progress
would be made in the way of
tariff revision there. I believe it, Sir, be
cause it was my good fortune in the month
of January, 1893, more than a year ago, to
be present at the dinner of the Board of
Trade in Toronto and there I heard those
words from my right hon. friend the Prime
Minister. Speaking of the changes in pub-
lic opinion which had taken place in the Į
United States he continued in this way :

the people, when on the 24th of April, at the first of these meetings in the city of Montreal, it was found that the conferences, instead of taking place in the light of day, were to take place in camera obscura. There was to be no publicity. Great was the astonishment, greater was the disappointment, and greater yet the indignation, because, Sir, in this democratic country of ours, the people have a natural aversion to, and suspicion of everything, whatever it may be, which does not come out in the light of day. The people were suspicious, and protests were loud and general; indeed the protests were so loud and so general, that my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, could not ignore them, and had to refer to them. He had to take some notice of them and he had to do the best he could to explain his own position with regard to the same. This he did at a banquet tendered him in the city of St. John. Then, Sir, the reason he gave why these meetings were held in secret, was this: That if the meetings had been public he would have had to listen to set speeches upon free trade and protection, and by havinformation. Well, I am bound to say to my hon. friend that this excuse deceives no

It may be that changes have taken place in the public mind since, and that far greater progress in the direction of tariff reform will be made, but let us wait and see the measure which is to be the result of the great change of opinion and the great change of parties. We are not driven to seek our example and our guidance in the statesmen of that country, but I should be foolish if I did not admit that every country is bound to take lessons by the experience of its neighbours and to be controlled to some extent in the formation of its tariff and regulation of its trade by the condition of the tariff and of trade in other countries. Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear. Mr. LAURIER. Gentlemen opposite cheering the meetings in secret, he would get more the statement, and from that I understand that that was the reason. Then why has not one but himself. He knows, as well as I do, the statement been openly made? Last that when he was having these interviews year some reason had to be given by gen- with the different business interests of the tlemen opposite why the revision of the Dominion, he was not doing his own busitariff was not proceeded with. The Prime ness, but he was carrying on the business of Minister had occasion to speak, yet he never the country at large. He had to pass judgrepeated that language before the House, ment upon his own judgment; and to tell He took a back seat on that occasion, and us simply, that these meetings did not take then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance place in the light of day because he was came forward and stated: That indeed the averse to be lectured on protection or free tariff could not be proceeded with with re- trade, is to tell us that which he may begard to the revision of the same; not believe, but that perhaps others may take with cause it was wise to take the example from our neighbours, as had been stated by the Prime Minister in Toronto, but because he was not sure that there was a necessity for a revision of the tariff, because he did not know that there had been such an expres sion of opinion in the country, and he wanted to know from the people themselves what was their opinion upon that subject. He decided that he and his colleagues, during recess would go from plaec to place, meet the people and the various business interests, and see what was their opinion and their wish with regard to the tariff; whether it should be kept entire; whether it should be formed, or whether it should be simply modified. That was the reason given last year, and when Parliament rose it was well understood that the Ministers were to go from place to place to interview the people and to ascertain their views with regard to the modification of the tariff. As it was natural to expect (and it is nothing extraordinary) there has been a great curiosity amongst the people to read, and to hear from the representatives of the various business interests themselves what was their opinion in regard to modifications in the tariff. Great, therefore, was the astonishment of

re

a grain of salt. I do not question, however, the sincerity of my hon. friend when he made the statement that the sole reason which he had, not to meet the people in open day, was his aversion to set speeches on free trade and protection; but, Sir, if my hon. friend convinced himself on that, I may tell him that he did not know his own mind. He did not know his own mind as fully as his followers; he did not know his own mind as fully as the reporter of the Montreal Gazette' who gave some account, as far as he could give, of what took place at these meetings. The reporter of the Montreal Gazette' was at the first of these meet

ings at Montreal. He could not go in, but he was at the door and he saw the various persons who went in, and he informed the public through the paper that the Ministers had been interviewed by delegates from the following business interests: "Boots and shoes, leather shoe findings, tanners, wall paper manufacturers, dry goods importers, wines and liquors, spruce lumber, and pulp." The reporter could not report what was going on but still he guessed pretty accurately what was going on, as we may judge by the heading which he put on his article. And what was the heading?

