IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 y 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 :/. 
 
 «. 
 
 fc 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1:^128 
 
 2.5 
 22 
 
 120 
 
 1.8 
 
 L25 11111.4 111 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 /: 
 
 ^» 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^>' 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 /A 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
 m 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original cupy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 ddfauts susceptibles de nuire d la qualit4 de la 
 reproduction sont notds ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 Ti 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 TI 
 
 C( 
 Ol 
 
 ai 
 
 TI 
 fi 
 in 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serr^ (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 int^rieure) 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 ly 
 
 in 
 
 u| 
 bi 
 fc 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 n 
 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 n 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 
 Oes pages manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdographiques manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 
 CovTK^ ntaires suppl6mentaires 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduces avec le 
 pi'js grtnd soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmi, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la der- 
 niire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of Parliament 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce h la 
 g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prdteur 
 suivant : 
 
 Bibliothdque du Parlement 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul clichd sont film6es d 
 partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche it 
 droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la m6thode : 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
No. 2. 
 
 INFORMATION FOR THE ELECTORS. 
 
 4., "i:.i 
 
 '•ri*.: 
 
 THE LIBERALS 
 
 I. ,■ ; \\ 
 
 >, > > 
 
 5/ 
 
 AND 
 
 .;.i.-!;.<,. 
 
 THE TRADE POLICY. 
 
 The position of the Liberals on the general trade policy of 
 Canada has undergone many and remarkable changes. In the 
 time of the old reciprocity treaty, they were generally ii favour 
 of it and of a revenue tariff upon manufactured goods, as indeed 
 were both political parties at that time. After the abrogation of 
 that treaty in 1866, they proclaimed themselves favourable to an 
 attempt to have it renewed, although not at the price of national 
 honour or material interests. 
 
 The Hon. George Brown, a shining Liberal light, thus ex- 
 pressed himself with reference thereto : — 
 
 " But be this as it might, it was not for the people of Canada 
 to be influenced by any puch anticipation. They had shown 
 their ability to open new markets for themselves when the 
 American market was closed against them, and the clear path 
 lor them was to follow with redoubled energy and perseverance 
 the policy on which they had entered. . . . Let them seek to 
 develop their great natural industries, and especially the agri- 
 cultural, shipping, fishing, mineral and lumber industries. Let 
 them open up new mai'kets adapted to their traffic, and let the 
 Canadian flag be found floating on every sea." 
 
The Globe newspaper in 1869, when the new leader of the 
 Government, Sir John A. Macdonald, wan trying by delegation 
 ana otLerwise to induce the United States government to renew 
 the old treaty, thus alluded to the question : — 
 
 '* Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in a speech said : ' I deprecate 
 the idea of cringing to the Americans. I appreciate fully the 
 benefits of reciprocity, but I do not think it becomes us, under 
 present circumstances, to make -any efforts for its renewal. I 
 believe that we should pursue our trade policy without regard to 
 reciprocity." 
 
 And Sir Kichard Cartwright, in Charlottetown, in 1878 made 
 
 this declaration : — 
 
 " If you say you are going to frighten the United States into 
 reciprocity by imposing certain duties on articles now coming in 
 from that country, all I have to say is this, that the men who 
 tell you that reciprocity with the United States is essential to 
 your existence are, in my opinion, playing a most unwise and 
 unpatriotic part. I don't deny the advantages of a free and fair 
 exchange with the United States, but I say that Canada ip not so 
 dependent as these men would have us suppose, on the markets 
 of the United States j that we are able to hold our own with the 
 United States in any market that is equally open to the corapeti- 
 tioD of us both." — Speech at Charlottetown on Aug. 16th, 1878. 
 
 These were all indicative of a policy at once honourable and 
 manly — of a willingness to ti*eat for a fair measure, but not to 
 cringe for favour, or to despair if reciprocity was refused. 
 
 "When, during the Liberal regime from 1874 to 1879, and after 
 the failure of repeated efforts to obtain a measure of reciprocity 
 from the United States, it became evident that some other policy 
 was necessary to develop the industries, to protect the labour and 
 expand the resources of Canada, and the Liberal-Conservative 
 party advocated the national policy, a moderate protective fiscal 
 system, as necessary to Canada, the Liberals threw their whole 
 force against it. They declared the protective system to be a 
 "barbarous" one, that it was simply *' legalized robbery," that 
 it would diminish the revenues, impoverish the people, enrich 
 the monopolists, and in short bring only evil upon the country. 
 They were then free traders in principle, emulated the British 
 system, and inveighed against Protection in all its forms, citing 
 that of the United States as the most dangerous of all. The 
 
 JgW --tor 
 
3 
 
 *■ * 
 
 defeats of 1878 and 1882 did not diminish their opposition to 
 Protection nor lighten their assaults upon its pi'inciples and its 
 alleged effects. 
 
