0. ^ 
 
 r^ THE 
 
 "^ Canadian Trade Question 
 
 DISCUSSB-l) IN AN OPRN LKTTKR KROM 
 
 ^ Mr. J. D. Edgar. MP 
 
 TO HIS CONSTITUKNTS OF 
 
 THE WEST RIDING OF ONATRIO 
 
 The Annexation Movement — Government's attitude promotes 
 it — Continental Free Trade is obtainable — Terms on 
 which it can be obtained — Views of President Harrison, 
 Secretary Blaine and Secretary J. W. Foster — Sir John 
 Thompson's statement — The Two Conditions proposed — 
 Why Manufactures should be included — Cheaper Goods 
 for Consumers with enlarged Markets for Manufacturers 
 — Reduction in duties gradual — Why Mutual Discrimina- 
 tion should be conceded — Always done in Commercial 
 Treaties — Tariff discriminates now against England — 
 Canada has discriminated by Legislation in favor of 
 United States and in favor of France and Spain — 
 England has sanctioned discrimination by Canada — 
 Terms offered to Canada in February should have been 
 accepted — By Continental Free Trade we do not lose 
 English Market — Nor are we prevented from reducing 
 duties on British Goods — Independence our National 
 Future. 
 
 To the Electors of the West Riding of the County of Ontario ; 
 
 GENTLEMEN : 
 
 I learn that a meeting was held at Stouffville on the 17th 
 inst., which was addressed by three speakers from Toronto, in 
 favor of political union with the United States. When so im- 
 
portant a phase of political opinion has been publicly discussed 
 in a central part of my constituency I think you are entitled to 
 a frank expression of ray views upon the subject. It is toa 
 momentous a question to be set lightly aside, and, while I am 
 willing to treat with respect the views of all who honestly 
 l)elieve in annexation, I will ask all such among my constituents 
 to read this letter carefully, with a hope that it may convince 
 them that their heroic treatment is not required for the ills of 
 our body politic. 
 
 Judging from the arguments which are presented in favor of 
 political union with the United States, I conceive that it is 
 advocated mainly upon economic or commercial considerations, 
 and is put forward as being the only plan by which Canada can 
 obtain the manifest advantages of Continental Free Trade. 
 
 THE QOVKRNMENT's ATTITUDE PROMOTES ANNEXATION. 
 
 The material condition of our agricultural population is 
 certainly most unsatisfactory, and the Dominion government 
 have, unfortunately, assumed such an attitude of determined 
 hostility towards the securing of Continental Free Trade through 
 a treaty of unrestricted reciprocity between Canada and the 
 United States as to greatly help forward the annexation move- 
 ment. The farmers are told by the opponents of unrestricted 
 reciprocity either that it is unobtainable, or can only be secured 
 by concessions, which are at once dishonorable to Canada, and 
 equivalent to annexation. Are the farmers, then, to be so much 
 blamed when, feeling the keen pressure of earning a livelihood,, 
 and seeing the enormous advantages of a free access to the 
 American market to buy and to sell, they say in desperation that 
 they will accept annexation if it be their only alternative, and 
 the only means to secure Continental Free Trade ? 
 
 UNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY IS OBTAINABLE. 
 
 Events are moving rapidly, and I wish to say to the farmers 
 of West Ontario, that there is no longer any doubt that we can 
 obtain unrestricted reciprocity by a treaty with the United 
 
 Uu( 
 
8 
 
 States. The Premier himself, Sir John Thompson, has told ua so 
 in his speech at Toronto of 13th January, inst. He then stated 
 that in February last, 1892, in Washington, when negotiating 
 with the United States government, he was informed by them 
 of the terms upon which unrestricted reciprocity could have 
 been concluded in a week. Let us inquire whether the terms 
 offered to him were fair and honorable, and should have been 
 accepted. 
 
 TERMS ON WHICH IT CAN BE OBTAINED. ' 
 
 The exact nature of the proposed terms must be first 
 ascertained. . . 
 
 The negotiations were conducted on behalf of the President 
 by the then Secretary of State, Mr. J. G. Blaine, and Gen. J. W. 
 Foster, the present secretary of state ; on behalf of Canada by 
 the premier and Messrs. Foster and Bowel 1. 
 
