Your policy is to repeal it ?
My policy is to repeal the one-sided preference.
And the amendment you offer ?
The amendment we offer is exactly on my lines ; it declares for a mutuality of preference.
Now, I want to come to the third feature of the amendment, that is, in regard to a reciprocity of tariffs. An essential feature of the principle of protection in these new and later days is reciprocity of tariffs, or, to put it in another way, reciprocity of treatment. What our relations with Germany are has been already discussed. What are our relations with our neighbours of the United States ? The hon. gentlemen opposite spoke of our friendly relations with the United States. I do not believe they are friendly ; I do not believe they are neighbourly. How do the United States treat us, and how do they treat Great Britain ? What has happened within the last few days on the question of the Nicaragua canal ? The Congress of the United States, through their Senate, undertook within the last three months to abrogate the treaty defining the position of the Nicaragua canal, and to substitute
in its place one of their own making ; and if they had succeeded in that, what would have followed ? But they did not succeed. Canada had dor the first time a true friend in the Foreign Minister of Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne has become Foreign Minister. He knows the people of the United States, and he knows the people of Canada ; and he knew that if he had surrendered to the United States in regard to the Nicaragua canal, and had allowed the Senate of the United States to interpret the treaty to suit themselves, three weeks would not have gone by until the Senate of the United States would have passed another Act defining the boundary between Alaska and Canada. That is the way the United States, if they were powerful enough, would settle every question between us and them. They are not liberal toward us ; they never have been. They have not been friendly toward us in connection with their coasting laws. They have passed alien labour laws against Canadians. In every way they have been an unfriendly nation. And all the time we have been giving them our markets. Now, the day has come when the people of this country believe in reciprocity of treatment in the mat'ter of trade as between the Americans and ourselves. I myself believe in tariff for tariff.
I believe in the lex talionis-an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There is no other way to bring the Americans to then-senses and make them respect our rights in connection with our fisheries and the Alaskan boundary and dn other respects. There has never been the slightest trace of magnanimity in their attitude towards us or any other smaller country. They are bulldozers, men 'of sharp practice, they take every advantage of an opponent, and yet the United States is the most vulnerable country on the face of the globe to-day England could bring the United States to time in an incredibly short period. We import from the United States many things which we could just as well make at home, and England imports many things from that country which she could just as well get elsewhere, and which she could get probably better in her own colonies. And the day she announces to the world, and especially to the United States, that such will be her policy, on that day the American farmer will be brought to his senses and will put the screws on the tail twisters who live in the eastern states of the union. You will never bring the Americans to time until the American farmer finds that he is not going to get into the English market with his wheat and corn and pork and other products. Just as -soon as England recognizes the fact-and she is rapidly coming to recognize it-that she is buying from the United States many things which she can make at home or get elsewhere, you will find Uncle Sam on his knees asking Eng-
land for some kind . of reciprocal trade arrangement.
I thought you were all for protection.
Mr. MACLEAN! So I am, and I say that Uncle Sam is in a position to turn England down just because England is a protectionist and has been foolish enough to give free access to the Americans into her markets, although Uncle Sam puts up a high barrier against the admission of her goods into his territory.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), the other night, spoke about the position of England to-day, and depicted her as engaged in a life and death struggle with the United States and Germany. Well, the struggle is between free trade England and protectionist United States and Germany, and if England had the sense to adopt a protective policy, she would soon put an end to that struggle. We, however, are in a position, irrespective of England, to resort to reciprocity tariffs, and I believe that the sentiment of the Conservative party in this country to-day is that the only way to put a stop to our enormous purchases of goods from the United States, which we can manufacture in Canada, is to adopt the policy of tariff for tariff and preference for preference and nothing else. A man named De Witte, who is Finance Minister of Russia, has found out the value of such a policy in the trade relations of his country with the United States. He brought the American republic to time only the other day simply by imposing a retaliatory tariff. And to-day the manufacturers of the United States are doing, what the right hon. gentleman charged our manufacturers with doing at Ottawa-they are going to Washington and asking for tariff tinkering. The strongest representations have been made to Washington to abrogate the countervailing duty on sugar, and these representations are simply due to the course taken by this Finance Minister of Russia, the greatest living exponent of protection to-day. who has found a way of bringing the Americans to their senses, and that is by giving them tariff for tariff. Nations all the world over are finding out that the only way to bring a hostile rival to time is to extend to him the same treatment as he deals out to yon-fair treatment for fail-treatment, rough treatment for rough treatment, prohibitory tariff for prohibitory tariff.
