our mines, we might ;is well 
 talk aliout depleting our granaries, we might 
 ;is well talk about depleting oiu- herds, we 
 might as Avell talk about an export duty upon 
 barle.v for the purposi- of having it all made 
 into malt in this countr.v, we might a,< well 
 talk alxnit an export duty on wool, and we 
 might as well talk about an export duty on 
 wheat for tlie piu'pose of having' it all grotnid 
 in this country, as to t:dk abmit an export 
 dut.v on logs. The best wa.v to do with this 
 matter is to let it regulate itself. Wlieu 
 I)eoi)le talk about the depletion of forests, 
 they fail to remember that, up to this time, 
 tlie balance of trade in saw-lo-'s exported 
 has been in favour of Canada, an I that we 
 have imported more logs tlian we have ex- 
 prirted. According to the Trade and Navi- 
 gation Returns, the year ending Hdth June, 
 1S02, om" export of logs was to the value of 
 $798,0110, and our imports, including an esti- 
 mate based upon the averau'e of se-,eral 
 years past, into New Brunswick, addi'd to 
 the imports glA'en in the Trade and Navi'^a- 
 tion Returns, amounted to the value of ?051,- 
 000. or. in other words, we imported last 
 year $150,000 worth of logs in excess of the 
 amount we exported. 
 
 Mr. SPROULE. Does the lion, gentle- 
 man know that the Trade iinil Navigation 
 Returns do not keep an account of a large 
 number of them ? 
 
 :Mr. CHARLTON. The Trade and Navi- 
 gation Returns are supposed to take accoimt 
 of all logs exported. 
 
 Mr. SPKOULE. But they do not. 
 
 :dr. CHARLTON. You cannot get a clear- 
 ance for a raft without making a return of 
 the quantity of timber in that raft and a 
 raft is not a nice little thing to smuggle out 
 
of the countrj'. You cannot put it in your 
 waistcoat ])o«ket. No logs are sent out of 
 tlie country that are not reported to the 
 Custom-house, and it is an iuiputatiou on 
 tlie character of our otticers to say lliat our 
 Trade and Navigation lletums are not re- 
 liable. 1 am surprised to hear the Iidh. 
 member for l^ast Grey (Mr. Sproidoj casting 
 reflections on his own Government. 
 
 Mr. SFKGULE. The " Canada I.uinb.r 
 man" say.s that all the logs are not jnclnd''d 
 in the returns. 
 
 Mr. CllAKLTON. The " C^anada Lumher- 
 ninn "' is one tiling and the Trade and Navi- 
 gation Returns another, and if my hon. friend 
 places more reliance on the " Canada Luin- 
 berman " than he does on the ntficial (I(ku- 
 nients of liis (iovernment, why tlien 1 have 
 no quarrel witli lilm. Now, .Mr. Speaker, in 
 the period extending from 18S4 to LSlKt. ilie 
 value of oiu' export of logs was ^;!.2S!>.(MKt. 
 and the value of our import of logs, 
 including New Brunswick, was $8.40)8,- 
 <MK), and tlie balance uf oi • imiioits 
 in excess of our ex[K)rt of logs du ng tliat 
 ]ieriod was !<."(, ITihOOO. In fa("e fit .le fa<'t 
 that the trade— if it is an advantage lO import 
 logs and saw theni— i.s vastly in our favour, 
 and ha.s been up to this time. I would :isk 
 what reason exists for insisting upoa the iir:- 
 position at an export duty V Are we suffer- 
 ing V If we have imp(n"ted over i?r(.(M)().o();) 
 worth more than we have exported, why 
 sluaild thes(^ hon. gentlemen niake ji iv>w 
 about it V Ii we imported last year .'?1.".0.- 
 otN) Worth more than we t^xported. what 
 reason was tliere for that statement iii.-ide 
 by the Finance Minister, which is unsettling 
 one of the most important industries of the 
 country ; I refer to the statcimviit that lie 
 proi'o.sed to take into consideration, whether 
 lie intend(»d to take a step to ruiu that in- 
 dustry. What reason is there for medical 
 men. who know more about pills— if they 
 know anything about them— than they 
 do al)our saw-logs, making such a noise on 
 this matter V 
 
 Mr. Sl'JiOTLE. Will thc^ hon. gentleman 
 allow me to ask him a question V 
 
 Mr. CHAUi;rON. Sit down, please; 1 
 have not time now. 
 
 Mr. Sl'JtorLE. Is it not under an ar- 
 rangement of- treaty that logs are ent(>red 
 from Maine ; or is it not by freedom of tr;ide 
 b(4we(>n the two cotintrios, The same as w(» 
 allow them to take our logs out V It is a 
 treaty that regulates that, and the Americans 
 enter the logs and saw them in Canada of 
 their own motion, 
 
 ^Ir. CHARLTON. Tt may bo by treaty. 
 It does not matter for what reason tliey come 
 to the province of New Brunswick. TJie fact 
 is that they do come in there and are manu- 
 factured in the mills at St. John. There is 
 just as much profit derived from inanufac- 
 tuilng 1,000 feet of logs in New Branswick 
 as there is for manufacturing 1.000 feet of 
 logs in Saginaw. 
 
 Mr. sriUMLK. No. because they wUl not 
 employ Canadians there. 
 
 Mr CHARLTON. If we reap an advan- 
 tage of this kind, why should w«' take excep- 
 tion to another party having a fair show with 
 us 't AMiy should we imperil our lumlier in- 
 terests by allowing sellish considerations to 
 interfere, ;ind l>y which we want to have 
 the whole beneiit and to allow no beneiit to 
 the other side V Now. Sir, the Americans 
 luiderstand this matter. 
 
 Mr. Sl'ROULE. So do the Canadians. 
 
 M. CHARLTON. INIy friend over there re- 
 minds me of the old woman who made some 
 tea which was very hot, but very weak. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Is that all the story ? 
 
 ' Mr. CHARLTON. I will tell liim the re- 
 ! mainder later on. as 1 have not time now. The 
 i McKinley Bill, which went into operation on 
 \ the (Jth October, LSDo, made a provision which 
 i reduced the duty tipon pine Itnnber to ."?1 a 
 thoudasud, and, connoc-tetl with that pr >\1so, I 
 will read the following from the uiticiai docu- 
 ment, section 218 of the United States Tariff 
 Act of 18!»0 :— 
 
 I'liiviili d. That in cjim' any ioivigii country fhall 
 iiiiii'i.'^i- ;in i-\|«iit <liity ui.oii p'.ni-, >iinicf, fhii or other 
 logs, or upon siavf liolts, sIiui^Ii-wikmI, <ir heading 
 lilock.s I'vpiirttd to tlic I nitcil Statts troin .-iiich 
 ciiuulry, till 11 till' duty upon ' li»' .saweil luiulitT Inrein 
 provided fur, v.licii inijiortffl from >\h\\ couiitrv. shall 
 rmiain tli>- same as lixt-d liy law in lorci- piiur to the 
 li.issat;!' of this .\ft. 
 
 'L'liat is, any person who imporiod Imnber 
 from the country imposing such an export 
 duty would not be permitted to take ad- 
 vantage of the retluctiou in duty ju-ovideil by 
 till' Act, but wttuld be oliligeil to pay the 
 dut.\' which existed prior to the passjtge of 
 that Act, which was .*i;2 per l,Ot>o feet. In 
 otlier words, a statutory offer was made by 
 the McKinley Bill to tliis cotmtry, to the 
 elfecr. that if we removed the export duty on 
 logs, the American Government would re- 
 duce the duty on lumber to .SI por l.OtK). but 
 that if we did not remove the export duty, 
 they would leave the duty on oiu* lumber 
 at )?2 per l.tKH). Sir John A. Macdonald and 
 his (-(^lleagues wisely accepted that olfer and 
 r(>movod the export iluty, and thereby 
 secured a rtnluctton of the duty on lumber. 
 That \\as done in the interest of the pine 
 trade of this country, and at this moment 
 the pine trade seems nervous and ai)pre- 
 hensive. when a statement is made by the 
 Goveniratnt that it even thinks of consider- 
 ing the propriety of putting back that export 
 dtity. and catising a reimposition of the $2 
 duty on our lumber going mto the L'nited 
 States. Now, the Americans understand per- 
 fectly well that this export duty is an in- 
 defensible and vexatious one. They under- 
 stand perfectly well that they have sent us 
 about three times as many logs as we have 
 sent them. Their constitution prohibits 
 
Congress iiiipo.siuy au export duty, wisely 
 prohibits it, and therefore they are dis- 
 posed to resent our imposition of an 
 export duty. They are disposed to con- 
 sider it an unfriendly act, and as they 
 cannot retaliate in kind, llioy propose to re- 
 taUate in another way. Here is a Bill, which 
 wa.-. introdiiccd into Conjjnvsp on the 4th day 
 of last month, by a Democratic member, and 
 which sho^A■s how ihoy propose to retaliate. 
 
 Sir. bl'IiOLLE. That was after you M'ere 
 at Washinprtou. 
 
 Mr CHARLTON. Xo ; my trip was some- 
 what after that. I may goAern the legisla- 
 tion of the United States when I am there ; 
 but they have to do a Uttle work without me 
 when I a m not there This Bill is as follows : 
 
 .\ liill t(i inijKjse duties (III lunilifr, wond imlp, and 
 Dthfijirticlf.-. ill casi' uny foivi^'ii ccniiiti-v sliiili iiuimse 
 .luy export ilntifs on tlii' niaterinl.s frum wliicli tiifv 
 .•ire made. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and Hmise of He|>re- 
 .sentative-i of tlie I'nifed .States of Auiei-ica in Con- 
 fCress .isstni'iied, Tliat in case any foreif^n cciuiitry 
 shall rii]io.-e an export duty iiijon saw-log-s, pulp wood 
 or other raw forest in-udiR'ts desiirned for the use of 
 American mills or factories, the im|Miit duty uiion the 
 ])r(Hiiict of saw-]o;.'s, ])u!|i wood and other raw forest 
 products of the kinds u|>on u hich sucli exinirt liuty is 
 inipos'-il. ^ucil as lumliei and wood I'ulp, .shall, when 
 imported ill the I 'iiited .Statesfiom such country, lie 
 incre.is>-fl hy a siun erpiivaleiit to the amount of such 
 f.\i)on duty : and if such article is \ipon tlie free list, a 
 rate of duty erpiivalent to sucli export duty sliall lie 
 jmposefl upon it. And the Secretary of the Treasury 
 is heivliy em|owereu anc! directed to make and enforce 
 such rules as may he ni'cessary for the purpose of 
 cairyiiiK the foreiroiiii; jirovisions into effect. 
 
 Xow, in the tii-st place, we cannot put au ex- 
 poi-r duty on loj,'s without getting back the 
 $2 duty on lumber ; under the prorlsinn of 
 the McKinle.v Act that is done iu'^tantly up > i 
 the reimposition of the export daty. Wo 
 should have also hanging over our he.ids the 
 prospect of the passage of this Bill, .md I 
 corsider it almost certain that it would pass, i 
 In that case, the position would be liiat if 
 A\-e reunposed the export duty on lou's, we 
 should have to face an American duty of 34 
 a thousand on lumher; and no practical liuuher- 
 mau needs to be asked whether he would con- 
 sider that condition of tilings ruinous to tlie 
 trade or not. Every one knows that it would 
 be ruinous, and the bunber interns •: is a 
 dangerous thing for medical men to trifle 
 with. They had better confine^ themselves 
 to their own Inisiness. The lumbernum, who 
 have millions of dollars invested in 
 their business, prefer to attend to it 
 themselves. They prefer that the Gov- 
 ernment should let m.-itters rest as they arc. 
 and they can give good reasons for Ihis It 
 is true, the spruce men are dissatisMed, and 
 I regret thiit they were not allowed to parti- 
 cipate in the reduction of the duty on lum- 
 ber, as it was expected they sho\ild. But 
 they were not. and if we reimpose 
 the export duty and this Bill passes. 
 the spruce men will have the advan- 
 tage of an increase in the duty fi-om !ii2 
 
 to ?3 a thousand. So that the condition of 
 thicgs is that if the export duty is reimposed, 
 the owner of spruce timber gets no advant- 
 age, AAhile the dut.v on pine bunber will be 
 doubled ; and if that should be done, we 
 should have staring us in the fiice the pros- 
 pect of this Bill being adopted, and the duty 
 I on lumber being placefl at .'i!4 a thousand. 
 j This is surely a condition of things sufficient 
 ' to alarm the lumbtr interest, and it does 
 alarm them. 
 
 Mr. SPROULE. Sligh*^^ I ask the hou. gen- 
 tleman who introduced that Bill ? 
 
 :Mr. CHARLTON. It Avas introduced by a 
 Democratic member of the name of Weadock. 
 Do yoit know lum ? 
 
 Mr. SE'ROT'LE. 1 will know mor(; abotit 
 him after a little. 
 
 'Sh: CffARLTOX. It may be s:ud thit the 
 adoption of this provisi(m would not be al- 
 lowed, because it would be pr*\1udicial to the 
 interests of \meriiMn lumbermen holding In- 
 terests in Canada, and also because the in- 
 terests of American lumliennen In Micliigan 
 would not pennit its adoption. 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, lienr. 
 
