Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Against this statement of mine I understand
that I hear some protest. I shall not stop, Mr. Chairman, to discuss
the merits of the respective opinions on that point which we on
this side and our friends on the other side of the House entertain.
No word of mine, I am sure, would change their views, and I know
full well that they will persevere in their views until the evening
of the next polling day. I am perfectly aware that the policy
has not been universally accepted that it has met in some quarters,
and I may say rather unexpected quarters, rather stubborn opposition.
It is a well known fact that at present an organization has been
created in the cities of Montreal and Toronto for the purpose
of fighting this agreement. To this I have no objection to take,
those who do this are perfectly within their rights. Neither will
I underestimate the importance of the men who have placed themselves
at the head of it. But even whilst fully recognizing the importance
of that movement, I do not think there is any serious cause for
alarm General Grant in his Memoirs narrates that during the Mexican
war he was in the army of the United States as a young lieutenant.
He was riding towards the front in company with a friend, when
all of a sudden they heard in front of them a most unearthly howling
of wolves. His friend asked him how many he thought there were
in the pack, and not wishing to exaggerate he said he thought
there were in the pack, and not wishing to exaggerate he said
he thought there must be at least 20. His friend smiled and said
nothing. In a few minutes they came in sight of the wolves and
there were just two, which had made all that noise. General Grant
observes that he thought of this incident in after life, when
he heard the noise made by some disappointed men, and he adds
they were always more numerous before they were counted. I believe
that what is true of the United States is also true of this country.
Of the objections that we have heard to this agreement some there
are which seem to me to lack singularly in force or oppositeness
others on the contrary are worthy of consideration, not from any
inherent strength, but form the circumstances that they are inspired
by a strange misconception as to what would be the result and
the consequence of the agreement which is now before us. The wonder
to me is that there should be any objections at all. Who can deny
that we have now reached a stage in our relations with our neighbors
which all parties in this House have been seeking for the last
40 years ? Who can deny that if, 40 years ago, in the early
days of this confederation, if 30 years ago, or 20 years ago,
or even 14 years ago, when we took office, it had been possible
to obtain such an abatement in the American tariff as is embodied
in this agreement there should have been universal rejoicing in
this country. The fact, Sir, cannot be denied, the evidence of
it is to be found in this that the two parties into which the
people of this country are divided, apart on all other questions,
were always agreed in the opinion that the relations which existed
between us and our neighbours were a blot on our common civilization.
There is further proof in this that these two parties in succession,
wore a good deal of shoe leather travailing from Ottawa to Washington
in order to obtain, if possible, an improvement in these relations.
Still better evidence is to be found in this that when Sir John
Macdonald introduced the National Policy in 1878 in this House
he did it as a means to an end, with a view of obtaining ultimately
reciprocity of trade with our neighbours. The other day I listened
with pleasure to my hon. friend the member for Peel (Mr. Blain)
narrating the manner en which the National Policy had been brought
into the world. He dilated upon everything, he stated everything
except this thing, the last of all, that this was, in the mind
of Sir John Macdonald, to be a means to the end of obtaining reciprocity
of trade which up to that time had been denied to us. My hon.
friend's memory was short upon this, the memory his friends is
also short and perhaps it would not be amiss if I read him and
his friends the motion of Sir John A. Macdonald, if only to show
him the immensity of the distance which now separates him that
party and its leaders of that day. This was Sir John Macdonald's
motion :
That this House is of opinion that the welfare of Canada requires
the adoption of a national policy, which, by a judicious readjustment
of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining,
the manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion ; that
such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow countrymen
now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment
denied them at home ; that it will restore prosperity to
our struggling industries, now so hardly depressed, will prevent
Canada from being made a sacrifice market, will encourage and
develop an active interprovincial trade and moving - as it ought
to do - in the direction of reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours,
so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly
tend to procure for this country, eventually, a reciprocity of
trade.
Here was the policy laid down by the party in 1878 and carried
into effect the following year, in 1879, when the Conservative
party has been placed in the office upon that very identical policy.