 Along with their opposition to the National Policy, they 
 pleaded for a reciprocity treaty with the United States on the 
 old lines of that of 1854, and blamed the Liberal-Consei'vatives 
 for not successfully accomplishing it. * -* ' 
 
 Defeat and the more cogent argument of good results seen 
 on every hand which it wao impossible for them to declaim 
 away, brought a change in 1887, and the leader of their party, 
 Hon. Edward Blake, announced that change in his celebrated 
 Malvern speech in January of that year, in these words : — 
 
 " No man, I care not how convinced an advocate of free trade 
 for Canada he may be, has yet suggested — no man, I believe, can 
 suggest — a practicable plan whereby our great revenue needs can 
 be met otherwise than by the continued imposition of veiy high 
 duties on goods similar to those we make, or can make, within 
 our bounds, or on the raw materials. I invite the most ardent 
 free trader in public life to present a plausible solution of this 
 problem ; and 1 contend that he is bound to do so before he talks 
 of free trade as practicable in Canada. 1 have not believed it 
 soluble in my day; and any chance of its solubility, if chance 
 there were, has been destroyed by the vast increase of our 
 yearly charge and by the other conditions which have been 
 created. The thing is removed from the domain of practical 
 politics." 
 
 In these plain words he renounces in the name of his party 
 their former heresy of free trade as impracticable, and bound 
 himself, Sir Richard and his followers, to adhere to the policy of 
 Protection in all its essential conditions. 
 
 On this platform he appealed to the country, but the country 
 distrusted the genuineness of the party's conversion on the eve 
 of a general election, and maintained its faith in the old policy 
 of 1878 and in its consistent adherents. 
 
 Shortly after the elections of 1887> Erastus Wimau, a Canadian 
 resident in New York, conceived the idea of a new propaganda. 
 This was to bo the salvation of Canada, or rather of the shattered 
 fortunes of the Liberal party, and he was to be its chief 
 apostle. 
 
It wae, in fact, the child of a United States politician of little 
 note named Mr. Hitt, and was known as Commercial Union. 
 
 The idea Wou simply that: — 
 
 1. The tariff of the United States should be adopted by 
 Canada. 
 
 2. The Customs Houses were to be abolished between Canada 
 and the United States, but maintained against the rest of the 
 world. 
 
 3. The import duties collected in both countries were to be 
 pooled and divided on a per ca;?<fa basis between the two countries. 
 
 This was preached through Canada and the United States by 
 Mr. Wiman. It was enthusiastically adopted by the Liberal 
 papers in large part, by the Liberal leaders, Mr. Blake and Mi*. 
 Mackenzie excepted, and for a time promised to become the 
 evangel of the party in Canada. 
 
 Sir Richai-d Cartwright, in 1888, on March 14th, moved the fol. 
 lowing resolution in the House of Comnjons : — 
 
 " That it is highly desirable that the largest possible freedom 
 of commercial intercourse should obtain between the Dominion 
 of Canada and the United States, and that it is expedient that 
 all articles manufactured in, or natural products of, either of said 
 countries should be admitted free of duty into the ports of the 
 other (articles subject to duties of excise or of internal revenue 
 alone excepted) ; That it is further expedient that the Govern- 
 ment of the Dominion should take steps at an early date to 
 ascertain on what terms and conditions arrangements can be 
 effected with the United States for the purpose of securing full 
 and unrestricted reciprocity of trade therewith." 
 
 This is in substance, but not in detail, Mr. Hitt's and Mr. 
 Wiman'splan. The resolution was silent as to details, but was 
 accepted by Mr. Wiman as equivalent to his own scheme and as 
 such received from him equal and like advocacy as his own. 
 