 :Mr. CHARLTOX. If you canvass the men 
 engaged in the lumber interest in Michigan 
 to-day, you will find that two-thirds of t lem 
 are not interestetl in Canada at all. bit that 
 they are :n favour of the imposition uf the 
 highest rate of dut.v on lumber that they can 
 possibly secure. Go outside of Michigan, and 
 huiit ihroughout the length .and breadih of 
 the United States, and you will harxlly find a 
 lumberman who is not in favour of a higher 
 duty. You will lind that the lumbermen of 
 Wisconsin. Minnesota, the Southern Stat^^s, 
 "\fniiie. California. Oregon and Washbigton, .are 
 all in favour of tlie imposition of a higher 
 rate of duty ; and the few Michigan luniber- 
 luen who are interested in Canadian lumber 
 would bo perfectly powerless in Congress ; 
 their influence would cotmt for nothing what- 
 ever. I repeat that nineteen-twentieths of tho 
 bunbering interest in the United States are 
 in favour of higher duties, and tlie.^- would 
 seize upon such .an act as the reuuposition of 
 an export dutj' on logs by this Government 
 as a f)i-etext for urging upon Congress tho 
 bnposition of higher duties upon lumber. A 
 deputation of lumbermen visited Wasliington 
 l.ist winter, and magnified the fact that the 
 Ontario Government in disposing of some 
 timber limits in the Rainy River district had 
 made it .a condition thar the lumber should 
 bo manufactured in Canada, and made that 
 .'in exctise for urging Conirress that the duty 
 on lumber should be increased ; and lef this 
 Government impose an export duty on logs 
 with the knowledge they now possess of the 
 state of the trade, and we wiU have legislation 
 intro<luced and carried through that will add 
 th.at export duty to the import duty, what- 
 ever It ma.v be. That is considered .a moral 
 certainty. And we will have urging that legis- 
 lation, the lumbering interests of the south, 
 
of the Pacific slope, of the Mississippi Valley, 
 :\nd of >Liine. Now, it may be said that the 
 Americans cannot do without our pine. 
 
 Mr. SPROULE. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. The doctor says " hear 
 hear." He knows more about pills than he 
 does about that matter. The rac-t is, and 
 everj* lumbenuan in tliis House linows it, that 
 the market for Canadian lumber is being cir- 
 cumscribed in area every year. We have 
 been nearly driven from the American marlcet 
 for red pine lumber. We find that the south- 
 ern pine is encroaching on our iiuiri^ets from 
 year to year ; we fiml that southern white 
 wood is being used in preference to pine for 
 finishing purposes, because it is cheaper. I 
 have the testimony of mill men, who run 
 trim mills, which cut up wood for liulsli- 
 ing purposes, and they say that all through 
 the northern states 2,000 feet of white w<K)d 
 is used to every 1,000 feet of pine for in- 
 terior liouse finisli. It is used all through 
 the northern states to a great extent, 
 and it is used entirely in the south. 1 
 have a statement of the owner of a mill 
 at Tonawanda. New York, that he bo:iglu 
 cypress at $li'2 a thousand feet for the purp' se 
 t'f converting into dO(irs, sashes, blinds, waius- 
 I'otiug and trimming for house finishing, and 
 that it Avas nicer, more s;ileable and more 
 jMipnlar with builders than pine, which he 
 couUl not buy at less than if 45 per 1,000 feet 
 for tlie Siime purpose. The result is that 
 our pine has to a considerable extent been 
 driven from the American market. There 
 are vast areas of southeru puie. I 
 have seen pine forests in ihe sf)Ulli al- 
 most ready for the Imubermau, where you 
 could trace the rows of the old cotton fields, 
 as the pine there renews itself invariably. 
 which it does not in the north, so that the 
 supply in the south, if cared for, can be inade 
 perijetual. Tlie UnittHl States, therefore, 
 may be, and can be quite inileiiendent nf us 
 and Ave cannot force them to take our lumber, 
 and if we put ourselves in tlie po-iiiiou the 
 hou. gentleman's statements foreshadowed. w"e 
 will lie met by a retaliation of a kind that 
 wui force the Govemment to do what the 
 hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) has 
 said they have often done, sneak out of a 
 hole they stnitted into. The step taken 
 by the hon. gentleman may be. and probablv 
 is. a piece of bluff. He thinks he can blul'f 
 the United States into admitting our liunber 
 free. I do not know anytlilng about the game, 
 but I am told it is not considered a safe game 
 where you bluif on a weak hand and your 
 opponent is liable to call you down. 1 do 
 not thirdc the Minister of Finance has a strong 
 enough hand to play the game, and he had 
 better not try. 
 
 With regard to the depletion of our 
 forests, I suppose everyboly wants free 
 lumber. I am sure tht» lumbermen in 
 Canada want it ? If we had free admission 
 of lumber into the United States wotild that 
 arrest the depletion of our forests ? if that 
 
 is the reason wbicli actuates the Minister of 
 
 finance in taking tlie position he foresliadows 
 
 —if he proix)ses xo impose an export duty in 
 
 j order to arrest tiwr d£i»letion of our forests, 
 
 I and at the same time desrires free Imnber, 
 
 which will aoodeiate that depletion— is his 
 
 position a logical one ': I think not. We all 
 
 desire free lumber, which woidd make the 
 
 business more pr<#jj*!r«j«s. Of course it would 
 
 lead to a more rapkl depletion of the limits 
 
 I under liceu.se ; bat, as I said before, the 
 
 : Ontario O-jvemmcni, with that wise regard 
 
 I for the future wfaidL has characterized almost 
 
 : all its policy, has rt^-.-rrerl i>ut of its entire 
 
 I area of limits IXi^.'APf'f jjejojire miles, which it 
 
 ! has not licensed and at the rate at which 
 
 : It is putting its terriioiy under license — less 
 
 : than lO.O^JO miles licensed ance 1867— it will 
 
 I take al>out thret hnndnd years l)efore the 
 
 whole territory will h*? leased. Under these 
 
 conditions we need not fwrrow trouble on that 
 
 score. 
 
 I have a word Xfj «aiy to my hon. friend, the 
 inemijer for lilast irun-rfie tMr. Bennett). The 
 : otlier night the hon. g^emtleman indulged in 
 j some pretty .severe critiei^m on the policy of 
 I the Ontario fiovemmemt. and in the course 
 i of his speech he made- tius statement : 
 
 I Let iii«- a.-ik wJiat 1,. fM-.£iu't!ly tbf priruipiil it'uson.s 
 I for thi-si- sale* — 
 
 Tlu' hon. gemieman was referring to tihe sales 
 made in 1885. 
 
 Ixins^ iiia/ii. Vkkhfmt »>i;^sri>;tir>n.» '; If the iion- 
 
 '■ geiitJt-iiiaii w ill take xif tTrrjial,!*- totnrn up tlie rei-ords 
 
 of the sale-, lie will tti*;! tm tl0- li^t f>f purcIiii^Hi-s on 
 
 I that ocea.'ii'iii siich j-lejsl ajsK? {rfar-tical Imiilieiiuen as 
 
 I .biliii A. Vturrtjrx. ^]iiL>m-xi' iftrmr'rW iiiHiiil,er of Far- 
 
 liiUiiHiit ill this Hocr*-. H.«f»-tE JafPrav. jnirvevoi'-fren- 
 
 ; ei'iil fur g^nn-erv r^piAih^ let Eh*- wtluiiizatioii ruatU in 
 
 '. Ontario, ;iu<l tAii*^ i^hnthmf^ (tf that ilk : men who 
 
 iiivcr e.\)iect<-d t^' »<«-k lliiK-s*- Kmif.."', r>ut men who ex- 
 
 ^ [fe'Cted to sell ttieiii at an Aftvancprl rate ; men who 
 
 lia<l thrown ai^ouT iIi>«-h» tfese irnardianship nf the 
 
 (•iitario ( ;o\ertii!ieiiil. awmd sbfx^ht that whatever the 
 
 I'ouiinion <i(ivi-niio»-BI Bazht A), the Ontario (Jovern- 
 
 URiit would !»- \ir*riar^l ttt "ttanrl by them in regard 
 
 to lettiiijf tile luiijl*'! £■••■« ««i!t (4 thf etiuntry. 
 
 This Statement made by the hon. member 
 for East Simc<w- «Mr. Bennett) is a charge 
 against the Ontario Government that its 
 own crexitures were manipalating affairs and 
 l)uying timlx.'r limits, and that the policy of 
 that Government, in rerfnsing to i)lace re- 
 strictions on the exportation of that lumber, 
 was a policy adopTie<I in their interests. They 
 wer(» ideal lumbeneen. Well, there was 
 another ideal lumberman there on that oc- 
 casion, and. while pidting out the motes in 
 his brethren's eyei^ be onght to have made 
 reference to the beam in his own. There 
 was a gentleman at that sale by the name 
 of W. H. Bennett, who, at present, repre- 
 sents East Simooe in thfe House, and he pur- 
 chased berths 5 and ^. the first containing 
 sixty-nine square miles awl the second thir- 
 teen and a half fsqnare miles, or in all, eighty- 
 two and a half sqtiaiB mOes. Mr. Jaffray, one 
 of the other ideal Imnbermen he referred to, 
 purchased eleven »r|aare miles, so that the 
 hon. gentleman was jnst eight times as great a 
 
10 
 
 sinnei- as Mr. Jaffray. And. I think, in cast- 
 ing imputations upon these ideal lumber- 
 men, Messrs. Jaffray and Barron, because 
 they were Reformers, the hon. gentleman 
 ought to have made reference to W. H. Ben- 
 nett, who bought eighty-two and a half 
 miles. 
 
 Mr. BENNETT. Will the hon. gentleman 
 allow me to make an explanation ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Certainly I shall, as I 
 do not want to do tlie hon. gentleman an in- 
 justice. 
 
 Mr. BENNETT. On that occasion I acted 
 as solicitor for Burton Bros., who are 
 lumbermen, and whose men had made a sur- 
 vey of these limits witli tlie view of ascer- 
 taining their value. .Mr. .Taffray and the 
 others were profiting by tlieir expenence, 
 and I did act for Burton Bros., so tliat the 
 others would not take advantage of their 
 knoAvledge. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON We have an acknow- 
 ledgment from the hon. gentleman that he 
 bought the limits. Now. on what condi- 
 tions did Mr. .Taffray and Mr. Barron buy 
 the limits they purchascfl ? Mr. .Taffray 
 bought fi.r tlic Collins Inlet Company and 
 Mr. Barron liought for another company, as 
 solicitors, exactly in the same way as Mr. 
 Bennett did ; and I hold it was not the act 
 of a gentleman, knowing all the circum- 
 stances, as my hon. friend does apparently, 
 to cast an imputation on these two men for 
 doing exactly tlie same thing as he did. 
 
 :Mr. BENNETT. For wlioiii did Mv. 
 Barron buy ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. T ain not aware, but 
 he did not buy for himself, and his name 
 does not appear in the reconls of the Crown 
 Lands Department as a license-holder. If 
 the hon. gentleman wants to know for wlioin 
 IMr. Barron bought, I will ascertain and in- 
 form him. but he bought in exactly the same 
 way as did the hon. memlier for East Simcoo 
 CSh: Bennett), and the conduct of the hon. 
 gentleman is a pretty i=;raall piece of 
 business. The hon gentleman tells us that 
 the Ontario Government ought to have im- 
 posed restiictions at the time of the sale, 
 that they ought to have made provision tliat 
 this timber should not be taken out of tlie 
 country ? Should tliey ? What were they 
 selling timber for ? It is a soun-e of rev- 
 enue. Tlie Ontiirio Government, like tlie 
 Quebec Gwermuent. have control of the 
 Crown domain, and fi-om the management of 
 this domain they expect to derive a revenue 
 to meet the expenditures of the Govern- 
 ment. Tills is one of the assets of the pro- 
 vince of Ontario, and. as wise adininistratoi-s 
 of the affaii-s of the province, it is their duty 
 to make tlie most they can out of tlieir tiui- 
 ber resources. Suppose they had put a n- 
 striction on the use of the timlier sold on 
 that occasion, would they have rweived th(» 
 bonuses they did receive ? Tlie hon. gentleman 
 is well aware they would not have received 
 one-half the amount. By making such a regu- 
 
 lation as the hon. gentleman proposes, they 
 would prejudice their own interests, and, as 
 wise men, they phiced these lands on the 
 market and sold them without reserve to 
 the highest bidder, with a view of obtaining 
 the highest price they could and with the 
 calculation that they would obtain it. The 
 hon. gentleman says that they should now 
 make a charge of Crown dues of So per l,f»00 
 feet and remit $4 on the logs that are not 
 taken out of the country. They have not the 
 power to do that. They have sold the limits 
 subject to certain conflitions. and they must 
 abide by those conditions. It is doubtful if 
 they could lncrea.se the CroT\Ti dues at 
 all if the question were tested and 
 whether they could do that or not, they 
 could not make a di.scrimination between the 
 owners bec^iuse one is an American and the 
 other a Canadian. They have not made any 
 such condition in their terms of sale, and 
 they cannot make the proitosetl change with- 
 out violating the principles of justice. Then 
 the hon. gentleman tells us, Sir, that these 
 American lumbermen are bringing in their 
 sleighs and teams and are paying the duty, 
 and that they are actually bringing in men. 
 Well, INIr. Sneaker. I admit that that is a 
 revereal of the order of nature, there is no 
 doubt about that. The current of men has 
 been the other way ; it has I>een flowing out 
 of the country. The idea of bringing men 
 into this country is a new one. and I do not 
 wonder that it rather sta^rgers my hou. 
 friend. We have sent about 1.(mX>.(Xk1 men 
 out of tills c^mntiy to the United 
 States, but the idea of bringing any 
 back is one that we ought not to enter- 
 tain. I presume. If the hnn. gentleman will 
 introduce .a Bill putting a poll-tax on Yankees, 
 as well as Chinamen, no doubt tliis business 
 can be arrested, that is. if the Bill passes, 
 lint, for my iiart. I cannot see what damage 
 tliis cc)untry would suffer from the importa- 
 tion of a few thousand men. The more 
 of them that will come, I should say, 
 if they are respectable, decent citizens, 
 the better. I know from personal 
 cduiii'ctlou with this l>usines> tliat men are 
 needed, tbitt men are hard to get. The etfeot 
 (111 tlie lumber trade of the rf-mova' <>f export 
 (iiiiy on losjs and the retluction of the United 
 Stiites duties on lumber has been to create 
 a demand for men. I myself went through 
 a liako Erie district to get men. offering 
 from $22 to $:i2 a montli for common 
 liilioiirers. and still found them s:arce. and 
 we were slad to iret Uiem at that. I know that 
 these changes liave made a irreat dem.md for 
 labour. The removal of tlie export duty and 
 tlie reduction of tlie American <'iLstoins duty 
 on lumber lias improved business in tlie small 
 tdwns of the Georgian Ray ngion. It has 
 given a boom to everything. The idea my 
 lidii. friend sets forth that there is n > saw- 
 ing being done tliere. that the saw mills are 
 idle, is very mucli like liis other as.sertlons. 
 I myself was obliged to tow a raft <>f logs 
 to ^lichigan becau-^e all the mills in that vici- 
 nity were bdsy and I coxild not get them 
 