In the Act bringing that policy into effect, section 6, of the
Tariff Act, 1879, was embodied the following permanent offer of
reciprocity :
Any or all of the following articles, that is to say : animals
of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds,
vegetables (including potatoes and other roots). Plants, trees
and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans,
barley, rye, oats. Indian corn, buckwheat and all other grain,
butter, cheese, fish (salted or smoked), lard, tallow, meats (fresh,
salted or smoked), and lumber, may be imported into Canada, free
of duty or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this Act,
upon proclamation of the Governor in Council, which may be issued
whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles
from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty.
That was in 1879, and we are now in 1911. And what was sought
for in 1879 we may now have, and yet men there are who doubt and
hesitate and falter and who would erase thirty years of our past
history from the book. Pages after pages could be quoted from
speeches delivered by members of the Conservative party in which
the American tariff was denounced as unjust, as unfair, as hostile,
and now that it is in our power to remove the injustice, the unfairness,
and the hostility, men there are who rise against us and tell
us : Stop, proceed no further, let the injustice remain,
let the hostility remain because upon injustice and hostility
the Canadian confederation depends for its existence.
But, again, I ask, what is the cause of the change of attitude
which we see on the other side of the House ? That cause
cannot but be flattering to this government. The only reason given
is that Canada today is prosperous as she never was before, if
Canada were still in the position in which we found it when we
took office in 1896, with its vast fertile lands still unoccupied
and untilled, with its natural resources dormant as they had been
since the early days of creation, with its transportation facilities
still in the most rudimentary stage, with industry stagnant, with
agriculture unremunerative - were Canada still in that position,
I have no doubt that today the policy we are proposing would be
receive with favour and the air would resound with paeans of exultation.
But instead of being in that condition the country is prosperous,
extraordinarily prosperous, and we are told by hon. gentlemen
opposite : Do not go any further, fold your arms and let
well enough alone. Well, what is this country ? What are
we ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. But we shall go on with our policy. Our policy
is advance, and if it be wrong we shall submit willingly to the
judgment of the Canadian people, and to the punishment which ought
to be given every man who brings in a wrong policy. But this is
our policy. Our policy has been , is and will be, so long as the
Canadian people continue to place in us the confidence they have
shown us during 15 years and that policy is to seek markets wherever
markets are to be found. We are above all an agricultural people,
our chief wealth is the growth of these products of the temperate
zone, fruits, cereals and vegetables, and it is our boast - not
an idle boast, but a boast founded on actual experience - that
in cereals, vegetables and fruits we can, without exaggeration,
beat the world.
At the northern extremity of the temperate zone, our cereals have
more strength, our fruit has better flavour, our vegetables have
more delicacy than similar productions from other parts of the
world and under free competition, not barred in any way by tariff
legislation, they will displace all other products on the tables
of the wealthy. Our object to-day is to open the door of the American
market, to open the door of a nation of 90,000,000, which has
been closed to us for the last 50 years, and when we are now on
the eve of reaching that long sought goal, we are met by objection
after objection, we are deluged by a plethora of sophistry, we
are told that if such an arrangement is to go into effect and
Canadian vegetables, cereals and fruits, can cross the boundary
line and be eaten free of duty by the American people it will
be all over with the Canadian confederation, and even the British
Empire will reel and rock upon its foundations.
I stated a moment ago that the agreement we made is simply to
get better prices for the product of the Canadian farmers. This
is a proposition so obvious that I am surprised it should have
received the treatment it has received on the part of our friends
opposite. But the objections made to this agreement are not to
be found within the four corners of the same ; they are all
based upon extraneous grounds. The opposition, the Conservative
party, are against this agreement because, as they tell us, it
will produce consequences which will be deplorable for this country
- I have listened with some care to nearly all the speeches that
have been delivered in this House on this question, and those
which I had not the opportunity to hear, I have read with equal
care ; and I think I am fair in stating that the objections
made to this arrangement are fourfold. The first objection is
that the effect will be to deflect the carrying trade from Canadian
channels to American channels. The second is that it will destroy
our natural resources. The third is that it will imperil our industries.
And the fourth - and certainly not the least - is that it will
dissolve our autonomy and land us ultimately in the American Republic.