The United States have a reciprocity clause in their Tariff Bill, and this great protectionist country is enabled by that clause to make trade relations with other countries. We should follow their example. The Liberals have repudiated in this House the efficacy of this doctrine of reciprocity of tariffs. * The right thon. the First Minis-1 ter spoke on this question as follows :
1829 MARCH 21, 1901 1830
The tariff of the people of Canada is to be determined by the people themselves, not from any consideration of the tariffs of the United States or of other countries, but simply from the consideration of what best suits the Canadian people. Further on, he said : Let us face the situation bravely like men, let us resolve that whatever may be the American tariff, we shall be guided only by the measure of what is our own interest in this respect. There the right lion, gentleman begs the question. The tariff that is in our own interest is a tariff that will keep out American productions and give work to our own people. We are bringing in a hundred million dollars worth of their goods every year, a great deal of which we could make better at home, and the only way to keep out these goods is to adopt a similar tariff to their own. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) spoke of reciprocity, and the good time enjoyed under that policy down in the province of Quebec, and he hoped that we would again obtain reciprocity with our neighbours. Let me simply quote what his leader said last year in this House : I have no right to speak of what took place in the commission, but I have a right to refer to what is now in the minds of the Canadian people, and if we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity. Mr. CLARKE. Who said that ? Mr. MACLEAN. The Prime Minister. I wish now to quote the language of a distinguished authority, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), on this question of reciprocity of tariff. That hon. gentleman went down to Boston last week and made a speech there, and, I find, in the Hamilton Times of March 18th, this report of his speech at the Free Trade League dinner in Boston. The hon. gentleman said: Canada May Reciprocate. I do not hesitate to say that if the repressive and ill-liberal policy which has characterized the United States in their dealings with Canada, especially since the passage of the Dingley Bill continues to be enforced, Canada, failing to secure reciprocal trade, will be likely to adopt a reciprocity tariff of the most drastic character. The greater part of the $62,000,000 worth of manufactures that she imports from the United States can be manufactured in the Dominion, and an increase of duties from her own standard of 25 per cent to the American standard of 50 per cent, would go far to secure this result, and the favourable influence this scale of duty would have upon trade with the mother country could be obviated by the adoption of the rebate of 40 or 50 per cent on the duties in the case of any country that admitted Canadian natural products free of duty. The question as to what the future relations of the English-speaking people upon the North 581 American continent shall be is one of vast importance. No person who took pride in our race and antecedents and hoped for its happiness and prosperity in the future could be indifferent as to this matter. The trade policy of the United States towards Canada for the last thirty years or more had been one which was not calculated to draw the two peoples together in bonds of amity and friendship. Its practical operation was viewed by the great mass of the Canadian people as unjust, its character was considered narrow and ill-liberal, its tendency has been repellant and its influence bad widened the breaches that existed between the two countries, originated animosities and creating as far as its influence extended, a ^feeling that the reverse of that which the friends of the English-speaking race could desire. He trusted that we might be upon the eve of a change in this respect, and that the overtures which Canada was prepared to make to the United States, and had, indeed, been making for a quarter of a century past, might receive adequate'and proper response from the great republic. Notv, there is what a distinguished member of the Liberal party said on this question of reciprocity of tariffs-that our twenty-five years' efforts to get better trade relations with the United States have failed, and we must resort to reciprocity of tariffs. And I agree with him. And the other day in a discussion with some gentlemen interested in the lumber trade, he is reported to have said : And if the trade relations between these two countries are ever considered again, I believe that the influence that would be exerted upon these negotiations by the imposition of a lumber duty would be a most salutary and a most powerful one. What we need, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the United States, is to try and secure their respect, and we can never secure their respect unless we have a proper care for our own interests We can secure that respect by caring for our own interests in' Canada, in the same manner as they care and protect their interests, and if we decide to protect the great industry in Canada as they have decided to protect that industry iu their own country, we will secure the respect of the Americans; we will secure the operation of influences upon negotiations which will be of a very important character, and in addition to that, we will do an act of justice to our own people. Now, if men in this country who profess to be free traders and to uphold free trade doctrines have felt obliged to retrace their steps and take the position now taken by the bon. member for North Norfolk, what have these lion, gentlemen to say when they decline to discuss the question of reciprocity of tariffs and when they say it is not in the public interest. To my mind, as I have said, It is in the public Interest, and It is the only way in which we shall get fair treatment from the United States-and the sooner we come to the doctrine of reciprocity of tariffs the better. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the other planks of our platform: they might as well come to this one also and put in force not only against