11 
 
 I 
 
 sawed. Yet tlie hon. geutieman tells us that 
 the saw-mills are idle, that there are no mills 
 ininnlni?. No, Sir ; the mills on the north 
 shore, so far as I know, were employed, and 
 Thev will, no doubt, be employed this season. 
 The statement that 400,<)00,0l)0 f»et of logs 
 will be exported from this country next season 
 is a jjrross exafigeration. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is desir.ible to obtain 
 free lumber, I think the prudent coiir.-e to take 
 would be just to remain quiet for awhile. The 
 Democratic party in the United States has as 
 one of its most important principles, the ad- 
 mission of raw material free "f duy. Now. 
 lumber is a raw material and it is liki^ly that 
 one of the rirst acts of the Democratic Gov- 
 ernment will l>e to admit lumber free of duty. 
 But I do not think they will admit it free if 
 we oariy on ihis same of bluff that my hon. 
 friciiil the I'inance Minister has instituted. 
 If w(^ adopt his policy of retaliation, we adopt 
 the policy calculated to defeat the very pur- 
 pose Ave seek to attain. If Ave attemp: this 
 polic.v of imposing: an export duty on .^aw- 
 lofrs. Ave shall defeat om* oAvn object of ob- 
 tiiinin? free lumber. The Americans. I re- 
 peat. Avill resent our act if Ave an^ giiilty of 
 the folly of impositiL' this duty. Now, I hope 
 my lion, friend the Finance IMinister AAill not 
 be cruel to 'Sir. Cleveland. I avouM dislike 
 to have him bluff Mr. Cleveland xe\y severely. 
 ^Ir. Cleveland Avould not take it kindly, per- 
 haps. And, sjieaking serio:!Slj', Mr. Speaker. 
 Mr. Chweland is the last man to attempt^ to 
 play this game upon. I pi-esuine. Sir, you 
 recollect that when I\Ir. Cleveland was Pr. - 
 sideiit before, he proposed to take very suni- 
 mnry measuies AAith Canada. Ho proposed, 
 Sir, to engajio in a kind of retaliation, com- 
 pared Avith which the late act of the present 
 President, Mr. Harrison, was mere child's play. 
 I h.'iA-e here a letter written l)y :Mi-. Cleve- 
 land to a friend of his concemiuir the rel;- 
 tions of Canada, and I have al-io the mes- 
 sage sent by ]Mr. Cleveland to Congi-ess Avirh 
 regard to refahation. It will I e found fro n 
 this that Mr. Cleveland proposed to adopt 
 what wo miglit call very arbiti'ary measures. 
 In his message to Congress I'resident Cleve- 
 land says : 
 
 I'l.niily stilted, the iiuliiv iif initiimal ictiiliiitidii 
 inmiifr-itly iMiiliriu-i's the intiiutioii of tiic <,T»Mtesr 
 liiinii iiiKifi tlidsc wIh) liavi- iujiiri'il, witji tin- least 
 jxissihle diuiiaj,'*' to (inrsclvi-s, There is also an evj- 
 <leiit pinpriety as well as an iin itaticui to moral 
 "itpiiort, fo\ni(l ill visitiiiir uiioti tlie otfeiitliiiir j)arty 
 the saiiie ineasmv or kind of treatment of wliieli we 
 ■iimiilaiii, and as far as possiine within tile same lines. 
 And ahove all thing's the plan of retaliation, if eiitere<l 
 .ijioii, siioiild lie thoron^di and vigorous. 
 
 Tliese considerations lead me .at this time to invoke 
 the aid and counsel of the ( 'oiitrress and its sii|i|).>rt in 
 -ncll a flirtlier prraill of Jiower as seeliis to me neees 
 sirv and desirable to render effective the ixilicv 1 have 
 indicated. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland proposed to suspend commer- 
 cial relations Avith Canada entirely. He pro- 
 posed to do this because of grievances, real or 
 fancied, that the United States had suffered at 
 the hands of Canada Now, Sir, in vIcav 
 
 of the fact that the United States in 
 yeai-s past exported to Canada three times 
 the quantity of logs it imports from Canada ; 
 in view of the fact that the United States is 
 unable to retidiate in kind, because of the 
 imposition of an export duty is unconstitu- 
 tional, if our Government now proceeds to im- 
 pose an export duty on sjiw-logs, it is mani- 
 fest it Avill inA'ite and will receive retaliation 
 from tlie United States and that ret^dation 
 wiU take the form of the passage of a 
 Bill such as I have read to impose an imporc 
 duty equal to the export duty levied. There 
 are noAV tAVo Bills before Congress to admit 
 Canadian liunl)or free, and both provide 
 that Avheu any nation imposes an export duty 
 on logs, lumber from that couutiy shall be 
 subjected to the duty previously imposed. 
 There is a feeling of animo.sity in the United 
 suites to an export duty. The United States 
 Government and the United Strifes iieople 
 from the earliest days of their history have 
 considered export duties uuAAise and unjust. 
 The fact that such duties are prohibited by 
 the constitution proves this and indicates that 
 Ave Avill invite and will insure retaliation in 
 some form if our Govennnent takes a step 
 foreshadowed in the remarks made by the 
 Minister of Finance. Sir, the motive of an 
 exjMn'!; duty is in almost every case a selfish 
 one. Some, for instance, adA'ocate an export 
 dut.v on pidp \A'oo<l. The object of those Avho 
 desire this duty is to corner the pulp materials 
 and hold in reserve these Avoods mitil they 
 are ready to buy them. Many saw-mill owners 
 have advocated an export duty because they 
 did not want logs sent out of the cnuniry. They 
 wanted them made cheap and kept cheap 
 for their benefit. One of the most vigorous 
 of the agitators in favour of the export dut.v 
 is a firm by the name of Moyle Brothers, of 
 .Tohn's Island, in the north channel of Gcor- 
 'X\:\n Bay. Avho clandestinoiy remoAwl a mill 
 which Avas mortgaged and 
 Canada and set it up, and 
 hoAvling about an export 
 they Avant the logs kept 
 ready to saAv them. They 
 money enough to buy them 
 AA'ant the Government to put a restriction upon 
 exiMirtation. so that they AA'oidd be made 
 cheap and kept cheap till these men get 
 ready to take advantage of the same. That 
 is about as patriotic as the motives generally 
 are that actuate mpn advocating this mea- 
 sure, except it may be, now and then, some 
 medical man who takes it up as a hobby. 
 
 ^Ir. SI'UOULP:. That is about as nearly 
 correct as the hon. gentleman usually gets 
 AA'hen dealing with the subject. 
 
 Mr. CH.\I{I/rON. I propose to pass from 
 the question of the export duty. I hope my 
 hon. friend wiU be relieved. I will give li.'m 
 credit for sincerity, but I do not know how 
 much common sense I would consider ha 
 possessed in the matter. But he is sincere, 
 no doubt, he sincerely desires to do a thing 
 which would be very prejudicial to the In- 
 terests of the country if he succeeded. 
 
 brought it to 
 noAv they are 
 duty, because 
 fill they get 
 have not got 
 now. and they 
 
12 
 
 I propose now to say a few words about some incxlel farui, (ui*- woikffl witli pUiity of caiiital, high 
 
 of the statements made by the Minister of inttlliffence, !>>• u pntpriftov %vh(> give-* the closest 
 
 the Interior, who, I am sorrv to sec. is not in ■attention to fvery iiiel<el exix-n.lcrl (,ii tlie i)hice:— 
 
 ' his place. The Minister of the Interior made 'f, '"'T '" ''f '»>"• ^;"*" '^V'*'- ^^ *'''' "^V'^ 
 
 a statement, durins his speech, to the effect J'l ;{;; li'.'Jlt-S ,t at si v. ' ' W 
 
 that the farmers of the state of New Yorli -„ ,,„ haV, rn'i.ms at .*ll'a ton' '" ". ' 'nh 
 
 were worse off than those of Canada, as Apples and u'tiier fruits 1,275 
 
 shown by the "Globe" commissioners' re- (S acns in l.usii and balance of land in pa-sture.) 
 
 port. Well, they were rather bad authoxlty ( imss \ahi.' uf yield •*i4,83() 
 
 to appeal to for sustaining his position, as I Kxpt-ndituie 
 
 will proceed to .show. Of -'ourse, Mr. Hired help 8 500 
 
 Speaker, the Government party are very de- '•'^^■- 132 
 
 sirous of making it appear to the farmers of i;;;;:;.;,\'';.;;,,,;t. (the faim i.; in' gcKxl shape)! . .'. . h> 
 this country that there is no advantage to be d.^^ i,,,}., . 5<t 
 
 gained liy access to the American luarket, " ' 
 
 free of duty, and if they can convince the Total .^ 702 
 
 Canadian farmer that his American brother I'rofit for l.s<i2 4,()().s 
 
 is no better off than he is. and receives no ,. .. ,•, , .. , ^ 
 
 better prices than he does, and that his con- ,^^?"'' ^'^'^^^^ ^?'-; """^l Pi-'-^ctical farmer in 
 dition is just as depressed as his own, and this House to point out to me any two-liim- 
 that he is labouring mi.ler iust as gre.-.t ditH- dred-acre farm in the province of Ontario 
 eulties in eonsequeuee of that depression, or m the Dommiun of Canada, where the net 
 why, then, they have succeeded in their pur- P^'f^tf. ^S>^ ^le last year were $4,0bS. T do 
 pose. 3Hv hon. friend, in pursuance of that pot think any such case can be found. Then, 
 line of policy, makes the assertion hi his ^^ the fame communication, is a letter f.om 
 speech that the American farmers are worse ^^^- Atkinson, f beheve he does not ^'lve Uio 
 off than those in Canada, as shown by the Jl'^^^e of the farmer to whom lie re tor. in 
 "Globe" coinimssioners- report. Now. I tbe quotation I am about to read. This 
 think the assertion is worthy of being ex- taimei, says . 
 
 amined. I think it is worth whilr thai 1 We get papers and letters from there [Canadaj.and we 
 should state the real facts as set forth by the ciinniiikeatomparisnn. Ymir barley IS preferred over 
 "Globe " commissioners. The " Globe " news- "His. although 1 lielieve we grow some that is as gootl. 
 
 paper was worthy of great credit for its en- V'-umats an- heavier .-uid worth m.,r.; Your lambs 
 terprise in sending these commissioners to are l.^r-.r and bette, f..r nmtt..n. while if the duty 
 
 '^ , . ,, ^ i J T.1. J, T J i». were taken oil \v(Kil vou «ould coniiuanci this market. 
 
 ascertain the state ^of pubhc feeling and the xve eannot -row ,«.ase like vou. but have to send over 
 
 state of pubhc business m various parts or ;,l.d .-et our seed everv V.^ar.' Besides these V..U could 
 
 the province of Ontario, and then, in send- ^,.\] beans, potatoes," e>,'gs and iM.ultry here. The 
 
 ing these same gentl nnen to the st;itc of farmer, too. gave me a list of the products of liis farm. 
 