 Since 1887, Mi*. Laurier, the leader of the Liberal party. 
 Sir Richard Cartwright, Mr. John Charlton, Mr. Longley, 
 A.ttorney-General of Nova Scotia; Prof Goldwin Smith, and 
 other lights of the party, have been in constant communication 
 with Mr. Wiman, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Butterworth, and others. United 
 States politicians at Washington ; have made missions to that 
 
& 
 
 r, 
 d 
 »n 
 )d 
 at 
 
 city and to New York and Boston, and have cabaled with raon there 
 for the purpose of inducing them to assist in the successful carry 
 ing out of their plan. 
 
 What then is this new policy upon which the Liberal leaders 
 have settled as the policy foi* the Canadian people ? Let its 
 sponsors and originators answer. 
 
 Mr. Hitt says: — 
 
 " What is commercial union with Canada ? It means, as set 
 out in this resolution, the adoption by both countries of precisely 
 the 8:ime tariff of duties, or tixes to be levied upon goods coming 
 from abroad ; abolishing altogether our line of custom houses on 
 the north, by which we collect tariff duties on goods coming 
 from Canada ; abolishing their custom houses along the same 
 line, by which they collect duties upon goods wo send into 
 Canada ; and leaving intercourse as unrestricted between this 
 country and Canada as it is between the States. The line of 
 custom houses would follow the sea and include both countries. 
 
 " The internal revenue nystems of taxes on liquors and 
 tobacco in the two countries would also have to be made uniform 
 in both. 
 
 "The proceeds of taxation thus collected would be equitably 
 divided, and the fairest way would seem to be in proportion to 
 population." 
 
 Mr. Butterwort) "vs ; — 
 
 "The adoption oi ..e system proposed would involve the 
 assimilation of tariffs, r^vtos and internal revenue taxes, and pos- 
 sibly an arrangment for pooling receipts from customs, and a 
 division on some equitable basis." — Address by Hon. B. Butter- 
 worth, before the Canadian Club, N.Y. 
 
 Mr. Wiman says : — 
 
 " That as against the world, the same rates of duty should be 
 collected by Canada as are now levied by the United States, 
 while between the two countries of North America the customs 
 line should be completely obliterated." ^ 
 
 Prof. Goldwin Smith says : — 
 
 "Commercial Union, would of course, involve assimilation of 
 tariffs which, however, would present no insurmountable obstacle 
 to negotiation. It would also involve an assimilation of the 
 liquor (excise) duties." 
 
 Mr. Laurier, at the pavilion in Toronto, October, 1889, 
 declared for " a uniform standard of customs and tariff duties." 
 
1 
 
 ^ On every platform from which he has spoken since 1888, he has 
 nailed the flag of unrestricted reciprocity to the mast, and cited 
 as his co-workers in the United States, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Butter- 
 worth, Mr. Blaine, and others. 
 
 This identifies him and his party with the plan proposed by 
 them and their co-workers and which has been outlined above. 
 The adoption of this policy for Canada means: — 
 
 1. That her tariff of 30 per cent, on dutiable imports is to be 
 exchanged for that of the United Stales, which averages about 
 60 per cent. 
 
 2. That Canada is to discriminate against and practically 
 prohibit imports from Great Britain and the rest of the 
 
 3. That Canada is to lose in this way from present revenue 
 over $8,000,000 now collected on imports from the United States; 
 at least $2. 600,000 now collected on sugars and molasses from 
 other countries, and which on assimilation of tariffs must be 
 made free: and about S6,000,000 now collected on imports 
 from Great Britain and other countries, which would under 
 the new plan be hereafter imported from the United States, — 
 a grand total of from $16,000,000 to $18,000,000. 
 
 4. That this deficiency in revenue would have to be made up by 
 direct taxation ; and would fall with telling force upon the farmers 
 of the country, and men of small holdings ; being a sum of about 
 $3.50 per head of the population, or $17.50 for each family. 
 
 5. That whilst being called upon to pay this amount yearly 
 to the tax collector, the people would obtain none of the 
 advantages of free trade, but, on the contrary, would be placed, 
 according to Liberal teaching, under the galling yoke of a 
 protective tariff dc»uble that of Canada at present. 
 
 6. That the tariff-making power would be handed over to a 
 foreign country — made for us at Washington — and we should 
 virtually be left in the position of paying taxes without being 
 represented. 
 
 7. That entrance upon this path would inevitably lead to 
 complete dependence upon the United States, and to ultimate ab- 
 sorption therein. 
 