Germany, but against the United States. When we do that, we shall get fair treatment and we shall compel the Americans to respect us, to respect our boundaries and to respect our fisheries. And in no other *way shall we ever be able to compel them to do it.
Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) apply that to all countries V
If it was essential for Canada to apply it to all countries, I certainly would do so. I am a believer in the maximum and minimum tariff. There are a hundred ways in which you can get even with a hostile nation-there are a hundred weapons put in your hands in these days- minimum and maximum tariffs, reciprocity of treatment, drawbacks, bounties and so on. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will give me a specific case, I will give him a specific answer. But it is clear to me that the people of Canada, the government and the legislature of Canada, ought to be in a position in some way to bring the Americans to time and compel them to give us fair treatment and, if they do not give us fair treatment, to deny them the advantage of our markets.
Does the hon. gentleman mean that he would put the same duties on the goods coming from another country that that country puts on ours ?
As I told the hon. gentleman, I would find a way to meet the antagonism of a hostile country. It would not necessarily be by imposing reciprocal duties. Perhaps the increase of our tariff on some articles by 10 per cent would do it.
I mean, in the case of Great Britain, would the hon. gentleman go in for reciprocity of tariffs '!
I have already discussed that.
And what is the hon. gentleman's answer ? Would he have us put the same duties upon British goods that they put upon ours ?
Gould we not, as the hon. member for North Norfolk suggested, give them the preference that we now do, or even more-40 or 50 per cent ?
But the hon. gentleman spoke of reciprocity of tariffs ?
I propose reciprocity of tariffs as against the United States. But we could give England a preference of 50 per cent in order to trade more largely with her and to bring the Americans to time. Why, that is the government's own plan, it
is the principle upon which they are working now.
I have endeavoured here to-day-and I am approaching a conclusion-to expound the doctrine of national policy and to show how that national policy can be improved and advanced. We on this side believe in national policy, we believe in protection, we believe in mutual preference and we believe in reciprocity of tariffs. But we also believe that the national policy that is suited to Canada can be extended and expanded into an Imperial policy for Great Britain and her colonies as against the world. That is the new doctrine to-day. Let me repeat it-that the national policy that is suited for Canada can be extended and expanded into an Imperial policy. And that Imperial policy, using these engines of national policy which I have enumerated here to-day, can be employed to build up Canada, to build up Australia, to build up England, to secure markets for the mother country to cause the colonies to become greater, to make Great Britain independent of the hostile nations by which she is surrounded. The right hon. leader of the government said the other day that he believed in that great free trade that would yet come between England and her colonies. Can it come in any other way than by the mother country and her colonies uniting in an Imperial policy for some kind of fairer or freer trade amongst themselves as against the outside world ? It can mean nothing else. Therefore, Canada is giving the keynote to the empire in this amendment- namely, that what we call national policy in this country can be so expanded as to apply to the rest of the empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite say it cannot come, they say that England will never come to protection. I have given some reasons why I think the people of England are moving on that line. And they will learn something from Canada, they will learn something from this debate. And the moment the English people see that there is something in it, the moment they see that the empire can be united as against outside nations, they will make some sort of preferential trade between us and them, and they will find some means of closing their markets to outside and hostile nations. Now, in what does statesmanship consist ? I wish to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this matter. Statesmanship consists in compromising in some way antagonistic principles. There is a principle of free trade, and there is a principle of protection, and each is advocated by certain doctrinaires. But the statesman finds some way of compromising these principles and of doing something for his country by that compromise.