 New York to make inquiries in correspond- as follows:— 
 
 ing lines of business there, so as to be able i5,„.i,.v, it acres. ;r)5 bush., r.K cents .« 241 
 
 to draw a contrast between the condition of wi,, . at. ni acres. 2!ir) busii.. 75 cents. .. ...... . 221 
 
 these people in the two countries. Now, here lieans. 7 acres, i-.'o bush.. .>*l.r.(» 192 
 
 is one of the letters from Albion, New York, ( )ats. <; acres. 2X7 l)usli., 35 cents lOO 
 
 written on the 20th day of January, by Mr. ("orn, 5 acres, tioo bush, i in cob), 28 cents 1()8 
 
 Cockin. I do not know what his politics Huv. lo tons, si2 120 
 
 are, I have understood he is a Conservative, F'""^ ___L 
 
 but that does not matter, I presume, if he is 'iVjtal si 04'> 
 
 a truthful man. Mr. Cockm, in describing ^' "" ' 
 
 an interview with a farmer by the name of Canadian iioises, he said, were brought ovei to New 
 
 Stephen Halleck, reputed to l)e one of the Ni>ik state and sold for work purposes until the Mc- 
 
 wealthiest farmers in Orleans county. New Kinley tariff stopped tliem. .\ t,'reat many have been 
 
 York, and the possessor of a fiirm of 200 puivlinsedtnnu the westeni states since that time, l,ut 
 
 icrp<5 -writPt! n<5 folinwq •— the Canadian horses are short-legged and hardy and 
 
 acres, Wlltes as lOUOWS .— l„.tt(rhked. "Free trade," he said, "would be a bad 
 
 " T f<'ed 5t he 1(1 uf cattle for the New York market, tiling for ns l)ecause it would be a giKxl thing for 
 
 Last year I trot .>'3.S(i per loo lbs., ami th.it is the Canadians." 
 
 lowest price I evei- yot. In bSitl 1 jfot -^o.-'iO. Mv 
 
 farm is valued at .'*25.o(mi. It is run on tlie most He does not give the size of the farm, but 
 
 approved system. I dimi buy evevythint,'- that comes probably it is a liimdred-acre farm. Then. 
 
 along, but what I do buy I pay cash for it and jjet [n ^ letter summing up the resvUt of their 
 
 the discount. The coiHlitionof the farmer is ■;:,-wr- investigations, which was given to the world 
 
 .allyp*H,r. l.ut he has only h.m.self to blame _ he lives ^^ recently, Mr. Atkiuson says: 
 
 too exjM'iisively and wont look ahead: lie incuis i"^"-"^ •■■^^ J' ■^ 
 
 liabilities in tlie present which he is unable to meet .p,„,^,. j^ ,,,,i,.ti,.allv no difference of opinion in the 
 
 m the future, f don t want annexation, and a ma- ! ^^^,,„„t,.y districts with regard to the l^-netit of access- 
 
 joritj- of our people you will tmd are of the same j,, the Ignited States markets for our natural pro 
 
 opinion. W e have not had an increase of iKipuIation ,i,.,.ts 
 
 in this county : in fact, if I iememl)ei ii;,ditly, one of 
 
 our local papers sliowt'd that the deaths have i xceeded And later on : 
 
 the births in < Irleaus county during 1802. " | 
 
 Kelow 1 gi\e Mr. HiiUock's tiiruivs for the past! The condition of Ontario farmers, in the face of 
 year's W'.wk. It should be lememliered that this is a being shut out of the most jirofitable niarket for many 
 
of llipir chief pnHliicts, is eviflence of the fertility and 
 re«oiir<;e of trie land and the industry, intelli^'ence 
 and jihick of the fanners of the province. No state 
 of the I'nion could have survived Ijeing walled otf 
 from trading with the remaining states, and it must 
 give to those who know tlie natural advantages of 
 Ontario an aliounditig faith in the prosfK-rity whicii 
 would come to o>ir farmers with fre«^ trade that in 
 only the most favoured |Kirtions of the state are rhe 
 farmers enjoying a higher standard of living and i7i a 
 generally hetter position. Tlie farmers in the states 
 freely acknowledge the superiority of Ontario liarley. 
 horses, lamlis, i>ease, oats, w(k>1, cheese and other 
 products, and adniit that Ontario farmers woulil have 
 an advantau'e under a free trading arrangement. 
 This and otiier evidence all goes to show the advan- 
 tages of free trade with the states. * * * * 
 To s)un uji jMililic opinion as it has been found dtiring 
 thf inquiry, it calls for an innnediate reiltiction nf 
 the tariff, and as wide a measure of recijirocity witii 
 the states as can l)e otitained, as soon as possible, and 
 to include manufactures as well as natural priMlucts. 
 
 Mr. Cockin, in concluding Ids letter, says : 
 
 In a recent debate in the Donnnion House, the 
 Minister of Finance, in reply to Sii Kicliaid Cart- 
 wi-ight, ((noted our letters from Albion. X.Y., (^r 
 rather, from a injrtion of those letters, to sliow that 
 the condition of the New ^'ork state fariiier is more 
 deplorable than that of the farmer in Ontario. Tiie 
 Hon. Mr. Foster sliould or I'ould have readilv seen 
 from those letters tliat the condition of the Anieiicaii 
 farmer in New York st:ite is su]>erior to tiiat of oiu- 
 people. And why ? The diffiTence lietween the twn 
 is this : The Yankee farmer in New York state is 
 hard u|i from higli living, unnecessary expenditures, 
 and fiom having been financially ovevw>Mghted at the 
 outset of his farming career. If a careful, intelligent 
 man, and not Knancially pressed in the initial stage. 
 he can hardly fail to do well. The Canadian fann'O-. 
 on the other hand, is hard up, even wiien his farm is 
 unencuniljered. Each is striving to attain to inde- 
 lieiident circumstances. The American fanner could 
 if he would. The ('anadian farmer would if he 
 could. 
 
 .-V local ])aper published portions of luy second let- 
 ter from Albion, with the contents carefully elided, 
 giving its readers thereby an entirely erroneous idea 
 of the condition of the .\merican farmer, .\niongst 
 other interviews, it alludes to tlie one with .Mr. .Ste- 
 phen Hallock, and prints tliis niuchof one parag'iapii : 
 "The condition of the farmer is generally poor." 
 There it sto|)s. Hail it finished the sentence it would 
 have read : " The condition of the farmer is generally 
 p<Hir, l)ut lie has only himself to lilame ; lie lives ex- 
 iH-iisivelv, and won't locjk ahead." In addition. thi> 
 pap< r in question would have given the adde<l infor- 
 mation that 'Mr. Hallock last year made a profit of 
 ■^4,lM)iS out of his '2(HI-acre farm. It is <asy- nothing 
 easier —to make a sentence sound vastly different by ihi' 
 elimination of essi-utial w<irds. The.Vlrd I'salni says : 
 "The fiHil hath said in his heart there is no (iod." 
 Wiieii I quote tliat, I giv(^ the psalmist's words and 
 intentions correctly, but if 1 eliminated everytiiing 
 except " there is no tiod," and stay my pi-n there. 1 
 place David in an altogether false and unfair jMisition. 
 Everything de[Miids upon how a sentence is put. " I 
 cast my mite iiinm the crystal sea," said 
 maiden. "Horribly sea-sick," (piotli 
 Iirosaic paiia. Ye«, everything dei)ends 
 you ]iut a thing 
 
 The testimony furnished by the ' tJlobe " 
 commissioners in the state of N'r»v Yoiii, 
 and the comparison they drew between tbe 
 condition of the farming communitv there 
 and the condition of farmers in (Canada, 
 
 the gentle 
 her more 
 u]»on iiow 
 
 clearly and unmistakably points to the facts, 
 that the American farmer, if burdened l)y 
 debt or in straitened circumstances, is placed 
 in that fK>sition by his own extnivagance and 
 lack of thrift, that generally he is in .a .11 ore 
 prosperous condition than the Ontario far- 
 mer, and that he receives higher prices for 
 all the products of his fa'm. If the On- 
 tario farmer, vrith his ener^ and knowledge 
 of agriculrure, and with his superior land, 
 enjoyed the advantage of the same market 
 as the American farmer, he would exchange 
 a position and condition of depression nnd 
 want for a condition of prosperity of the 
 most gratifying character. There is no doubt 
 about it. The a.ssertion made by the Minister 
 of the Interior, that the farmers of New York 
 Ftate were poorer than those of Canada, as 
 shown by the reports of the " Globe " com- 
 missioners, either betrayed great ignorance 
 or a hastj- reading of the article, or no read- 
 ing at all, or the statement was made de- 
 signedly and purposely to mislead the House 
 and the coimtry by an assertion that was 
 lacking the verj- essentials of tnith. I know 
 myself, by personal observation, that lands 
 away in the western states, in the centre of 
 Illinois, are more valuable than lands in any 
 portion of Ctinada. I was there last tall, and 
 lands in the centre of the grand prairie of 
 lUinois, possessing no special advantages, 
 and seven or eight miles from a railway 
 station, realize as high as $'M per acre, 
 while in the centre of Iowa farms are worth 
 up to $70 per acre. Everything in the United 
 States in regard to agricultural interests in- 
 dicates more wealth and greater i)rosperity 
 than the conditions here, and if our farmers 
 had free access to the United Stiites markets 
 and obtained the prices American fanners 
 S(rcure. the condition of things here would be 
 vastly changed. The Minister of the Interior 
 spoke of the gi*(at progress in Ontario, and 
 drew a comparison between the condition of 
 agriculture rowadays with olden times, when 
 the pioneei-s were clearing up the forests, 
 and wlien tlifv were carrying tlieir grist to 
 the mill by wagons drawn by oxen, and at- 
 tending church in the same way. Naturally 
 there has been progress. We have enjoyed 
 some good times in Csuiada since then. 
 We had twelve or thirteen years of recipro- 
 city with the United Stiites, a period of great 
 prosi>erity. Of course there was a depression 
 in the period from 1873 to 1877, and 
 there has been a Reason of depression since 
 1890. but on the ^^hole there has been pro- 
 gress. The question is not whether there 
 has been absolute progress or not, but the 
 question is, what degree of progr'ess could be 
 made imder the most satisfactory circum- 
 stances ; the question is, could we have done 
 better than we have done ? We assert 
 the affirmative, and we desire that the far- 
 mers of Ontario shall be placed tinder circum- 
 stances w here thej- wUl have an opportunity 
 of showing what they are capable of doing 
 in competition with their American brothers 
 when placed under similar conditions. 
 
14 
 
 I now come to refer to remarks made by the 
 Minster of Railways, and I am glad to see 
 him in his seat. The Minister informed iis that 
 when the people understood th.it, in order 
 to obtain rt>ciprocity we must accept tlie 
 tariff of the United States, they drop- 
 ped it and the liberal party. If am 
 quoting the hem. gentleman inaccurately, 
 1 hope ho wUl correct me. What 
 did the people understand V Did they 
 not imderstaijd from tlie assertions of tlie 
 ADnist(>r ot Kailways and other members of 
 the (lovenmient. that the people were soing 
 to seciu'e reciprocity, that tht j' were about to 
 give it to the people, that they liad it in 
 their grasp, and that thej' actually dissolved 
 Parliament and appealed to tlie people on 
 that is.«ue. 
 
 Mr. HAG(^AHT. I was speaking of un- 
 restricted reciprocity. Does the; hon. gen- 
 tleman not know the difference V 
 
 Mr. ( HAHLTOX. Wliat kind of recipro- 
 city did tlie hon. gentleman tell tlie p(M)ple 
 they were going to get '! 
 
 Mr. HAGGAKT. I never spoke anything 
 of the kind. 
 
 Mr. CilAKLTOX. You said you were 
 going to give them the treaty of 1S.")4. 
 
 Mr. HAGGART. I did not ; I never men- 
 tioned anything of i;he land. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. The treaty of ISol witli 
 alterations and emendations. When the 
 question of a reciprocity treaty with the 
 United States was being discussed a sib- 
 ject wliich the Liberal party had made an ' 
 issue and discussed before the jieoplo, the 
 Government took alarm and they dissoj\ed 
 tlie Hotise and brought on the elections pre- 
 maturely one year in advance of iheir pro- 
 per time, in order to forestall tlie .LiOeral 
 party and take from us the beuelit we would 
 derive from that issue on which we proposed 
 to go to the people. They stole our clothes. 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite would have been 
 naked, blind and destitute to-day if they had 
 not stolen them. They have not. however, 
 made proper use of them. The.v declared to 
 the people that they were about to secure 
 reciprocity, that the people need not pay any 
 attention to the Grits, that they, the Goveini- 
 ment. would obtain it ; that they were going 
 to dissolve the House and appeal to the 
 countiy, and obtain a new House frcsii from , 
 the people, not a moribund lIou.se, to con- 
 sider the reciprocity treaty, whicli ^vjthout 
 doubt would be submitted to theia. Those 
 were the assertions made by hun. geut.iemtn 
 opposite when they went to tJie coimtry. 
 They wore false assertions, of course : they 
 were nothing more or less than politi- 
 cal fiction. Those were the arguments 
 of the Ministers, stated broadly. They 
 brought down to the House a copy 
 of the despatch to the Home Gov- 
 ernment, dated Ottawa. 13th December, 
 1890. and although at tliig session we have 
 asked the Government to biing down the 
 
 correspondence in regard to this matter, 
 they cannot do it. They have been two 
 years attempting to do so. but hiwe been 
 unable, and they now declare (hey have to 
 ask the consent of the Home Government ; 
 but we know that they could give on the 3rd 
 February the essential portion of a docu- 
 ment sent to the Home Government on 13th 
 December preceding, and they can give the 
 whole or any part I'f tne correspondence 
 that suits their purpose, and rliey can with- 
 hold from the people sueh portions as do not 
 suit their purpose and would tell against 
 them. They promised the people recipro- 
 citj', they asserted they w'ere going to get 
 it. that they were certain to get ri'ciprocKy 
 on the lines of the treaty of IS.")4, with such 
 chii'iges as the altered <ar';umstaric^*s oi" the 
 two countries require. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. I would like to have my 
 hon. friend understand what he is saying, 
 and the result of such an assertion. I would 
 like to ask him for the proof of that asser- 
 tion. He just now made the assertion, in 
 so iiumy words, that we s;ud we were certain 
 of getting a reciprocity treaty. Will he show 
 the proof ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. 1 will read the hon. 
 gentleman the dociunent. 
 
 Mr. LAURIER. At all events the -e is no 
 doubt that the iissertion was false. 
 
 -Mr. I-'OSTER. I have not the least doubt 
 that it is a false assertion in the mouth of 
 the hon. gentleman. 
 
 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Not in his 
 
 mouth, but in the mouth of the advisers ot 
 His Excellency. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Where is your proof ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. On the 3rd day of 
 February the Government organ, the Toronto 
 " Empire," contained the following ^ 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. We want yoiu: proof. 
 
 'Sir. CHARLTON. Was it not an authorized 
 source of information ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Something Uke your Nor- 
 folk paper. 
 