It was a very

REVISED EDITION.

that the farmers had no grievances whatever. Then they divided the job. The two Controllers, the Controller of Customs and the Coutroller of Inland Revenue, took the province of Ontario; the Minister of Agriculture took the North-west Territories; and I am bound to say for the Minister of Finance, who displayed great activity, that he took the whole Dominion for his operations. Well, the Controller of Inland Revenue and the Controller of Customs proved to the farmers of Ontario that they were blessed with prosperity. It was true, they did not see it, or feel it, or enjoy it; but it was there all the same, and they would feel it if they would have full faith in this paternal Government. As to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, when he came to the North-west, he was bound to admit that the farmers were not in a very prosperous condition, but after all he told them it was all their own fault. What if they were taxed on their lumber? What if they were taxed on their binding twine or their agricultural implements? What if they were taxed on everything they consumed ? If they were taxed, it was their own fault. The panacea was not in the tariff. It was on every hand: mixed farming was the thing that would save them and lift them out

The

M. de Villèle, imposed frequent and heavy taxation on the people, and the people sometimes remonstrated. One of the comic papers represented the Minister armed with a long knife, and wearing the traditional white apron and cap of a chef, surrounded by a brood of chickens. He spoke to the brood in this way: Chickens, with what sauce would you prefer to be eaten? But, they said: We do not want to be eaten at all. Oh, said he, you are begging the question; I am consulting you as to the sauce you would like to be eaten with. Our Minister of Finance did not consult the chickens even on this important point, but told them that the sauce was to be protection, and allowed them no choice. Well, Mr. Speaker, after all those interviews, the Government were just as much at sea as to what they should do with regard to the tariff as they were before. When they came back to Ottawa, they apparently did not know any more than when they went forth, because as soon as they got back they were followed by long processions from the very places they had just visited, composed of the same Minister had gone to feel their pulse, and men they had just been interviewing. now they came in their turn to feel the of the slough in which they were struggling. his pulse and to steady his nerves, and, pulse of the Minister. They came to feel I am proud of my profession when I see what a good Minister of Agriculture a law-above all, to exact the pound of flesh; and. yer can make, and how much of agriculture judging from the words the Minister has put a lawyer knows-much more than a farmer in the mouth of His Excellency, they have indeed obtained their pound of flesh. There would imagine. For instance, how was it The system possible that the farmers of the North-west is to be no reform whatever. is to be continued, which has prevailed for could, of themselves, conceive that the remthe public exchequer, but into private purses some years, of levying taxes, not to go into of imposing duties, not with the view of raising a revenue, but with the view of taxing one portion of the community for the benefit of another. Ottawa (Sir James Grant) said a moment My hon. friend from ago that he expected that the Government would, in their wisdom, provide protection for all classes. I am sure they will. have read the speech which my hon. friend the Prime Minister made a few days ago in this city. In that speech he proclaimed himself much more of a protectionist than I had even supposed he was. Why, he is going to protect all kinds of labour, even professional labour; he is going to protect even the lawyers and doctors. Let me read to you his words:

I

edy for their evils lay to such an extent in their own hands. They never could have thought of it. But as soon as a lawyer, who happens to be, at this moment, Minister of Agriculture, points out mixed farming as the remedy, they exclaim: How stupid we were not to have thought of that. But I am bound to say that the Minister of Agriculture did not act fairly towards his predecessor, the hon. gentleman who to-day represents the city of London (Mr. Carling), for that hon. gentleman said not only that mixed farming was the panacea, but also that two-rowed barley was the thing that was going to save us. Our present Minister of Agriculture forgot the two-rowed barley. Now, as regards the Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster), he went from the east to the south, and the west, and everywhere he went he proved to the farmers that they have no grievances whatever. He lectured them on the beauties and advantages of protection, and then he preached to them a great sermon on the necessity of people paying their taxes. He said it was the duty of all good Christians, and especially good Christian farmers, to submit to the evil of taxation. Why, my hon. friend was not as generous as that other Minister of Finance of whom I read a moment ago. A French So, if we are to have protected labour among Minister of Finance, after the Restoration, the provisions, I denounce the First Minister

Now, our position is that what promotes the welfare of the industrial classes is good for all; that the prime object is to promote the labour of the country, and to see that the work which has to be done This is the goal we should is done by Canadians. endeavor to reach. Whether it is the labour of the farmer, the mechanic, the professional man, or the manufacturer, the grand aim we should keep in view is that labour is the basis of the welfare of the country.