I think I have there fairly stated what are the objections of
hon. gentlemen on the other side ; and the House will perhaps
permit me to discuss them. Let us take the first - the objection
that this arrangement is going to deflect trade from Canadian
channels into American channels. This question is to be discussed
from two points of view of the goods going from Canada into the
United States for the purpose of being carried over to Great Britain,
and goods going from Canada to the United States for consumption
therein. Now, regarding the first, those goods sent from Canada
to the United States, to be carried to Great Britain, in what
way does this arrangement undo the system now in existence ?
It does not affect it one iota At the present time, goods go from
Canada to be shipped from Boston, New York, or any American port
without paying duty. In the same way American goods come to Canada
to be shipped out by Montreal, Halifax or St. John without paying
duty. A cargo wheat can leave Winnipeg for New York, and there
be discharged and put on board ship without duty being demanded.
A cargo of grain can leave Minneapolis to be taken to Montreal
and shipped thence without paying duty. This is by virtue of the
bondage privilege which has been given by each government to the
other, for the purpose of transportation. It has been in existence
for something like sixty years, and I have never heard a complaint
that it was unfair to one party or to the other. There was a time
when I felt nervous on reflecting that the bonding privilege was
simply an act of good will on the part of the United Stated towards
us. That was the time when we had no communication of our own
to the sea. But now that we have a continuous communication on
Canadian soil from sea to sea, we feel that the United States
can remove the boding privilege any time they please, and if they
do so they will suffer more than we shall, But, Sir, our condition
in that respect is absolutely safe, whether this treaty passes
or not.
Another objection which has been taken to this agreement is that
it will destroy our natural resources. My hon. friend from North
Toronto was particularly indignant on this point. He grew eloquent
and asked us what we meant by establishing a Conservation Commission
for the preservation of our natural resources and then proceeding
with ruthless hands to destroy their work. I have to say to my
hon. friend that the Commission for the preservation of our natural
resources was intended to deal not at all with questions of political
economy, but with question of physical science. My hon. friend
told us that we should preserve our natural resources for our
children and for our children's children ; but I ask my hon.
friend, what is the object of these natural resources ? Soil,
water, forests, minerals, gave been given to man by the Creator
for the use of man, and all civilized nations have acted accordingly.
Why did our ancestors leave their respective lands and come to
this country and take it from the Indians if it was not for the
purpose of taking gold of the natural resources of the country
and using them for their benefit ? The Indians were man after
the heart of my hon. friend from North Toronto - they were great
preservers of natural resources. They kept them not for themselves,
bur for their children and the children of their children. They
never used them to any great extent. The territory they inhabited
contained many minerals ; but when our ancestors came here
they found the Indians using implements made of bone and stone.
They never cultivated the soil ; they lived on fish and game.
They were in the midst of immense forests, but they never felled
a tree to build a house. They lived beside the most noble streams
in the world, but they did not use them to turn a wheel ;
they never even used water to wash. They were people after the
heart of my hon. friend from North Toronto. Our ancestors who
came here came to enjoy the natural resources of the land. Unfortunately,
they not only used, but also abused them. It is the reproach of
the while settler that if he has used these natural resources,
he has been imprudent, and has destroyed them much more wantonly
than he destroyed them much more wantonly than he has consumed
them for his own benefit. It is charged to-day against the Canadian
farmer that he is not cultivating the soil, but mining it, and
taking all the fertility out of it. It is charged against the
Canadian lumberman that he is not only cropping the lumber, as
he should, but in his operations, is destroying much more than
he uses. I think it is admitted that in this valley of the Ottawa,
where timber than they have ever carried away. Sir, the object
of the Conservation Commission is simply to instruct the farmers,
the lumbermen, and others, how to use the natural resources of
the country. But if that be the case, the Commission, which is
ably presided over by my hon. friend from Brandon, will do an
immense service in showing all our people how to use these resources
with prudence, so that they will be preserved for our children
and our children's children.
But, Sir, what has this to do with this agreement ? My hon.
friend says that our resources will be taken by the Americans.
Well, the Americans will take them if they pay for them ;
but whether they take them or not, whether this agreement goes
into force or not, the natural resources of the country will be
made use of, and I hope in a more prudent manner than they are
at the present time. My hon. friend from North Toronto need have
no further apprehension on that point.