 :Mr. CIL\RLTON. How did the " Empire " 
 have a Government despatch in connection 
 with that if there was no collusion between 
 the Government and that journal ? How did 
 it have that despatch ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. K the hon. gentleman means 
 
 to deal fairly he will stick to tlie one question. 
 
 He has asserted a thing which I say has no 
 
 foundation on fact. 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. Sit down- 
 Mr. FOSTER. I have brought it to the 
 
 hon. gentleman's attention, and I ask him 
 
 for proof. 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Let him get through 
 
 and he will give it to you. 
 
15 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Before I ain allowed to 
 read the rerj- tirst line of the document the 
 lion, gentleman impugns the authoi^ty of the 
 metUum through which that communication 
 is conveyed. I ask the hou. gentleman if 
 there was not authority in that meditun, how- 
 did the " Empire " come in possession of the 
 official document in coimection with it ? 
 
 Sir JOHN THOiH^SON. From the "Can- 
 ada Gazette." 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Perhaps it Is not neces- 
 saiy to read these reasons given by the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. You cannot bear out your 
 assertion, and you know it ; you cannot do it. 
 
 Mr. CHAItLTON. I will read : 
 
 III view (if tile forefjoing iuiiiDi-tiiiit >t;it<Mii<'iit 
 
 That is a statement of dissolution. 
 
 - tliH (nustiiiii will naturally Iw- a>ki il : What art- 
 tilt' n'a«iii- whicli liavf induced tli>- (jovtininfnt tn 
 appeal til tilt" (.•ountiy at tin- prcsfiit tiiix' .' Ir, i-^ 
 iiiiilt rstiiii<l tliat tin- I)(miiiiiuii (Iiivi-riiniciit have, 
 tlmmjfli Her Majesty's (ioverniiieiit. made certain 
 priipns.ils to the United .States fur Mej^otiatioiis 
 kKjkin^' to the extension of (jiir coninierce with that 
 country. • 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. A long way off from your 
 proof yet. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON : 
 
 —These lirul^osals have Iteen slllimitteil to tile I'ri'si- 
 (leiit of tile i'nited .States for consiijeiatii'ii. • 
 
 :Mr. FOSTER. Still a long way off. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. That was not so either. 
 
 —and the Canadian < Joveninient is tf the opinion 
 that if the neijotiations are to result in a treaty, 
 which must l>e ratified by the Parliament of Canada, 
 it is exjx-dient that the (Tuveriinient shall be al)le to 
 deal with it liy a Parliament fresh from the [leople 
 rather than with a moriVmnd Mouse. 
 
 ^Ir. FOSTER. Miles away from your 
 proof yet. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. By tlie declaratious of 
 their organs, l)y statements from tlie stump 
 and every hustings, the Government did as- 
 sert that it had received proposals from tlie 
 President of the United States and that nego- 
 tiations were in progress. If tlie Gov- 
 ernment had not prole.ssed lo entert;iiu 
 the expec<tations that these allegetl nego- 
 tiations would be successful, why should 
 they dissolve the House ? They assigned as 
 a reason for the dissolution, tliat they did not 
 want a moribtmd House to deal with that 
 question, but that they wanted a House 
 fresh from the people. They stated that 
 they were at that moment negotiating and 
 that they expected to successfully consum- 
 mate that treaty. That was the statement sent 
 out to the people of Canada. That was the 
 assertion made by this Government. That 
 was the plea upon which they went to the 
 people. They deceived the people. They led 
 them to suppose that they were just about to 
 
 ! 
 
 obtain a reciprocity treaty, that thej- hail le- 
 ceived proposals from the President of tlie 
 United States, that eveiything was going on 
 swimmingly ; and the truth was. that the.v 
 had received no proposal ; the truth was, 
 that their assei-tion was denied by the Secre- 
 tary of State of the United States, on the 
 30th January ; the truth was, that they were 
 playing a game with the people of Canada 
 which was the reverse of ingenuous ; and 
 the truth was. Sir, that the British Minister 
 at Washington had danced attendance upon 
 the Department of State day after day. sup- 
 plicating for the privilege to send commis- 
 sioners to Washington, and that the Govern- 
 ment of the United States did not listen 
 favourably to this proposal. But after re- 
 peated supplications and requests that a com- 
 mission should be received, Mr. Blaine said 
 there was nothing in the law to prevent the 
 people of Canada from sending a commission, 
 if tJie.v chose, and if the commission came to 
 Washington, he could not, without discour- 
 tesy, refuse to see them ; and then we had 
 this game played in connection with a poUii- 
 cal struggle in ths countiy. We had that 
 assertion. 
 :Mr. FOSTER. What assertion ? 
 
 ]Mr. CHARLTON. We had this a.sseition 
 made, in fact. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. AMiat assertion ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. We had this assertion 
 made, in fact, made by the Government. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. You cannot show what 
 assertion. 
 
 :Mr. LAURIER. I will show again and 
 again that Mr. Blaine himself took Sir Char- 
 les Tupper to task for his statement. 
 
 Mr. FOSTEIt. Mr. Blaine did nothing of 
 the kind. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER. I hope hon. gentle- 
 men 
 
 Mr. LAURIER. I will prove it again and 
 again, and read the proof at :iny time. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. WiU the hon. gentleman 
 allow me to ask him a question V 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. I presume, under par- 
 liamentary usage, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. 
 gentleman will have a chance to replv to 
 me ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. You have not made good 
 your assertion. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. It is a little embar- 
 rassing, Mr. Speaker, that the ho^^ gentleman 
 should interrupt me so often. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER. I must call the atten- 
 tion of the House to the rule that precludes 
 the intevruption of a speaker, except on a 
 point of order. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Can the hon. member for 
 North Norfolk (Mr. Chai'lton) give us his 
 authority ? 
 
16 
 
 Mr. CHAKLTOX. The hoD. geoUeimin 
 asks me to give Mr. Blaine's lener. anrl I 
 will do so. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Not at all ; I did not ask 
 
 you for that 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Blaioe had his at- 
 tention called to the fact that assertions 
 were made, that negotiations were in pro- 
 gress between the Canadian Govemment antl 
 the Government at Washington, for flie pur- 
 pose of securing a reciprcxaty treaty. He 
 had his attention called to that tact by Mr. 
 Baker, a member of C^>ngr€« from Roches- 
 ter, N.y., and Mr. Bhiine replied to that 
 inqmi .', as to whether this as9era»>E. whicli , 
 was going the rounds of the Oa nadiaii papers, i 
 and as being assigned as a reason for the | 
 probal>le dis.solntion of the Hcose <rf C>mmons ; 
 of Canada, was true, and on thie 29di Janjiary, 
 1891, Mr. Blaine wrote to his fiiatdr Mr. 
 Baker, as foUows :— 
 
 1 iUitli(iii/.<- yen to cimtra'Jiii tli-t- lir .r^ffmrt^eT 
 U> 'I'iiiTi' are no n<i,""tiMt3"ji> win;---.--? a f»>e for a j 
 reci|iri)city tr<-ary with Ciinada. au i vk- s;.j.v i»- ."ir>-. 
 iiu •-iicli -^clK'Hif for refi]>r<<Mty a-JTij tij^ I>;ti»inii|n. , 
 coiitiiifd to nutunil |>ru<luct-, will >,»- ■Hia5-5iuin«-fl hy | 
 thi-. CovfiuiiH'iit. W.- know Dotijins ■'-'d Scr CKarUrs 
 Tu)il«r coiiiinfr to Wa>!iiTit.Ton. ■ | 
 
 Now. Sir, take the whole chain of drcnm- 
 stancos. After the election the thr&' co.u- 
 missioners went to "Washinyrron, aisd foow were 
 thev received ? "Why, General H-irri^KHi prac- , 
 tic.-Uly told ihem they misht go 'o Hades, 
 and lie would go off on a vMt. Tb^^were nut 
 received at all. They rec-eived a t«*ii1L They 
 tm-ned about and went h"me witboot haTing 
 accomplished anything. ITiere was a dee[> , 
 feeling of iiritation in Washington at flie con- 
 duct of the Canadian Govfmmait in refe r- i 
 ence to this matter, and that feeing ©f irrit-i- 1 
 ticn was all tlie deeper becatise Mr. Blaine '• 
 and the Administration at Wa.=bin2f'>ci were 
 restrained by diplomatic etiquette from lay- 
 ing l;are the facts surrounding this matter. 
 and wo could only get at the=ie things by 
 snatches hero and there. We hare here been 
 denied access to the cf>rre6poiidem? fc ^bu t I 
 dare say the commissioners in Wadrfng^on 
 were not ignorant of the iros<ip of ;h.it city 
 about this matter, were nfit ignoraaj of the 
 fact that it was represented tisat i3r JiiHan 
 Paimcefote. when these pretended rcTetatlMis 
 A\-ith regard to negotiations were made, went 
 to Mr. Blaine and apologized in the most 
 earnest manner, for a seeming breech of faith 
 on his part and professed a ^eep aatse of 
 humiliation. ■ 
 
 ' Some hon. ME:MBERS. Not at alL 
 
 :Mr. CHARLTON. Hon. gentlem^ra opposite 
 Diay latigh. 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.L) They ttonah': it was 
 a good political trick. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. No doubt iBey may 
 thinlv that. , 
 
 Some hon. ^MEMBERS. Oh. | 
 
 Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) You are prood tif I:. 
 
 are you not ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. The Uniti-d .<tate« Got- 
 omment was made a catspaw by a desigii- 
 Ing and shameless Administration to poJ 
 Tory chestnuts out of tlie fire in an ele:-ti<a 
 (^ontest in Canada. They wore made th*- oc- 
 ( on.scious instrmnents to forward the inter- 
 • sts of the gentlemen oppo>ite, and they fe.: 
 justly Indignant. , 
 Mr. FOSTER. Where is that authority ': 
 Mr. CHARLTON. I was speakinj: to yoa 
 about it, and I am" asking the hon. gentleman, 
 if he did not hear some of that gf>s.sip when be 
 was in Washington ? Now. I <ome v:» tte 
 sul)sequent visit of this comnii^ision. TLey 
 visited Washington ag;un. Their negotiatioix* 
 were fruitless. Their negotiations were in- 
 tended to be fruitless, for that was a part of 
 the game. We have the stjitement made 
 by Secretary Foster, uot Secretary Fostet '< 
 the Canadian Finance Depaitment, but Secre- 
 tary Foster of the State Department .it WaA- 
 ington, in regard to this matter. Mr. Foster 
 s:iys : 
 
 l)uiitig the l!t'fi|ii-<ifity Confi-nnce of IhkX -nj;.-, 
 Mr. IJlaiiiH (lid not insist tliat in a rt ci|irocity anaiji.- 
 nif-nt a iinifonn tariff would lie nt-cf-u^ry i>r ^^-r 
 Ciinada and tli<- I'nitfd Statis. nor nnuli i^>.!i tha* " 
 sliouhl !»• on tiif lint- of tlii> prfst-nt I'liit-t-d ."^ti?— 
 raritf. H<- diil ask that the sch^nUile -hoidd wA ■" 
 confined to natural |iii)diuts, Imt that it should wA'^.-- 
 aii a^.'ieefl list of nian\ifaitnred pioiis, and ttxat ti^ 
 rKiprocity should U' eontined to Canada and l'- 
 I'nitfd States, and Ijeeanse of this»- two eonditi'j!: - 
 th^■ nt-trotiations were fruitli'ss. 
 
 He did not ask for a common taiiff ; he dirl 
 not ask for unrestricted reciprocity— neither 
 the one or the other ; but that the agreemert: 
 should include a list of manufactured goods. 
 and that the reciprocity should l^e confined 
 to Canada and the United Suites. Now. tMs 
 is the kind of a treaty that our commiasifliier* 
 could have got. Notwithstanding the bad 
 odoiu: in which they stood vX Wa^iington. 
 notwithst^inding that the Wasliington Goven.- 
 inent beUeve<l that they had been gtillty . f 
 pertidious conduct, it was stUl in their power 
 ro secure a reciprocity treaty on the lines laid 
 down by Secretary Foster's statement wtiicJi 
 I have just read, and they would not do it- 
 why ? Oh, it would have been discrimina:- 
 ing against England. Yes, they would hav- 
 been gtiilty of the terrible sin of discrimina- 
 tion, and woidd have brought down on onr 
 heads the wrath of England. Now. Mr. 
 Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the 
 draft treaty of reciprocity negothited by the 
 Hon. George Brown in the year 1874. a treaty 
 substantially of the same character as thai 
 which Mr. Foster's letter indicates oould hav^ 
 been negotiated in the year 1892. and tha: 
 treaty met with the approval of the Britisli 
 Govermnent. We have in this document th- 
 formal approval by Earl Derby of the c^-in- 
 ditions. in a communication from the Foregn 
 Office, dated 22nd May, 1874. we have the 
 following from Earl Derby, addre^ed to Sir 
 Edward Thornton :— 
 
I have received your despatch of th 28th ultiino, I 
 forwarding; a «>!)>• of tlu- iiifinorandiiiii wmtainiiiK 
 l>ri|KiHaln for a Hetiurocity Treaty, which has Wen 
 oibmittecl l>y yourself and Mr. Brown to the I'nited 
 Statew « iovernnient, and I liave to ntate t4j y<»u that 
 Her Majesty "■< (Jovi-rninent iiiijirove this jiaper, which 
 apiiears t<» lie drawn wp with care and ahdity. 
 