 ^■v 
 
If Canada and the United States are to have a common tariff, 
 it IB of the highest importance to know who is to make it and 
 what it is to be. Sir Bichard Cartwright and his supporters avoid 
 the discussion of this question whenever possible, and when com- 
 pelled to speak say it is merely a question of detail of little im- 
 portance that will be settled by a commission composed of rep- 
 resentatives of the two countries, 
 
 r 
 
 Their allies in the United States are not so indefinite. In his 
 speech at Detroit, Mr. Wiman said it would be settled by a com- 
 mission whose basis would be population, and that " the propor- 
 sion would be"|,ten members for the States for every one for 
 Canada." It can easily be understood what the position of 
 Canada would be under such an arrangement. It is perfectly 
 underetood across the line as has been well put by the New York 
 Post and Chicago Times. The New York Evening Post says : — 
 
 "If Canada agrees to have the same tariff as the United 
 States, the making of it must, of necessity, be left to the Ameri- 
 can Congress, or, in other words, the power to tax the Canadians 
 must be ceded to the United States, and the power to tax soon 
 carries all other powers with it. It is just as well for everybody 
 who is interested in this movement on either side of the line to 
 bear this in mind. The United States cannot allow a small 
 province like Canada to say what their import duties shall be, so 
 that Canada would have to allow the United States — in fact, if 
 not in form — to say what her import duties would be." .^v^- 
 
 On this point the Chicago Times speaks as follows : — 
 
 " It must not be forgotten that this proposition implies a 
 complete surrender by the Dominion Parliament to the Ameri- 
 can Congress of all control over the principal source of the 
 Dominion's revenue, the tariff. Whatever it may please the 
 American Congress to do j-egarding the tariff, that the Dominion 
 Government must forthwith accept. Our Congress would have 
 even more power over the Dominion under this an-angement 
 than it would in the event of political union, because the people 
 of the Dominion would have neither vote nor voice in Washing- 
 ton under the proposed commercial union. Not only would our 
 Congress prescj-ibe and change at pleasure all the taiiff taxes 
 exacted from the people of Canada, but our executive officers and 
 oup courts would make all the rulings and decisions affecting 
 rates for the Dominion as well as for the United States." 
 
 Hon. Mr, Butterworth, the mover of the first resolution in 
 
8 
 
 
 CJongrees, upon which the agitation was founded, said of the 
 effect of this policy : — 
 
 " It is apparent to all that in the consummation of what is 
 now proposed, the Monroe doctrine becomes an accomplished 
 fact throughout all this continent." 
 
 This means that Canada would lose not only control of her 
 fiscal policy but also her connection with the Mother Country. 
 That many who are advocating this policy in Canada know and 
 are definitely labouring to bring about such a result is clear from 
 the evidence recently'' given by Mr. Wiman before the United 
 States select committee on relations with Canada. He said : — 
 
 " It is, to-day, impossible to elect a single, solitary member of 
 Parliament on an annexation platform. It would bo ruin to any 
 politician to set up and advocate annexation. On the other hand, 
 there is a vast number who havo not the slightest hesitation in 
 arguing strongly for a commercial arrangement, the result of 
 which might be — in their own minds — a political arrangement 
 to follow." 
 
 It is clear that such a policy would be for Canada annexation 
 without representation in Congress, and under it Canada 
 would be a second Egypt, without any voice in the control of her 
 own affairs. Against such a policy, Eeformers, like Hon. Alex-^ 
 ander McKenzie and the late Hon. George Biown, have plainly 
 declared themselves. In his speech in defence of the proposed 
 treaty of 18'74, Hon. George Brown said : — 
 
 ** I come now to the objections which have been urged against 
 the treaty from such quarters as entitle them to a formal answer. 
 The first of these is the allegation that the treaty discriminated 
 against Great Britain in favor of the United States. Nothing 
 could be more unfounded than this. It was perfectly understood 
 from the Ojoening of the negotiations that no article could be 
 free from duty in regard to the United States that was not also 
 free with regard to Great Britain, and nothing else was ever 
 contemplated for a moment." 
 
 Hon. Alexander McKenzie, is of the same opinion now as he 
 was when at the head of the Government. On the 8th of Janu- 
 ary last, in a reply to an address from his constituents, he said : — 
 
 " I could never consent to the zoUverein policy for obvious 
 reasons, but I cannot conceive why any one should object to re- 
 ciprocal free trade, secured by treaty, and not inimical to the 
 

 
 interests of Great Britain as the head of the empire. I shall feel 
 it to be my duty to vote in the direction of these remarks in 
 Parliament." 
 