realize the fact is in agricultural products. The great bulk of our exports-we all This is the basis of our prosperity, and I admit that of late years our exports of agricultural products have increased. Under such circumstances there should be more prosperity amongst the farmers. There is not the prosperity among the farmers one would be led to expect from the increase of their exports. Why ? sow and reap and sell, but they do not toil Because the farmers for themselves; they toil for monopolists. It is the old story-"Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes. ficatis apes." Like the busy bees they toil, but some robber comes and takes away their profits. this is the condition of the country at the This is not prosperity, but, Sir, present time, and if hon. gentlemen talk of prosperity under such conditions I take issue directly with them. Ottawa (Sir James Grant) compared our My hon. friend from status as a nation with the status of the American nation. It is true that the Am

to the mover and seconder of the Address, and import of coin and bullion. Therefore who are both physicians. Physicians are not there has been no increase in trade whatprotected yet, but the lawyers are well taken ever. So, whichever way you regard it, the care of. Judging by the reports of the Speech from the Throne is not satisfactory Auditor General there are some lawyers in in this respect. But, suppose that our exthis country who are protected to an almost ports have increased, what is it we sell most fabulous extent. But where is the need of of? reform in the tariff? The Speech from the Throne tells us, the hon. member for Ottawa (Sir James Grant) tells us, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lachapelle) tells us, and every gentleman opposite, no doubt, will tell us that this is indeed a most prosperous country. I agree that Canada is blessed as few countries are. We are blessed with a cold and bracing climate; we are blessed with fertile broad acres; we are blessed with hills and valleys, with forests and prairies and lakes and rivers, the like of which the sun in its course never sees elsewhere; we are blessed with wealth along our briny shores and in our hills and rocks. Nature has done much for us, but what have we done for ourselves? We are told, and hon. gentlemen opposite profess to believe, that Canada is a prosperous country. But one million of Canadians have fled from their prosperity, and to judge of our condition we have to take some standard of comparison. No doubt, if we compare our fate with that of some na-ericans are not as prosperous a people totions, we may be deemed prosperous. The day as they have been in the past. fellah in the valley of the Nile who brings have been going through a crisis. They But what up his scanty crop under the protection of a is the cause of this crisis? just Government, deems himself prosperous Protection is the primary factor in the preProtection. when he remembers that fifteen years ago sent crisis in the United States. everything he produced was seized upon by been the determining cause in that crisis? What has a swarm of petty officials, who kept him in Is it not a fact that the determining cause in beggary. If we come to more civilized the crisis in the United States has been the nations, there was a time in the history of silver legislation ? France when that most humane king, Henri an application of the principle of protection And what was that but IV, stated that his object was to bring about in a law which compelled the American people such a state of things that every peasant to buy silver for circulation at a higher price would be able to put a fowl in his pot every than the ruling market Sunday. No doubt, the French peasant who was price ? That the origin of the crisis was able to put meat on his table once a now which prevails in the United week was deemed prosperous; and if we Therein is a lesson for us. Our legislation States. measured our prosperity by that standard, is better than theirs in matters of finance, we are very well off. To-day the French but in our fiscal policy we follow closely upon peasant brings up his family on ten acres of the lines of American legislation. We must land, and if by dint of persevering labour take warning from what has taken place in and continual denial he is able to add one or the United States, and, if we wish to avoid two acres to his original lot, he is considered the crisis which ther are prosperous; and if that measure be applied through our duty is, at the earliest possible now passing to us, we are prospering. But if we measure moment, to reverse our system and go back our prosperity by the standard which ought to more sane fiscal legislation. Now, Mr. to rule in Canada, if we measure it by the Speaker, there is in the Speech from the standard which has been laid down by the Throne, apart from the legislation we are hon. gentlemen themselves, to tell us we are promised, a paragraph which has been comprosperous is a mockery of common sense mented upon at some length by my hon. and an insult to the intelligence of the friend from Ottawa (Sir James Grant) and people. Prosperity! Why, we are by my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. that our trade has increased with Great Lachapelle), the award by the Behring Sea Britain. As I understand the Trade Court Court of Arbitration. Both these hon. and Navigation returns, it has in-gentlemen have spoken in very glowing terms creased more with the United States. of that award. In this they have reflected, But we are told by the press of the hon. I am sure, the ideas which were set forth gentlemen: No, the trade with the United States has not increased, because most of the increase of that trade has been in the export

told

by the Prime Minister when he came back from Europe after the Court of Arbitration had finished its labours. The Prime Min