 In a messaoe to the Senate on June 20th, 1892, the President 
 
 says : — 
 
 "The result of the conference as to the practicability of 
 arranging a recriprocity treaty with the Dominion of Canada is 
 clearly stated in the letter of Mr. Blaine," and the President sets 
 oUt what, in his own opinion, were the two requirements of such 
 a treaty, as follows : — 
 
 "A treaty that should be reciprocal in fact and of mutual 
 advantage must necessarily have embraced an important list of 
 manufactured articles, and have secured to the United States a 
 Free or favored introduction of these articles into Canada as 
 against the world." 
 
 In Mr. Blaine's report of the loth of April, 1892,. transmitted 
 to the Senate with the message, his statement of the two require- 
 ments or condition.s <>f reciprocity is made in these words : — " It 
 was regarded as of essential importance that a list of manu- 
 factured goods should be included in the schedules of articles 
 for free or favored exchange," and also, " It was the desire of the 
 government of the United States to make a reciprocity 
 convention which would be exclusive in its application to the 
 United States and Canada, and that other countries which 
 are not parties to it should not enjoy gratuitouslj- the favors 
 
4- 
 
 which the two neighboring countries might reoipi'ocally concede 
 to each other for valuable considerations and a6 a large sacrifice 
 of their respective revenues." 
 
 SKCHEIAIIY FOSTEll'S VFEWS. 
 
 On the 13th December, 1892, a concise statement of the 
 two reijuiremcnts of the [Jnitc<l States re|)resentativos as to a 
 reciprocity treaty was given by tlx! present Hecretary of State, 
 Gen, J. W. Foster, in a formal communication to the press as 
 follows: — " During the reciprocity conference of last winter. Mr. 
 Blaine did not insist that in a reciprocity arrangement a uniform 
 tariff would be necessary I'or l)oth Canada and the United States. 
 nor much less that it should l)c on the line of the present United 
 States tariff. He ditl ask that the schetlule should not be con- 
 fined to natural products, but should include an agreed list of 
 manufactured goods, and :hat the reciprocity should be confined 
 to Canada and tlic United States, and because of these two 
 conditions the negotiations were fruitless." 
 
 Secretary Foster thus not only clearly states what were the 
 two conditions, but specifically denies that the necessity of a 
 uniform tariff' for the two countries was insisted upon at the 
 conference. When the three persons imposing terms of reci- 
 procity set out what those terms were and are, we may safely 
 accept their statements as to what terms they did mean, and still 
 mean to impose. 
 
 It is therefore with amazement that we must regard the 
 the language used by the Canadian Premier in his speech of 12th 
 January, just one month after the publication of Secretary 
 Foster's explicit statement, as above, that a common tariff had 
 not been insisted upon. Sir John Thompson said : — 
 
 SIR JOHN Thompson's statemknt. 
 
 " When Mr. Foster, Mr. Bowell and myself went down to 
 Washington last February, barring the settlement of the details. 
 We could have concluded unrestricted reciprocity in a week, and 
 I will toll you why we did not do it. In the first place it was 
 required it must be a connuon tariff" against the whole world, 
 (''xcept the United States, and at that the Uriff then existing h.j 
 
the United States. In the next place we were obliged to dis- 
 tinctly bind ourselves to discriminate against the mother country. 
 Upon those terms we could have unrestricted reciprocity." — 
 Toronto Empire s repo-rt. 
 
 It must be assumed that the I'remier spoke to the be.st of 
 his recollection when he said a common tariff had been insisted 
 upon ; but was he candid towards the people of Canada when he 
 concealed from them that the President and Secretaries Blaine 
 and Foster had all repudiated such views f Was he courteous 
 towards the statesmen at Washington when he publicly gave 
 them the lie :• Can Canadians hope for success in negotiating 
 with the present, or any other administration at Washington 
 when our First Minister will for a temporary party purpose so 
 grossly misrepresent the attitude of the three highest officials of 
 the United States/ 
 
 THE TWO CONniTIONS PROPOSED. 
 
 It is clear that the two conditions upon which we might 
 have had Continental Free Trade by a treaty of unrestricted 
 reciprocity, and may have it yet, are these: — 
 
 (1) We must include a list of manufactured goods as well as 
 natural products, and ' ' 
 
 (2) In return for the United States giving us preferential 
 access to their markets, we must give them the same access to ours. 
 
 The alleged condition of a common tariff we may dismiss as 
 a bit of electioneei-ing fiction, which was never proposed nor 
 adopted by the Liberal party of Canada, and which was not 
 suggested by the United States government last February. 
 
 I will briefly give leasons why T think the conditions 
 offered to us were fair and reasonabh^ and should have been 
 aecepttd. ■ i^ : i \ 
 
 WHV MANIJFACTUUES SHOULD HE INCLUDED. 
 