I pass to a more important objection, really the only objection
of any consequence that I know of. The objection is that this
agreement will imperil our industries. How will it imperil our
industries ? This agreement is concerned chiefly with natural
products. There are no manufactured products dealt with in it,
except agricultural implements. In negotiation this agreement
we have adhered strictly to the terms of the resolution which
was adopted at the Liberal Convention of 1893, in which the Liberal
party declared for a treaty of reciprocity in natural products
and a carefully-considered list of manufactured products. Why
did we put this restriction in our resolution ? Why did we
state in so many words that the reciprocity which we would negotiate,
if it ever became our lot to do so, would be general for natural
products, and would be confined to a carefully prepared list of
manufactured products ? Because, Sir, there is a vast difference
between reciprocity in natural products and reciprocity in manufactured
goods. This is the reason we have acted with this prudence. I
was not present al the Conference which took place between my
two friends beside me and Mr. Knox; but it is not a great
effort of imagination to suppose that the Americans were far more
concerned about obtaining reciprocity in manufactured products
than in natural products ; but our negotiators would not
consent to any reciprocity in manufactured products, but insisted
on limiting the agreement simply to such manufactured products
as agricultural implements.
Well, we limited our negotiations to that ; and in doing
this, I know that we have not gone as far as certain sections
of the community wanted us to go. A certain section wanted free
implements altogether, but we did not think it prudent or advisable
to go that far. And why ? The reason is that the men on the
treasury benches, who are responsible, recognize in tariff matters
the wide difference between manufactured and natural products.
It is easy enough to put up a customs duty or enact a protective
duty, but it is always a difficult task to decrease or remove
such a duty. The reason is well known. It is obvious that if you
raise the customs duty or impose a protective duty you create
at once a fictitious economical atmosphere ; and if the industries
established under the tariff and under that temperature and condition,
have to face suddenly a removal of the duty, you might annihilate
in the course of one night millions of capital and reduce to non-employment
thousands of operatives. That is why we have acted as we have
done. We have gone very cautiously, with great care into this
agreement. When we came into office in 1896, we had the same problem
before us, the same consideration weighed upon us, and we tool
the utmost possible precaution - whilst giving as we were bound
to do, to the consuming public an abatement of the tariff - we
took every precaution in so doing not to injure any existing industry,
and I think we have been successful.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Although it was part of our policy to obtain
reciprocity industry. The only industry affected is fully in so
doing and have not injured any with the United States, we have
acted care that of agricultural implements, in some of which the
duty has been reduced from 17 ½ per cent. to 15 and on other
from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. It would have been pleasing
to myself at all events to have gone beyond that, but we considered
that if we did, we would perhaps not do justice to the large number
who have invested money in these establishments.
This government does not exist for the farmers alone or the manufacturers
alone on for any one class, but for the manufacturers and farmers
and for all the classes which compose our nation.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not admit that there should be any antagonism
between class and class. I do not admit that there should be any
antagonism between the manufacturer and the farmer. The manufacturer
is the best friend of the farmer, and the farmer is the best friend
of the manufacturer. Let them walk hand in hand, let each profit
by the trade of the other; but so far as we are concerned, for
14 years we have administered the government of this country on
these lines, trying to do away with collisions between class and
class trying to keep all abreast of one another keeping always
in mind the motto : Freedom for all and privileges for none. That
has been our policy and that policy we shall continue. There are
men who believe that we are going to reckelssly ruin industry
and capital. Capital is timid under all circumstances and the
man who is at the head of affairs and the ministers who assist
him, would not be worthy of the public confidence if they were
not always careful to see that capital will be safe, whenever
it is invested in any industry in this country.
Sir, the Tories of fifty years ago were made of sturner stuff.
In 1854, the treaty which was negotiated by Lord Elgin, with
Francis Hincks as his Prime Minister, resulted in immediate prosperity.
Ten years afterwards the treaty was repealed, and a high protective
tariff substituted for it. At that time, did Canadians falter
? Did they hesitate ? Were they forced into closer relations with
the United States ? Did they seek a refuge in political union
? No, in the face of that action they conceived and organized
the Canadian confederation.