 What was this paper ? What were the con- 
 ditions contained in it V Here is the schedrJe 
 of the goods that were to be interclianged 
 between the two countries free of duty ; sche- 
 dule A, natural products ; schedule B, agri- 
 culrunil Implements, forty in number ; sched- 
 ule C, manufactvu-es, a list of tlurty-seven 
 articles. We have, in this list, axes, culti- 
 vators, forks, grain drills, hoes, hand or 
 horse, horse-power machines, reapers, reap- 
 ers ;ind mowers combined, spades, shovels, 
 scythes, threshing machines, etc. In the 
 schedule of manufactures, we have boot^ 
 and shoes, cotton manufactures of all de- 
 scriptions, cabinet-ware and ftimiture, carri- 
 ages, carts, wagons, iron goods, bar, hoop, pig, 
 puddled, rod, sheet or scrap, nails, spikes, 
 bolts, tacks, bracks or springs, castings, 
 leather, harness and sjiddlerj'. mill or fac- 
 tory or steam-boat fixed engines, and ma- 
 chines, printing paper, pnnting type, presses 
 and folders, satinett-es of wool and cotton, 
 tweeds of wool solely, and a great variety 
 of other articles. Here was a treaty which 
 Mr. Brown and the British Minister at Wash- 
 ington had negotiated, which had been sub- 
 mitted to the British Government, and 
 which had been approved l).v I^ord Derby, 
 although it discriminated agaiust England In 
 the same sense in which these hon. gentle- 
 men claim that a treaty such as they could 
 have negotiated a year ago would have dis- 
 criminated. In view of the Indications they 
 had of England's Intention with reference to 
 the Brown driift treaty, we know that their 
 fears were quite needless, and I think that 
 the reasons they assign are not the real 
 reasons. I tlilnk that they object to a re- 
 ciprocity treaty which \v'ill open the Cana- 
 dian market to American goods of any kind, 
 not because it will discriminate against Eng- 
 land, or because England has any disinclina- 
 tion to allow such a treaty to be negotiated, 
 but because of the dictates of the Red Par- 
 lour : .and, in the interest of that one Indus- 
 try, the manufacturing Industry of this coun- 
 try, the Government have controlled and 
 shaped their policy, and have disregarded 
 the Interest of the farmer, the lumberman, 
 the miner, the fisherman, the labourer and 
 every other class of the Canadian people ex- 
 cept that small fraction represented by the 
 manufacturing class. 
 
 Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Will the hon. 
 gentleman allow me to ask him one ques- 
 tion, whether he Is aware that that arrange- 
 ment was declared by the Hon. George 
 Brown himself to be without the feature of 
 discrimination against Great Britain ? 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. I would like to Inquire 
 how that arrangement could be carried Into 
 c 2 
 
 effect without discrimination against Great 
 Britain ? It could not be done. 
 
 An liun. MEMBBIU. Answer Uie ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON, l li.ivo answered Ih^. 
 question. There is the treaty, there is the 
 list of manufactured goods ; there can be no 
 doubt of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the.se hon, 
 gentlemen have been telling the country 
 that they are in favour of reciprix-ity. I 
 have heard that statement made in this 
 House year after year. W^io thinks thoy 
 are in favour of reciprocity ': ITiey are, I 
 admit, in favoiu* of reciprocity in uatunil 
 products. Of course, ili"v .re. So woiUd I 
 be. and so would "vecyl' uy l>e on tbLs eJde 
 of tlie House. But to talk about rwiprocity 
 in natural products, under the circumstances, 
 is to insult common .sense —simplx that and 
 nothing more. We have been assured by 
 American statesmen eveiy year since the 
 old reciprocity treaty was abrogated in 186^5, 
 that they would never again grant recipro- 
 city in natural products. Thar is a foregone 
 : conclusion ; we caimot ;^et it. If nv? talked 
 to the people of this country honestly a1)0Ut 
 ', reciprocity, we must talk about som.^ .'ittafn- 
 able measure of reciprioity, not abotit som«» 
 unattainable scheme wlilch is foredoomed 
 to failure, as that of hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site was when they ?ent their repr< senta- 
 ; lives to Washington ■.>n tbo hnt occasion. 
 [ Now, I assert tliat if the Liber.al party woe 
 In power tliey could uot a reclprinnty irealy 
 with the United States. I assert that with- 
 out hesitation. I have reasoa to assert it, 
 from the declarations of promtueut men In 
 the Democratic party— from the declarations 
 of Mr. Springer, the ChaiiTnan of the Commix- 
 toe of Ways and Means, ;ind from the de- 
 \ daratlons of Mr. Carlisle, the Secretary of 
 I the Treasury of the United States. The 
 ; Democratic party would naturally be dis- 
 \ posed to give us reciprocity. It would not 
 he necessary to have a tmiform tariff. It 
 would not be necessary to have that bugbear 
 I of the X^tnance Minister, unrestricted reci- 
 procity . I believe we could obtain reclpro- 
 i city substantially on the lines laid down 
 in the draft Brown treaty ; that, I 
 i firmly believe ; and i'' we were to 
 I make an honest effort to obtain recipro- 
 i city, we would succeed. We have made 
 efforts for reciprocity In natural products 
 I time and time again.. We sent a commission 
 ■ to Wiishlngton In 1S66, consisting of Sir 
 Alexander Gait, Sir W. P. Howland, Mr. 
 : Smith, of New Bnmswlck, and Mr. Henry, 
 I of Nova Scotia, to see If we cotild get reci- 
 procity In natiu-al products, and failed. We 
 j sent Sir .Tohn Rose In 1869 on the same 
 errand, and again failed. AVe sent the Hon. 
 George Brown In 1874, and the treaty to 
 which I have referred was negotiated, but It 
 was lost In the United States Senate. The 
 commissioners of this Govermnent went 
 again In 1892, and again failed ; and we shall 
 always fall, If we seek for reciprocity in 
 natural products alone. The Ameiicans will 
 
18 
 
 not grant us the privilege of selling to them | 
 everj'thing we hare to sell, unless we grant 
 them the privilege of selling to us what they 
 have to sell. That is a settled question. If 
 we secure reciprocity at all, we must be 
 willing to have it on lines which will enable 
 the Americans to sell us manufactured goods 
 iu return for our natural products of the soil. 
 That being the case, the next question to 
 consider is, if reciprocity is obtainable upon 
 these conditions, would it be to oiu* ad- 
 vauuige U) get it V 1 just want to 
 consider that question vei-j- briefly, j 
 Wojild it be to our advantage to procure re- 1 
 ciprocity from the United States if we had ! 
 to go outside of a treaty that was conflne<l : 
 to natural products alone, if we had to negoU- 1 
 ate a treaty which would admit maniifac- 
 turwl goixls of variotis kinds to allow tlic 
 Americans to sell to us goods we require , 
 in return for what we purolia.xe ffoiii 
 them V Under the McKinley Bill, I 
 need hardly recapitulate the burdens ; 
 under which we labour. We pay a 
 duty of 30 cents per bushel on barley ; $30 
 per head on horses ; $10 on cattle ; $1.50 on 
 sheep ; 5 cents per dozen on eggs ; 23 cents 
 per bushel on potitoes ; 25 cents per bushel ^ 
 on apples ; 4o cents on malt ; $4 on hay ; 10 
 cents per pound on wool ; 5 cents on poultry ; 
 cents per potmd on butter ; 40 ceuts per 
 bushel on beans, and 40 cents on pease. Now, 
 if these duties were paid by the consumer 
 it would matter nothing to us ; but if, on tlie 
 contrary, we receive for tlie productions we 
 send to the United States tlie price in tihat 
 market less these duties it is a very imporLinc 
 matter to us whether we can secure the 
 removal of these duties or not. It is un- 
 necessary to go at ttiis time into the question 
 as to who pays the duty. Every fanner 
 understands that. The quotations in the 
 Trade Returns of both sides of the line settle 
 that question. According to the American 
 papers, barley is 30 cents per bushel, plus the 
 freight, higher in their m;irkets tlian in Can- 
 ada. Prices of horses, sheep, cattle, eggs, 
 potatoes, apples, malt— in ail these articles 
 upon which duties are levietl you will find that 
 the market quotations are lower in Canada 
 than in tlie United States to the extent of the 
 duty and transportation in each case, and were 
 these duties removed the amount would 
 simply be added to the price In Canada "vCltli- 
 out materially affecting the condition of the 
 American fanners one way or the other. In 
 looking over some American statistics I was 
 very much struck the other day by the 
 fact that, not only has there n»t been any 
 growth of trade between these two contiguous 
 nations since 1867, but there has been a 
 diminution in the exports of this country. It 
 is a remarkable fact The United States 
 have doubled their popidation and trebled 
 their wealth, yet the trade between the two 
 coimtries has been retrograding. I find by 
 some American statistics contained in the 
 *' Tribune " almanac of New York, a publica- 
 tion reported to be a reUaJble authority, that 
 
 we exported to the Uniteil States in 1860 to 
 the value of $48,528,000, and in 1892 
 our exports only amounted to $35,334,00li, 
 being a shrinkage in twenty-six years 
 of $13,194,(X)0, or 27 per cent. I tind 
 tliat we imported from the United States, 
 in 18t)6. $27,905,000, and in 1S92, $01,715,- 
 IMK», showing an increase in our imports 
 from tlie United States in twenty-six years 
 of $33,810,000, or 121 per cent. So that our 
 imports increased by that large i)ercentage, 
 121 per cent, and our exports decreased 27 
 per cent. Now, the balance of trade against 
 us last year, according to American statis- 
 tics, wjis $20,381,000, and the balance of trade 
 in our favour in 1800, $23,023,000. That 
 certainly does not indicate a healthy state of 
 trade ; and if we take our own Trade and 
 Ntivigation lieturns, we find that our exports 
 to the United States, without short returns, 
 being added, were $39,950,000, in 1800, and 
 in 1892, without short returns, they were 
 $35,040,000, or an actual shrinkage in our 
 export to the United States, after twenty-six 
 years, of $4,310,000 or 10 per cent. In face of 
 the fact that the American population had 
 doubled, and their wealth trebled, our ex- 
 ports according to our own returns to that 
 country have actually diminished, as com- 
 pared with twenty-six years ago, leaving out 
 tlie question of short returns, which do not 
 figure in the return of exports in 1800, 
 There have t>een but three years since 1866, 
 the last year of reciprocity, when our ex- 
 ports to the United Suites equalled our ex- 
 ports that year, namely, 1873, 1882, and 
 1889. With the exception of these three 
 years, mider the influence of repressive and 
 hostile tariffs, we have faHed to export 
 Canadian product.^ to the extent v.e did in 
 1860, when the population of that country 
 was one-half of what it is to-day. 
 
 It being .six o'clock, the Speaker left tlie 
 Chair. 
 
 After Recess. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Having pointed out the 
 effect upon the commerce between the United 
 States and the Dominion of Canada of re- 
 strictive tariff l^islation since 1866, and hav- 
 mg showTi thiit the volume of our exports to 
 that countrj-^ have actually diminished during 
 that period, and were last year some $4,000,- 
 000 less than in the year 1866, I wish next to 
 draw attention to the condition of matters, 
 the aggravated condition of matters, as re- 
 gards increase imder the McKinley Bill of 
 the restrictive measures which had been in 
 vogue before. And for this purpose I select 
 certain articles for which tlie United States 
 furnish our chief market and draw a com- 
 parison between the export of these articles 
 to the United States In the year 1890, the year 
 immediately preceding the McKinley Bill's 
 coiping into operation, and the year 1892, the 
 year in which that measure was fully in oper- 
 ation and its effects were fully felt. I take 
 
19 
 
 the articles of horses, homed cattle, poultty, 
 eggs, wool, flax, apples, barley, split pease, 
 hay, malt, potatoes and vegetables : 
 
 CoMi'AHisox of pxiH>rt!« in certain .artielfs lK-twi<ii 
 IM'.M) and mt2. ' 
 
 Articles 
 
 IM'.MI. 
 
 Ifiti 
 
 !)efrca''f. 
 
 
 8 fts. 
 
 8 ctrt. 
 
 «t .-ts. 
 
 Horses 
 
 l.S87,S!>5 (K» 
 
 1,004. 4(il (K( 
 
 7!t3.4.'M <>o 
 
 Honied cut- 
 
 
 
 
 tle . ... 
 
 Ktj. •;•_•:{ iMi 
 
 •_'l.:«7iMi 
 
 sr{. •_'<•() 00 
 
 INmltrv 
 
 ll(.\tiI2 <NI 
 
 44..".;i7 <Mi 
 
 (■,1,07.". 00 
 
 Kws 
 
 l,7'.t:5.ioMKi 
 
 4'.M.4(l'.i (HI 
 
 1,1".IS.('.!C) 110 
 
 W.H.l . 
 
 •_':C). »:i(i iKt 
 
 ■_'f t( 1. 1 •_'.") 1 M 1 
 
 X>.-M\ "HI 
 
 Flux 
 
 17.". .■>•«<)< 1 
 
 llL'.;ir,(i INI 
 
 ii:{.'.*o;> 00 
 
 Ali|)le.»( 
 
 14'.i,47'.HK» 
 
 •_'7.iii'.l IH» 
 
 iL'l.sis 00 
 
 Harl-v .... 
 
 4,."»sj.")t;i <M( 
 
 l..T>4.4S.-)(Hi 
 
 :{,-_'L's.07f. IN) 
 
 5)plit |»-arte. . 
 
 74.--M.">(Hi 
 
 L'<).4()(l IMI 
 
 .'"i:<.7.V) <K) 
 
 ll.iv 
 
 !tl'l.'.7'.'7 <«• 
 
 .V.»,s,.">(;7 00 
 
 ;v_'4.-_'3i» •«» 
 
 M;.lt 
 
 U'.i.MliMin 
 
 •iooo 
 
 14'.»,"_".M) IM) 
 
 1 '( it.-if ( »-s. . . 
 