 To place upon the free list between the two countries a 
 considerable number of manufactured articles as well as natural 
 products, would permit the farmers in common with otlu-r emi- 
 
« 
 
 smners to Imy many ^oods much more clujaply than they win 
 to-day, as well as to sell their products at the best price the 
 Americrn market affords, which they cannot do to-day. 
 
 A reciprocity treaty which did not include a number ol' 
 manufactured articles would be partial and productive of far less 
 }Tood to the farmei' than a complete treaty, as suggested by the 
 Washington government. If it would benefit American manu- 
 facturers to send their goods here and sell them to us cheaply, 
 will not the great mass of Canadians greatly gain thereby { 
 
 What is the reason why our own manufacturers do not sell 
 as cheaply as those across the lin3 ? It is the want of a large 
 market. Is it not an insult to the skill, intelligence and enter- 
 prise of our manufacturers to suppose that they would be beaten 
 in a fair competition with Americans, if a market of seventy 
 millions be given us in place of our own five millions i* The best 
 men do not fear it, and the few pampered and pap-fed infant 
 industries who cannot thrive if they are given a continent for u 
 market, must be prepared to cease their occupation of plundering 
 their fellow-citizens when we shall have secured reciprocity in 
 manufactures. 
 
 KEDUCTIO.N IN DUTIKS WuULl) HE GRAIUJAI,. 
 
 A reduction in duties would not be made so as to depreciate 
 stocks in hand or derange the course of trade. As an illustra- 
 tion of what would be done, let me refer to the George Brown 
 draft treaty with the United States of 1874, which includes 40 
 kinds of agricultural tools and implements, besides a list of 40 
 other manufactured articles. Although the treaty was dated in 
 June, 1874, it provided that no duties should be reduced until 
 1st July, 1875 ; that only one-third should be taken off' until 1st 
 July, 1876, after that two-thirds should be taken off until 1st 
 July, 1877, when the articles should be admitted free. A 
 gradual reduction of that kind, extending as it did over three 
 years, would have afforded the fullest oppoi-tunity for Cana- 
 dians to readjust their business at every point, to work off their 
 old stock, and to invade the new markets thrown open to them. 
 
That peri(Ml nF timi', or more if nucessary, would doubtless be 
 arranged in nny now treaty. 
 
 This gradual reduction of duties would also o;ive our 
 ^'overnnient time to provide for the unavoidable loss of" revenue 
 by rearranging the public expenditure in the direction of 
 economy and by providing other sources of revenue. 
 
 To promote the stability of new tiades and industries that 
 would assuredly be established here under a broad treaty, its 
 duration would ho arranged for a long perio<l of yeai's. 
 
 I think you must conclude that a reciprocity in manufac- 
 tured articles would be of immense advantage to farmers, in 
 common with all other consumers, and wouM largel\' increase 
 the trade and prosperity of Canadian manufacturers themselves. 
 
 Therefore I say that we should accept with alaeiit}- the 
 first of the two conditions proposed by the United State.s. 
 
 WHY MUTUAL JUSCRIMINATION SHOULD HE CONCEDED. 
 
 The second condition proposed by Mr. Blaine was that the 
 reciprocity should be " exclusive in its application to the United 
 States and Canada." In other words, that the United States 
 should let us into their vast market on preferential terms, if we 
 would let them into our small one on similar preferential terms. 
 That certainly seems a fair if not a liberal oft'er. Could it be 
 dishonorable for Canada to accept it ? That is the kind of 
 reciprocity that prevails between equal and independent nations. 
 The great Cobden treaty of commeice between England and 
 France in I860 was based upon mutual preferences in tariffs. 
 If we were an independent nation we would assuredl^'^ seek to 
 eidarge our trade by .such treaties all over the world. Here is 
 our largest customer, our nearest neighbor, holding out the olive 
 branch of amity and freedom of trade to us, and are we not to 
 accept their offer ? It is for our advantage to do so. It is 
 t^ssential to our prosperity to do so. Are we to be told that as 
 a Colony, a Dependency, we are not to have freedom to make 
 our own customs regulations to suit our own trade ? I have yet 
 to learn that the British government has for many a year 
 
veuCured fco take that Very risky poHitiou, and I suy without 
 hesitation that it is only taken by Canadian opponents of free 
 tradtt in the interest of Canadian protection. England does not 
 pretend to discriminate in favor of Canada in the smallest 
 degree, nor does she expect us to discriminate in her favor. 
 