sealing, the taking of seals in the open sea.
All nations have established domestic laws
to protect certain kinds of game and fish.
It is well known that when they came be-
fore the court all their legal pretensions
were brushed aside by the court, in fact, so
far as I have been able to read the proceed-
ings, the whole of the contention between
the American Commissioners and the British
Commissioners was as to the making of
these regulations for the protection of the
seals, and in this I affirm that the preten-
sions set up by the Canadian Commissioners
were altogether set aside by the award of
the court. In the first place, it is a well-
known fact and this will not be denied--
that the first contention of the British Com-
missioners was that the regulations should
apply not only to pelagic sealing but also
to the slaughter of the seals on land. There
was much reason in this and the point was
put forth with great ability and great force
in the British case. This is what was said
in the British case, which, I believe, was
largely prepared by my hon. friend the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries :
No such regulations-
Says the case-

can be just or effective unless accompanied by
corresponding and correlative control over the
islands and over the time, method and extent of
slaughter upon them by the nationals of the United.
States of America.

ister, when he returned from Europe, spoke in terms, I will not say of extravagance, but I will say of exuberant, praise; in fact he was so exuberant in his language that-I say it without meaning any offence to the hon. gentleman-I cannot but think he said more than he really meant. I do not think that in his heart of hearts he quite considered our success so complete as he would have us believe. With regard to the hon. gentleman I am somewhat in the position of my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Davies, P.E.I.)---I am not overburdened with confidence in the Prime Minister in political matters, still I respect his opinion. But when he tells us that we have reason to be proud and to be satisfied with our success before the Court of Arbitration, I oppose to his opinion the opinion of a gentleman, who in matters judicial always commands respect-I oppose to the opinion of the Prime Minister the opinion of the Minister of Justice of Canada, who was a member of the court, and who dissented from that award in its most important particular, and, for my part in this matter, I prefer to follow the opinion of the Minister of Justice rather than the opinion of the First Minister. What was the origin of the trouble between Canada and the United States with regard to these Behring Sea fisheries? It was the danger of the extinction of seal life in the northern seas. Up to the year 1886 the Canadian sealers and the American sealers had prosecuted their labours without injuring one another. But, in 1886 the American authorities took violent, arbitrary and unwarranted proceedings against the Canadian sealers to oust them from the northern seas. The ground for this, as alleged by the American authorities, was that they had jurisdiction over Behring Sea because, as they said, in the language of international law, it was a mare clausum, that it was a sort of American lake over which the Americans had just as much authority as they have over the Sir, notwithstanding the cogency of this waters of Salt Lake in Utah. This conten- argument, the court of arbitration came to tion was so preposterous that the negotiaa different conclusion, establishing regutions between the Foreign Office and the lations, not for the slaughtering of seals on Department at Washington were not carried land, but simply for the slaughtering of seals far before it was practically disavowed. in open water. Our pretensions, I am bound Then they fell back upon the contention that to say, were rejected against the dissent of they owned the seals, whether found in the Canadian arbitrator, and therefore I canthe open sea or near the shore, because the not conceive why the Prime Minister should seals were born in American territory. Then, want the Canadian people to rejoice at such failing in this, they fell back upon the claim a reward as this. Now, there was another that they had a right to protect the seal life contention, a second contention, advanced and to take measures to prevent the indis- by the Canadian commissioner, to the effect criminate slaughter of the seals. This that the regulation with regard to pelagic latter proposition was really the whole bone of contention. It was known and admitted that the seals had become scarce in conparison with what they had been in former times, both those that teemed in the seas and those that rooked on the islands. The Americans carry on their operations on land, while the Canadians carry on theirs upon the waters of the open sea. The first object of the Americans was to prevent pelagic

To enforce regulations which would shut out British subjects at certain seasons and from prescribed areas from the pursuit of pelagic sealing and at the same time would leave the slaughter of seals on the islands to be pursued according to the mere will of the lessees of those islands or of their

Government, would be to establish regulations onesided in their character and unjust and therefore ineffective for the object in view, namely, the preservation of seal life.

sealing should apply simply to Behring Sea, and should not apply to any part of the Pacific Ocean south of Behring Sea, and the award, instead of accepting that contention, established that the regulations should be binding not only in the Behring Sea but in the Pacific Ocean south of the Behring Sea, as far back as the 35th degree of latitude, that is to say, as far back, I understand, as San Francisco. This award was also made,