 .SOS.'.M.">0(» 
 
 41,s,s(; (Mt 
 
 L't)7.01'".t (H) 
 
 \cj,"tal)le>.. 
 
 ,S(t,!t7() (HI 
 
 H).570,48(i (K» 
 
 r.s.ms IN) 
 
 i2.l)-_V IM) 
 
 
 4.07!>,24t; <H» 
 
 0,491,240 mj 
 
 Certainly, if this Hill was designed to put an 
 end to commercial transactions between the 
 two countries, it is rapidly working in that 
 direction, and nothing coidd illustrate more 
 strikingly the evil influence exerted by re- 
 strictive legislation upon commercial trans- 
 actions between the two countries than the 
 operation of the Mclvinley Bill during this 
 peritxl. We see very well what the effect 
 of restriction has been, but the probable 
 effect of absolute free trade between the 
 two countries is a very interesting subject lo 
 speciflate upon, and whUe we cannot arrive 
 with absolute certaintj' at a conclusion as to 
 what the volimie of trade might become in 
 a given term of years imder the operation of 
 free trade and the striking olf of the tram- 
 mels that now exist upon the trade of the 
 two countries, we can arrive approximately 
 at what the results would be. Under the 
 operation of the reciprocity treaty which 
 came into effect in 18~A and which was abro- 
 gated in 1866, the exports of the British pro- 
 vinces to the United States increased witJi 
 phenomenal rapiditj'. Our exports to the 
 United States in the year 18.54 were .$10,000.- 
 000, in roimd numbers ; our exports in 1866, 
 according to our own statistics, were $40,- 
 000,000, and according to the American sta- 
 tistics, $48,000,000. The increase was a four- 
 fold increase in thirteen years. We qtiad- 
 rupled our transactions mth the United 
 States between 1854 and 1866. Now, if the 
 free trade arrangement had been continued, 
 if there had been no abrogation of the reci- 
 procity treaty, and if the increase in exports 
 to the United States had been annually as 
 great as they were from 1854 to 1866, our 
 exports to that coimtry last year, of the 
 productions of the Canadian forest, field, 
 mines and fisheries, would have been $100,- 
 
 000.000. If we quadrupled our export trade 
 with the Unite<l States in thirteen years 
 under reciprocity, it is not mireasonable to 
 suppose that we would have quadrupled that 
 again in double that petnod, in twenty-six 
 years, and that-our exports last year, instead 
 of being less than thirty-six millions, would 
 have been one hundred ami sixty millions. I 
 have no doubt that if the ouimtry had con- 
 1 tinued imder th«j operation of free trade, we 
 would have had an enormous commerce with 
 the United States, equalling one hundred 
 and sixty millions, at least, of exports to that 
 i couutiyand a corresponding increase in the 
 I amoimt of imports from that country We 
 can readily undersUind the influence that 
 would have l»een exerted upon the prosperity 
 and upon the future of Canada by a trade 
 with the United States four times greater 
 than it is, and with eveiy probability that with 
 •an increased popidatiou, we would have had 
 greater wealth. We would have had, not 
 oidv this vast increase of trade with the 
 I United States, but a large trade also with 
 1 Great Britain and witli other portions of the 
 world. Our position. Mr. Speaker, for trade 
 with the United States is pocuharly advan- 
 tageous. There is not one of the producing 
 states of the Americiin Union, having their 
 market in the great sea-board cities, as fav- 
 ourably situated for access to t.liose cities and 
 for access to all the consuming markets of 
 the United Stiites, as is the province of On- 
 tario. The states to the west of us— the 
 stahs of Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
 tlie Dakotas. Nebraska— all these states actual- 
 ly i)ass across our territory if they take their 
 shortest route to the eastern markets. We 
 are l)etween these states and their market, 
 and I repeat that our position is peculiarly 
 favourable, in a geographical sense. Then, 
 our position is a favourable one in other re- 
 spects. We have in Ontario, and in the 
 greater part of the Dominion of Canada, ex- 
 cellent climatic conditions, a good soil that 
 produces a great variety of the articles that 
 And a market in the sea-board cities, and of a 
 superior quaUty to any produced in the 
 American states. We have within easy 
 reach of us 6,000.000 people in cities. The 
 popiUation of the cities of New York. Brook- 
 lyn, Jersey City, Newark, Philadelphia, Al- 
 bany, Rochester, Buffalo, Boston— all these 
 great centres of trade— are Avithm easy reach 
 of this province. We have tinmk Imes of rail- 
 way leading down • to each one of them, 
 and if the shackles were stricken from trade, 
 the inevitable consequence to Ontario would 
 be vast accession to the business of the coun- 
 trv, a revival of trade and prosperity among 
 tile fannei-s, and prosperity among aU classes 
 whose busmess is in any way dependent upon 
 the farmers of this country. 
 
 There is another branch of business which I 
 have alluded to once or twice, anl to whieh 
 my attention has been drawn in connection 
 with my duties, lately, as chairman of the 
 Ikliuing ^Commission of Ontario— 1 refer to 
 the (ievelopmeht of our mineral resources. 
 
20 
 
 Not <<iily luive wo extraordinjiry a«nciiltm*al 
 r»s<mr<»'s. ami peculiar advaniaiit's <»f posi- 
 tion in the matter >>t reacJiinu' tin- inailieta 
 of the sea-board for our agricultural produc- 
 tions, but wo have enormous mineral re- 
 sources, anil our advantages for r.'achlng a 
 iiiarlvet with the niin<'rals of this country are 
 fully as gn-at :is our exception.il advautages 
 witii regard to our iigricultural prodintious. 
 ■\Ve have a tr.ado in minenils. an »'xce<'din:,'ly 
 small one. Witli our immense ile[»0";its of 
 iron oiv north of Lake Ontario, iron oro de- 
 posits uj) tln' valley of the Ottawa and up ihe 
 v.illt'y of lh(> Catinean. iron ore depr)sits of 
 extr.tordinary lifhni'ss in tlu> Late dispute 1 
 territory north of Lake SiipTior. fully as 
 accrssihle as the iron ore of Micliiean with 
 all theso deposits of iron ore. we sent to the 
 Tlnittsl States last year only 7,7' »7 tons ; wlille 
 tl;(?re was a trade in iron ore from the Lak > 
 SujH'rior ports and thi- LiKe .Michiij.iii ports 
 to the Lake Erie ports alone of over 8,000,CHX) 
 Ion;,' tons. Now, we oujrht to partici]tate in 
 that trade, we have advanta'.ies f<»r doin,' it. 
 ■\A'e could participate in tt'.it tradi' quite .is 
 advantaueoiisly as the nuneshavin:,' their out- 
 lets at E.sr;iiia1)a. Marquette and Vwn Ifar- 
 licurs. and we art- debarred from 'parti' ipa- 
 tion in that trade l»y the iron on- duties. We 
 niiirht share almost equally in tliat trade of 
 8.(XM>.n00 ton.s. but we have this paltrj' pit- 
 tarce of 7,707 tons which amotmts to notliing 
 at all. Last year we shippefl to the United 
 States lifty-eight tons of coppe;- ore. wliere 
 we shoidd b<! shippiuf: thous:inds of tons of 
 copper ore to be smeltefl in the Ameri- 
 can M'orks. We shipped last year from Xova 
 Scotia 210.000 tons of coal to the sea-board 
 cities. Xow. Xova Scotia is the natuial source 
 of supply of co.al for nearly the whole of the 
 New England states. It can supply the cities 
 of New York and Philadelphia upon more 
 advantageous terms, and with trrcater ease, 
 than those cities can 1)^ supplie 1 fio u thi 
 coal nnnes of the interior of the s'ate of 
 Peimsylvania. Nova Sc^>tia ought to sliip, at 
 least. G.OOO.fXV) or 4.000.000 tons of roil an- 
 nually to New P^ngland and to the sea-board 
 cities, and would do it if the shackles were 
 removed from trade, if the duty np.m coal 
 was removed. Here we aio with a trad' of 
 200.000 tons that ought to be at least twenty 
 times that amount, and would b? twenty times 
 that amount If the restrictions were removed. 
 The United States last year used $54,000,000 
 worth of various kinds of building stones, 
 and we sent to that country the paltry 
 amount of $52,000 worth. They used over a 
 thousand times as much as we furnished 
 them. There is no mineral production for 
 the supply of which we have such a<lvan- 
 tages as in stnictur.il material. We 
 have aroimd the great lakes on the north 
 shore, quarries of the most euperior quality, 
 quarries of marble, quarries of freestone, 
 quarries of sandstone, quarries of grant* ?, 
 right along deep water on the lake shore 
 where we cotild load this material on vessels. 
 AH around. these lakes are great cities Uke 
 
 Chi^ago, with its million of inhabitants, 
 Milwaukee, Detroit, Toledo, Clevehmd, Buf- 
 falo, Erie ; and the natiu"al source of supply 
 for stone for all these cities is the Canadian 
 (luarries. Sttme can be shipped by water 
 through the Erie canal to New York and 
 Philadelphia. In the business of furnishing 
 structural material, in the business of furmsn- 
 iug the productions of our quarries on the 
 north side of our great lakes, we ought to 
 have, at least, one-tenth of tlie !<.'>4.000,000 
 worth of the trade in the structural material 
 rtMluJred bv the Utute<l States. We ought to 
 supi)ly them with $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 
 worth of structural material in the great lake 
 region. Now, if our mineral resources were 
 developed, as they would be developed under 
 a system of free trade, if we could partici- 
 pate in the American iron business by fur- 
 nishing ore, if we coidd send copper ore to 
 their smelters, if we could participate in the 
 coal ti-ade, if Nova Scotia could have its fair 
 share of the business upon an eiiual footing, 
 with no favours asked, if we had access to 
 the American market for structural material 
 from our quarries, we would build up speed- 
 ily a trade which woidd swell to an amount 
 of exports not less than $20,000,000 annually, 
 and which would distribute in money annu- 
 .allv paid for labour in this country, from 
 $12,000,000 to $13,000,000 a year. Instead 
 of that we have practically nothing— 7,707 
 tons of iron ore, $52,000 ■^vorth of stone, 58 
 tons of copper ore, and 210,000 tons of coal. 
 We are, in fact, not aware, we f.ail to realize 
 the enormous opportimitles that we might 
 fjrasp, and that we would grjisp if restiic- 
 tioiis on trade were removed. 
 
 In the discussion of this question, the Minis- 
 tor of Railways, the other afternoon, said, " it 
 was acknowledged that this policy of free 
 trade would do away with our manufactures, 
 as was the case with sev<'ral new states." The 
 hoii. gentleman is not in his seat, and I om 
 sorry. I wanted to ask that hon. gentleman, 
 who acknowledges this? I have not hear I <>? 
 it being acknowledged. I also wanted to 
 ask him. what new states have been de- 
 prived of their manufactures by free trade 
 with tlie other states ? I should feel very 
 nuich enlightened if I received an answer 
 to either of these two questions. It is very 
 unfortunate that the hon. gentleman who 
 made the a.ssertion is not here to sub.-^tan- 
 tiate it The truth is, and it is a very .signifi- 
 cant fact, that tlie percentage of increase 
 in manufactures is greatest in the newer 
 of the states and the percentage of the 
 increase is lowest in the old states which 
 form the great mantrfacturing centre, find 
 the tendency of progrression seems to be 
 most strongly in the direction of the newer 
 states in the Union. I find on making a 
 comparison between 1870 and 1880—1 have 
 not the figures of 1890, as the compendium 
 is not yet published and the figures are not 
 accessible — that Massachusetts shows an in- 
 crease of 14 per cent during the ten years. 
 New York 37 per cent, Connecticut 15 per 
 