 TRUE TTNRESTKICTED RECIPROCITY. 
 
 hiiVV 
 
 True Unrestricted Reciprocity, as interpreted by Hon. Mr. 
 McKeozie and advocated by a number of his followers, means 
 not only the broadest free trade with the United States but alsc 
 with Great Britain and all the world beside ; because it is clear, 
 that if there is to be no discrimination against Gieat Britain 
 her products must be admitted as freely to our market as those of 
 the United States. As our importations are mainly from those 
 two countries, absolute free trade is the natural consequence. 
 From the quotations above given it is clear that the United 
 States will not agree to such a reciprocity. We can easily under- 
 stand why. There would be the danger of smuggling into the 
 United States from Canada, pi'oducts admitted into the latter 
 free but on which the former levies a high duty, and because 
 Canadian manufacturers obtaining their raw materials free would 
 be placed at an advantage over United States rivals whose raw 
 materials would be heavily taxed. A large portion of the 
 Reform party have declared free trade to be a practical impossi- 
 bility for Canada. Hon. Edward Blake's speech at Malvern, in 
 1887, has already been quoted. 
 
 In his speech in Toronto, as reported in the Globe of October, 
 1889, Hon. Mr. Laurier, now leader of the Opposition, saidt — 
 
 "The British people will not to-day go back upon thepolicj'-of 
 free trade which they have adopted, and Canada is not in a posi- 
 tion at this moment, with the large revenue it has to collect, to 
 adopt any other than a revenue tariff at least." 
 
 Hon, J. W. Longley, of Halifax, in a letter published in the 
 Commercial Union Handbook, says : — 
 
 " Personally, I would regard absolute free trade as a better 
 solution of our difficulties. But this seems not to be a practical 
 question at the present moment. The most sanguine public man 
 would despair of being able to induce the Canadian people to 
 accept the broad doctrine of commercial freedom, and a revenue 
 derived chiefly from direct taxation." 
 
10 
 
 If this aort of unreBtricted reciprocity, which would retain 
 control of our own affairs and of all our fiscal institutions, is op- 
 posed by the leading advocates of reciprocity on both sides of 
 the line, it is out of the question in practical politics, and is only 
 retained by the Opposition for the purpose of deceiving the loyal 
 and free ti'ade sections of the Reform party who are against any 
 reciprocity that would enclose Canada with a McKinley tariff 
 against all the world save the United States. 
 
 ' It must he remembered that the policy of the Government will 
 give to the Canadian farmer all the advantages ho can get from 
 commercial union, and free access to the United States market 
 without the corresponding disadvantages of commercial union, 
 as proposed by Messrs. Wiman, Cartwright & Co. 
 
 THESE DISADVANTAGES. 
 
 ¥ 
 
 J Ist. The loss of a large portion of our manufactories. Cana- 
 dian manufacturers would labour under the same disadvantages in 
 competing with the manufacturers of the United States, as the 
 latter claim to exist between them and those of Great Britain and 
 Europe, viz., less capital, shorter experience and smaller fac- 
 tories. The United States manufacturer, with his greater capi- 
 tal, experience and plant, is in a position at once to invade 
 Canada, while his Canadian rival with his limited m^^ans would 
 not be in a position to retaliate. The United States manufac- 
 turer would be working under precisely the conditions he now 
 finds about him, and would be ready instantly to take ad van 
 tage of the new market open to him. 
 
 The United States being the larger market, and the treaty 
 being only for a limited term of years, no Sianufacturer would 
 think of erecting a factory in Canada for the larger market which, 
 at the termination of the treaty, might be closed and his invest- 
 ment rendered worthless. 
 
 More serious still is the fact that a large quantity of the 
 goods produced in Canada have incorporated in them some 
 design, or some device covered by patent in the United States. 
 On the other hand, but compai'atively few such products^^of 
 
 
11 
 
 United States factories would meet with such a bar to entrance 
 into this country. The Canadian manufacturer would thus find 
 his natural market cut into at all points, while he would be abso- 
 lutely prohibited from touching the trade of his rival. 
 
 .«oiii« Hi 
 
 
 .i^iijfvm ftiiAii'siij l>a:iifrpl :>ri-- '-ll/W iij^j-i' pkI' 
 
 si'.