 TARIFF DISCKIMINATKS NOW AGAINST KNGLANJi. 
 
 If she had any such expectations she must be woefully 
 disappointed, bt'cause, while the Dominion government have 
 been effusively proclaiming their blatant loyalty to Britain, they 
 have so arranged their tariff as to discriminate cruelly against 
 her in favor of the United States. I give the proof In 1891 
 they allowed free goods to come into Canada from the United 
 States to the amount of J!i!23,885,000, and from England only to 
 the amount of $ 1 0,599,000. On the total imports from England of 
 that year.namely, $42,000,000, they collected in duties S9,l 14,000, 
 or at the rate of 22 per cent., while on the total imports of 
 $53,600,000, from the United States they collected $7,734,524, 
 or only 14 per cent. Yet the same statesmen who have 
 arranged this tariff pretend that they would never discriminate 
 in favor of the United States against England, even to obtain 
 the untold benefits of unrestricted reciprocity. 
 
 CANADA HAS DISCHIMINATKI) KY LKOISI.ATION. 
 
 I can show that Canada has frequently legislated, and 
 oliered to legislate, to confer upon other countries prefercntiii 
 customs duties as against England and the whole world. Jn 
 the legislation to carry out the old Elgin reciprocity treaty of 
 1854, we placed most of the articles on the free list us rf;,iirds 
 the whole world, but that really discriminated in favoi* of tiie 
 United States, because from the nature of the articles they 
 could not profitably be imported from elsewhere. But when 
 we came to the important item of " dried fruits," which were 
 largely imported by us from other countries having close com- 
 mercial treaties with England, we did discriminate in favor of 
 the United States against the whole world, and thus asserted 
 our right to do so 39 years ago. 
 
IN FAVOR <»F THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 In 1867 the Canadian Parliament distinctly offered to dis- 
 criminate in favor of the United States in lespect of u lon<,' list 
 of natural products and against the world, i will give you the 
 language of the statute, which was 'M Vic, chap. 7, sec. 4 : — 
 "Any or all of the articles mentioned in schechilo 'D' may be 
 admitted into Canada from the United States of America frtje 
 of <luty, upon proclamation Ity the governor in council, when- 
 ever satisfactory arrnngemcnts shall he entered into witli the 
 IJnited States of America for the importation of similar articles 
 from ( 'anada into that country free of duty." 
 
 I say unhesitatingly that this clause provided for a reci- 
 |)rocity treaty with the United States in natural products, and 
 lor discrimination in their favor against all the world. I sa}', 
 further, that the enactment of a similar clause at Ottawa mixt 
 session, including in schedule "])" a reasonably large list of 
 manufactured articles, would obtain for us the unrestricted 
 rBciprocity offered to the (Jan^uHan Government at Washington 
 in February last. ; . . t^ . .' , 
 
 IN FAVUH OF FRANCE AND SPAIN. 
 
 There is anotlier distinct offer standing to-day in our 
 statutes to discriminate against the mother country, and the 
 world, in favor of France or Spain, if either of those countries 
 will give us a partial reciprocity treaty. It is to be found in 
 the revised statutes of Canada, chapter S'i sec. 11. The pro- 
 vision is as follows : — " Whenever it appears to the satisfaction 
 of the governor-general in council that the governments of 
 France or Spain, or either of them, have made changes in their 
 tariff of duties imposed upon articles imported from Canada, 
 in reduction or repeal of the duties now in force in the said 
 countries, he may by proclamation order the whole or part of 
 the duty of 'iO per cent, ad valorem, imposed by this Act upon 
 wines iju ported into Canada, to be remitted as respects importa- 
 tions from the said countries, or from that one of the said 
 countries by the government of which such change in its tarifl' 
 of (luties has been made as aforesaid." 
 
 The Ottawa ministry often point witii pride to this pro- 
 
10 
 
 u, and arc from time to time engaged in abortive attempts 
 to patch up a French or Spanish treaty under it. It appears 
 therefore, that we. can properly offer France or Spain to discrim- 
 inate in their favor in ordt-j' to a«hnit free wines into ('anada, 
 l>ut that we must decline to discriminate! in favor of the Uniterl 
 States when that would give tJie Canadian farmer free agri- 
 cultural implenients. This, wlien clearly understood, will 
 
 perhaps astonish tiu^ temperance men, as well as the farmers. 
 