21 
 
 cent, New Jersey 5 per cent. Pennsylvania 
 5 per cent, Ohio 30 per cent, Indiana 'M per 
 cent, Michigan 59 per cent, Illinois KX) per 
 cent, Minnesota li28 per cent, Iowa 52 per 
 cent and California 74 per cent, and manu- 
 facturing industries in tlie southern states 
 show arpe increast^, notal)ly in Alal)anui. In 
 the face of the assertion ma<le by the Min- 
 ister tliat tlie manufactures of the n<*wer 
 states were crippled out of existence by the 
 manufactures of older states, 1 should lilie 
 to have placed tliese figures before him. 
 The manufacturing interests of tlie new 
 states are increasing more rapidly than 
 those of tlie old states, and I have no doubt 
 the inanufacturiiig interests of the Douiiuiou 
 on the whole would be beneflted by obfaiii- 
 ing a larger market, and by having 7(),()(M),- 
 000 of consumers instead of 5.00(),<)(K). Tlie 
 increase in some of the western cities has 
 been veiy remarkable. For instance, be- 
 tween 1870 and 1S8(). Louisville luauufic- 
 tures increased bv )«;J8.000.0<JO, Chicago by 
 3249,000,000, Milwaukee by .$4:^,(KK>.()00, St. 
 Louis by !?143,()(Mi.(MK». San Francisco Isy 
 $78,000,000 Jind Birmingham, Ala, by $50',- 
 OOO.CKX). All those statistics prove coiicju- 
 sively that the assertion made .jy the Alin- 
 ister of Ilmlways was utterly without I'omi- 
 dation, or that it was an assu-cion made 
 recklessly. The hon. gentleman had nu 
 fotmdation on which to base it, or tlie 
 hon. gentleman purposely made a state- 
 ment which would not bear investiga- 
 tion. So far as the ability of oui- manu- 
 factiu-ers is concerned, 1 am not willing 
 tu admit that tlie Canadian is an inferior 
 begin, I am not willing to achult lliat a 
 Canadian, with equal cliances, will not hold 
 his own, and be able to cope with, any other 
 man. I think the Canadians hold thoir own 
 very well in the United States, and I know- 
 that as a nile they are succeeding, that no 
 class of the population in the United States 
 are making more headway than our pef^ple 
 are doing ; they are energetic, they take hold 
 of business A\ith vim, they possess the quali- 
 ties necessary ta success, and they are suc- 
 ceeding, and these men in Canada, it they 
 had the chance to reach a market of ti.^),00(»".- 
 OOQ on the other side of the line, would be 
 equally successful in any manufacturing )>usi- 
 ness that is not a pampered coiicera and 
 requires pap fed by a National I'oiicy to 
 keep it alive, but any business that is a 
 natural business and adapted to the coiuitry, 
 would succeed. In some lines, I have no doubt, 
 there would be a pher.omenal increase. For 
 instance, manufacturers of anything in the 
 character of woodenware. We have ex- 
 ceptional advantages for carrying on a busi- 
 ness of that kind. We would almcst mono- 
 polize the manufacture of wood pulp and 
 would manufacttu'e paper extensively. We 
 would to a large extent manufacture 
 leather, for we have the tan bark, 
 which is now becoming scarce in the United 
 States. We would also very largely increase 
 our manutactures of woollen goods and 
 
 tweeds, and 1 tinnly believe that the result-* 
 of obtaining free trade with the United 
 Stat»>s and the opening up of their niarkeia 
 to that kind of our m.anufactured nroducts, 
 would result, not in ruin to our manufacturer, 
 but in a grejit increase in the output of the 
 manufajturinj; establishments of this Domin- 
 ion. I have no fear whatever of any disaster 
 as the result of free trade to maniifa<'turlng 
 industries of this kind, and I .am liappy to say 
 that, in conversation with scores <>f manufac- 
 turers of this countrj', I have found that in the 
 v;!st majority of cases they express no coiK-eni 
 about tills matter, but they say if they can 
 get, access to the United States market on 
 ; equal terms with American mamifacturers, 
 ! all tliey want is an arrangement to continue 
 in operation as long as possible, that they are 
 i perfectly prt pared to enter into such an 
 ! arrangement at any moment, and are quite 
 j prepared to take care of themselves. 
 I Another iK>int made by the hon. gi-ntleman 
 was what he asserts to Ik the revenue ditli- 
 culty. If we enteretl into this arrangemi'Ut. we 
 were told by the Minister of Finance and by 
 other hon. gentlemen on that side nf the 
 House, we would be obliged to resort to direct 
 taxation, that we cannot make au arrange- 
 ment for reciprocal trade with the United 
 States without calling on the tax-gatherer and 
 raising pari of tlie additional revenue re- 
 quired by direct taxation. I do not believe 
 there is'anj found.ation for that assertion. 
 If we were to secure partial reciprocity with 
 the United States, that is reciprocity on a list 
 of manufactured goods, which ^Ir. Foster in 
 his letter mentions, and wliidi indicates that 
 he expected the United States and the Cana- 
 dian Governments might make an arnmge- 
 inent which would not cover the whole list of 
 goods produced by lx»th countries, if we ar- 
 range a certain Ust of goods as articles to be 
 covered by reciprocity treaty, we should lise 
 duties only on those covered by the schedule 
 adopted. 'But if we entered into an ar- 
 rangement, admitting every article from the 
 Ignited Stjites free of duty and sacrificed the 
 whole of the duties leiived from American 
 importations, we woidd sacrifice $8,0X),000 
 ainmally of revenue. The question is. can 
 that sum be made good without re^irt being 
 had to direct taxation ? I assert that it can. 
 ^V'e would have, of course, to readjust our 
 fiscal system, we would have to resort to a 
 certain liu? of taxes that are purely revenue 
 taxes. We might put Ji duty on tea and cofiCee. 
 Those duties are less objectionable than on 
 the class of goods produced in the country, 
 Itecanse you thereby escape in^ideutjil tax- 
 ation. The consumer pays for what i< im- 
 ported, and if there is nothincr of tlie kind 
 produced in the country, the article is not 
 enhanced in price. We might impose a small 
 duty on sugar, say 1 cent per pound, and 
 we could furnish sugar to consumers at an 
 advance of only one-fifth of a cent per pound 
 on the present prices, because there is now a 
 duty of eight-tenths of a cent per poimd for " 
 the piupose of enabling the refiner to meet 
 
oo 
 
 corapotitors without protection. A duty of 1 
 cent i>er pound would amount to $3,:J00,000, 
 and the consumer would get this advantatje 
 by the amoimt of the duty gointr into the 
 Treasury of tlie coimtry, Instead of into tlie 
 pockets of the refiner. Then we mishn im- 
 pose an income tax. That tax was resorted 
 to in England. 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. CHAKLTON. Yes , a tax on tlie 
 wealthy men of the coimtiy is something to 
 which the great majority of men wotild not 
 object. Perhaps the Minister of Finance 
 might object to a tax of 5 per cent on liis 
 official salarj', wliich would reduce it Ijy 
 ^4f)i) ; but the country would favour tlie tax- 
 ing of all incomes of that kind ; it would 
 j-leld, too, a large sum, and by means of a 
 small I'evenue tax on sugar of one cent per 
 pound io th(» revenue, inste:id of eightteutlis 
 of a cent for the benerit of thi> reliner. by 
 means of imposing mcom3 tax and by means 
 of increasing the excise diity, the SS,«X>0.00r) 
 would be provided 
 
 Mr. CA:M1'BELJ. (Kent). They could cut 
 down the expenses. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. That is anr.thtM- thing 
 I was about to refer, and to wliich my 
 hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Campbell) has 
 directed my attention. We could retrench 
 in our expenditure if we had placed on us 
 the necessity for retrenchment. Is there 
 any reason why. with an increase of 11 per 
 cent in the population, the expenses of this 
 comitry should have increased 40 or 50 per 
 cent ? There is no reason whatever for 
 that. Let us go back to the scale of expen- 
 diture which existed ten years ago, and we 
 would save enough to cover the deficiency 
 of $8,000,000 without imposing extra taxes. 
 It is only a bugbear which these hon. gentle- 
 men raise to frighten the people of the coun- 
 try when they threaten that we shall be ob- 
 liged to resort to direct taxation if we bestow 
 upon Canada the great advantages that will 
 result from free access to the American 
 market. Supposing, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that we were obliged to resort to di- 
 rect taxation to provide for this $8,000,000. 
 what would we have to compensate our 
 people for that ? We would have a saving 
 of $8,000,(X)0 on American duties, which, in 
 place of going into the coffers of the Govern- 
 ment, would go into the pockets of the peo- 
 ple in the shape of their being able to buy 
 goods cheaper. We would have a saving 
 of the profits on these duties which consti- 
 tute part of the cost, amounting to 40 cents 
 on the dollar, and which would aggi'egate 
 $3,000,000. We would have a saving to the 
 people of the incidental taxes, that is, the 
 increased cost of goods manufactured in this 
 country, with which these goods on which 
 duties are paid come into competition, which, 
 according to Mr. Springer, amoimts to $5 in- 
 cidental,to $3 direct,and which would amount, 
 in all, to at least $8,000,000 more. We would 
 
 have a saving to the people of this country 
 of the duty paid on their products going 
 into tlie United States, wliich would re- 
 present $5,000,000 on the present volume of ' 
 exports of natural products to that country. 
 We would thus have $23,000,000 in all to 
 compensate for the loss of $8,000,000, 
 even though we were obliged to resort 
 to direct taxation, but I assert that 
 there is no necessity to resort to direct tax- 
 ation. We can raise a revenue by -tbe im- 
 position of a revenue tax upon articles not 
 now taxed ; by the imposition of 1 cent a 
 pound on sugar in place of the eight-tenths 
 of a cent per poimd now levied for the l>ene- 
 fit of tlie refiners, and also by an income 
 tax. In these ways we can secure the ne- 
 cessary revenue which would enable us to 
 give this country the blessings of reciprocity 
 with the States. • 
 
 Mr. LANDERKIN. 
 
 Francliise Act. 
 
 We could repeal the 
 
 :Mr. CHARLTON. We could repeal the 
 Franchise Act and save something else be- 
 sides our credit. If we had reciprocity with 
 the States. Ave would have increased produc- 
 tion and increase<l exports, we would have 
 brighter prospects, we would grow in wealth 
 and we would grow in population, not at the 
 miserable rate of 11 per cent in ten years, 
 but at the rate of 25 or 30 or, possibly, 40 
 per cent in the decade. We would grow in 
 the volume of business transactetl, we would 
 grow rapidly in tax-paying capabilities, and 
 even if for a time it were necessar>' to leave 
 a little gap between expenditure and re- 
 ceipts and to shoulder a small deficit, as we 
 have often done before, we would soon catch 
 up with the measure of our responsibilities 
 and be able to shoulder our burdens and 
 march along with the utmost ease, in con- 
 sequence of the increased prosperity, the 
 acquisition of population and the increase of 
 wealth which would be sure to result by 
 opening up to this Dominion the market of 
 the 65,000,000 of people to the south of us. 
 These are the points, Mr. Speaker, that I 
 intended to refer to before you left the Chair 
 at six o'clock. 
 
 Now, Sir, we are assured by the gentle- 
 men on the opposite side of the House, that 
 all this talk of ours is treasonable. 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Some one says, "Hear, 
 hear." Is it a treasonable thing. Sir, to 
 adopt a policy that will make Canada a 
 nation ? Is it a treasonable thing to adopt a 
 policy that will enormously swell the imports 
 and the exports of this great country, and 
 utilize its great developed resources ? Is it 
 treason, Sir, to adopt a policy that wiU in- 
 crease our population, that will increase our 
 wealth, that will increase our power, that 
 will increase our self-respect and make of us 
 the great people that God designed should 
 Inherit this grand country, extending from 
 ocean to ocean ? This is treason, is it ? The 
 
23 
 
 poor beggarly policy of the hon. gentlemen 
 opposite reminds me of the story of a Presby- 
 terian elder, who, in giving a charge to his 
 minister, said : '• Brother, God keep you 
 humble, and we wUl keep you poor." That 
 is what the Government design to do by us. 
 They design to keep us humble and poor by 
 this policy of restriction, which is intended 
 to make us too weak and too destitute of 
 ambition even to get up and travel in the 
 direction of prosperity, if it were placed be- 
 fore us. The arguments used by the hon. 
 gentlemen opposite are fallacious. They tell 
 us that unrestricted reciprocity would destroy 
 our manufactures. That is false. They tell 
 us that we cannot get it. There is no founda- 
 tion for that assertion. We can get it. They 
 tell us it would not give our farmers 
 better prices. Nothing is further from the 
 truth than that assertion. The tnith is that 
 it would increase the values of the products 
 of the farmers, and every farmer in this 
 Dominion knows that access to the American 
 market is all that he requires to bridge over 
 the chasm that exists between (Irpfcssiou 
 and prosperity. They tell us it would not be 
 permitted by England, but I have shown to- 
 night the draft of a treaty In which England 
 did permit, and sanction, and endeavour to 
 consummate, a treaty that discriminated 
 against her in the same manner, and almost 
 to the same extent as would a treaty such as 
 we are prepared to negotiate with the T'nited 
 States. They tell us, Sir, that It would lead 
 to direct taxation, but I have shown already 
 that there is no foundation for that asser- 
 tion. They tell tis that we are now pros- 
 pering and happy, and that we can do better 
 without such a treaty. They cannot deceive 
 the country with such nonsense as that. 
 Finally, they tell us that it is a disloyal 
 policy, and that it will lead us to annexa- 
 tion. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the 
 policy we are pursuing now will lead us to 
 
 annexation, and if the other policy should 
 lead us to annexatif^i it is not worse than 
 the policy we are imder at present. I would 
 rather reach annexaticirQ through the door of 
 prosperity, and expansion, and increased 
 wealth, than to go through as a misrable 
 beggar asking u» be brought into the Ameri- 
 can fold because the erils of our policy were 
 so "great that we had reachefl that point when 
 we could no lon^n' lire without knocking at 
 the door of the American union. However, 
 this is a questioa wUdi doe.s not properly 
 enter into the ooiuaderation of the matter we 
 a re discussing. We cannot forecast what the 
 future political effeet <>f any policy will be. We 
 cannot forecast what the future destiny of 
 tliis country -will be. We do not know what re- 
 sult the forces at work wiQ produce. We have 
 nothing to do •with uhe;<e questions ; but, Sir, 
 we have something Ut do with gr.isping at 
 an opportunity that lies directly in our path, 
 and the restilt of wfaidi we know will be to 
 give us prosperity, to give us incretised 
 wealth, to give n« iiicn»ai<efl population, and 
 to make that popalaition happy and prosper- 
 ous. I for one, Sr, propose to advocate, at 
 all times, and with all the force I possess, the 
 adoption of that iKdicy so satisfactory in the 
 good restilts it will produce, so necessary for 
 the prosperity of this country, a poUcy of 
 seeking for and obtaming reciprocity with 
 tlie United States of America, a policy which 
 I the gentlemen on the oppos-te side will never 
 adopt, a policy that they have cruelly trifled 
 with, and deceived the people upon, and a 
 policy on which they will be brought to judg- 
 ment before the peofte, and condemned for 
 cldcanery, fiaudiilent transactions, deception 
 and mendacity. 
 
 OTTAWA 
 
 Prmtf^di tjy !*. E. Davvsox 
 
 PrinttTttj tlie «,/u«:i>-n'« Mfjst Excellent Mait-sty 
 
 1«0