Away with this timorous advice of fainthearted men, we stand by
the example of our stout-hearted men of fifty years ago. Reviewing
the situation as it is placed before us, far from sharing the
forebodings, uttered concerning what is to follow the application.,
not of a new principle but of an old policy, it seems to me there
are evidences not a few that we are now entering upon a new era
in our relations with our neighbours, that we can see already
whitening on the horizon the dawn of a brighter day. One thing
is certain, one thing cannot be denied, that the relations which
have existed between the two countries for the last fifty years,
especially for the last twenty years, still more for the last
twelve years, and which almost came to a crisis a year ago - those
relations have been a blot upon the civilization of the two countries.
They have amounted practically to a proclamation of noncommercial
intercourse between the two countries, so far as legislation could
brign this about. Another thing cannot be denied, that the man
who raised the Conservative party to the highest pitch of power
and influence, the man whose name is still revered, though his
example is not followed Sir John A. Macdonald, deprecated and
dreaded that situation. He did all that man could do to change
it and improve it. To that end he made many sacrifices and to
that end he made his last appeal to the Canadian people.
One other thing cannot be denied, that at this moment, amongst
the thoughtful men of the American union, the feeling is growing
up that the policy which they have pursued towards us for the
last fifty years has been wrong, that it has been injurious to
themselves as well as to us, that it is selfish and narrow ;
and they are prepared to retrace their steps and to enter with
us into a mutually profitable commercial intercourse. Now, when
we reach that stage, it is inconceivable that this retrograde
policy, long followed by the United States and which they are
now on the eve of abandoning, should become the Canadian policy,
and that we should follow a policy of non-commercial intercourse
with them. It is incredible, and yet we have heard that idea proclaimed
again and again in this House. We are told that unless this retrograde
policy is maintained Canada is exposed to danger, and we are threatened
that unless this policy of non-intercourse is maintained we are
doomed to annexation. Annexation ! Annexation ! Once
upon a time there was a very strong annexationist movement in
this country, and it received its first check when Lord Elgin
brought back from Washington the reciprocity treaty of 1856. From
date day to this the desire for annexation has dwindled and swindled,
until there is not a vestige of it left in any part of this country.
Once upon a time - this is also a matter of history - the Canadian
confederation should become a part of the American union. Recent
events have shown that there are still men in the United States
who harbour that hope. But there are also men who are beginning
to perceive that the republic, though its career has been glorious,
has yet many questions to solve and many dangers to face ;
and many of them are beginning to recognize that the solution
of their difficult problems would be seriously complicated, perhaps
fatally impaired, if, in the territory of the republic, was to
be included another territory as large as their own, with a people
not yet as numerous, but destined to be as numerous as their own,
with problems of their won also to solve, and whose union with
the United Stated would only add to the complications which the
American people have to meet. If my poor voice could be heard
throughout the length and breadth of this country, and if, without
any presumption, it could be heard also beyond the frontier, I
would say to our American neighbours : flattering as may
be to your pride, the idea that the territory of the republic
should extend over the whole continent form the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico to the waters of the Arctic Ocean, remember that
we Canadian were born under the flag of your ancestors, a flag
under which perhaps you may have suffered some oppression, but
which to us has been, and is more than ever, the emblem of freedom.
Remember that if you have founded a nation upon separation from
the motherland, we Canadians have set our hearts upon building
up a nation without separation ; remember that in this task
we are already far advanced, that with our institutions, with
our national entity as a people, and with everything that constitutes
our national home we are just as devoted as you are to yours.
Remember that the blood which flows in our veins is just as good
as your own, and that if you are a proud people, though we have
not your numbers, we are just as proud as you are, and that, rather
than part with our national existence, we would part with our
lives. If my voice could be beard that far, I would presume to
say to our American friends : There may be a spectacle perhaps
nobler yet than the spectacle of a united continent, a spectacle
which would astound the world by its novelty and grandeur, the
spectacle of two peoples living side along a frontier nearly 4,000
miles long, with not a cannon, with not a gun frowning across
it, with not a fortress on either side, with no armament one against
the other, but living in harmony, in mutual confidence, and with
no other rivalry than a generous emulation in commerce and the
arts of peace. To the Canadian people I would say that if it were
possible for us to obtain such relations between this young and
growing nation and the powerful American republic. Canada will
have rendered to old England the mother of nations, nay, to the
whose British Empire, a service unequalled in its present effect,
and still more in its far-reaching consequences.