 ■ - ■'■"■■■,_.' ■ / 
 
 KN(}hANI) APPROVKH OF DISCRIMINATION MY CANADA. 
 
 Let US incjuire what has heen the attitude of England of 
 late y(MirN as to the right of C'anada to set up differential, that 
 is, discriminating, fluties against her. The draft reciprocity 
 treaty of 1874 included, as we have seen, a long list of manu- 
 factured articles, and on its face [)rovide<l for mutual discrimi- 
 nation in duties on these articles between the United States and 
 ('anada. This draft was submitted to the English government, 
 and in commenting upon it tln> (lovernment I)epartnn>nt, called 
 the Board of Trade, used the.s«' words : — 
 
 " To this no objection can be taken whatever criticisms 
 may hav»i been nuide on the oriifinal reciprocity trfsjity, on the 
 ground that (!anada was setting up <lif!erential duties against 
 this country and countries with which we have most-favored- 
 natioiw treaties. No such objections can be taken now." 
 
 The government of Kngland has therefore, in unecjuivocjil 
 languige, distinctly and formally repudiated all desin; to prevent 
 Canadn from discriminating against Englaml, or any other 
 country in the world, if it should Im in the interest of ( 'an ad. a 
 to do so. No other position would be compatible vvitli the 
 notions which ('anadians now hold as to th»!lr own rights of 
 self-government. 
 
 It has thus been shown that it is fair and lejisunable to 
 discrinnnate in favor of the United ."States, if they discriminate 
 in our favor: that it is the practice of England to do .s(> with 
 other nations ; that Canada ah'ijady discriminates against 
 England in our tariff; that (.'anada has actually discriminated 
 in favor of the Htnted States against the world in tariff 
 
11 
 
 « ( »- ' 
 
 ( 
 
 legislatiun, and hoa by clitferent legiHlation oflbred to do so 
 again in favor of the United States, Spain and France ; and 
 that England has fully given her approval of tarift'diHcriniination 
 by Canada against England, and other countries. 
 
 THK TKHMS SHOULD HAVE HKKN AC'CEHTKI). 
 
 The conclusion seeniH to me to be irrcHistible that when the 
 Canadian nuniHterH at Wjushington, in February hiHt, refused to 
 conclude a treaty of reciprocity o!i the terms offered to them by 
 the United States, they flagrantly betrayed the true interests of 
 their country in order to sustain the effete system of Catiatlian 
 protection. 
 
 It is true that the Democratic party ure coming into 
 control of the affairs of the United States, but no one will 
 contend that they are less favorable to enlarging the trade re- 
 lations with Canada than were the Republicans. 
 
 1 do not seek to impress upon you the value of free acct'ss 
 to the American market, because I know that among you no 
 doubts exist upon that point. It must always be borne in mind 
 that by securing for ourselves the American niarket we do not 
 lose the English one, which will contiime to be the best for 
 some of our products. We desire to have two customers instead 
 of one, both being absolutely necessary to give our farniers a 
 fair return out of their land for their capital and their labor. 
 
 The Liberal party in the house of conunons last session 
 formally introduced and unanimously supported a jjropo.sal to 
 reduce the duties on imports from England. That j)oIicy will^ 
 I am sure, be adhered to firmly and pressed vigorously, and it is 
 in coujplete harmony with our earnest tlesire to promote Con- 
 tinental Freedom of Tratle as well. I believe the people are now 
 convinced that our position on tho.se two great questions is the 
 right one. 
 
 INUKPKNDKNCE ()UH NAIIONAI, FUTURE. / 
 
 A word as to our national future. Apart from every 
 economic and material con.sideration, there are dreams in the 
 
n 
 
 hearts of all native Canadians that we shall one day takd our 
 place among the nations of the earth. To work with that end 
 in view I conceive to be the highest duty and privilege of a 
 Canadian public man. Every patriotic Englishman, and every 
 patriotic American citizen, will respect us more when we take 
 that manly position, than if we crave to be absorbed into either 
 an imperial feneration, or an American federal union. I have 
 my own opinion that we shall not have to wait many years to 
 achieve our independence. It will not be bom of hatred to 
 England, nor will it be baptised in fratricidal blood, Canada as 
 an Independent Power, having its autonomy guaranteed bj' 
 England and the United States, would be a strength to the 
 motherland, as well as a link and pledge to bind together the 
 mighty Anglo-Saxon race, which dominates the world to-day. 
 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 J, 1). EDGAR. ' 
 Toronto, Jan. 23, 1893. 
 
 / A // /^