But England, which lias been upholding the doctrine of free trade, and we who are upholding the doctrine of protection, each in our own way, can find a common ground.
What is the common ground ? What will he the cry of the empire from one end to the other ? It will not be free trade, it will not be protection, but it will be fair trade under nil Imperial fiscal policy. Fair trade is the keynote, fair trade is the cry in England today, fair trade is the cry in Canada to-day; fair trade is involved in every one of those principles which have been laid down here by the opposition. We want first of all to be fair to our own industries, to give them the protection they need. In the next place we want to be fair as between ourselves and the mother country, to give her something and to get something in return. Most of all we wish the empire to be united, to be joined to its colonies, to be fair in its trade with all the world, and all the world to be fair in its trade with the mother land.
Now, in conclusion, I wish to say that Canada has led the empire in many respects. Canada has been given credit for doing many things that were not thought of in England, but are now being worked out. I believe Canada to-day is playing a most important part in the history of the empire by showing that this principle of a national policy, which has been so successful in Canada, can also be employed, in some of the many ways which I have enumerated, by the people of Great Britain. I believe the empire can employ many of these measures and work them out, and thereby make itself stronger and lead the world, instead of losing her supremacy, as she is now doing. I believe she can thereby make herself great and hold her own in the fierce struggle of the nations which is the characteristic of the day. It is not the brotherhood of man that is the characteristic of humanity to-day. it is a struggle for existence between the nations. Let me refer to a paper read recently by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Mills) in this present government. He said the industrial struggle is so great that only four or five nations will emerge out of it: Great Britain will be one, the United States will be another, Germany will be the third, Russia will be the fourth, and perhaps Japan will be the fifth, but all the rest must go under. This struggle is on, an industrial war the like of which was never known in the history of mankind, is on to-day. In this great struggle only that nation will survive that looks after its own interests, that resorts to these various protective measures that I have mentioned. Only that nation which will combine its industrial energies and develop them on the best possible lines, will come out of that struggle. It may be that Great Britain will have to go down, she will go down if she maintains her free trade doctrines and allows all outsiders to raid her markets. She must go down if she allows her iron and steel industries to pass into the hands of the United States, if she allows her woollen industries to go down, as they are going now. although we have given some of them
back. But if she allows her great industries to be raided by an armed camp of hostile nations, who are becoming themselves intensely industrial, England will have to go down. But I believe England is coming 'to her sober senses, the doctrines of the Cobden school are being questioned. I believe England to-day is about to retrace her steps, and in some respects to resort to the principles of protection, to resort to the principle of a national policy, and in that way to renew her vigour and fortify herself for the great industrial warfare that is now beginning throughout the world.
Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).
Mr. Speaker, I hope that while I sit in this House, I shall not offer myself as an antagonist to anybody. But it seems to be the custom in this debate for speakers to follow each other from opposite sides. I do not consider myself equal to the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me (Mr. Maclean) in knowledge of the abtruse doctrines which he has expounded to us. I do not purpose to follow him through the labyrinth into which he has entered this afternoon, nor to attempt to refute, even if I could, the arguments and theories which he has advanced. Perhaps many of those theories would require a whole evening to discuss and elaborate. I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has shown evidence of so much research. It does him infinite credit to have taken the pains to investigate the various features of the fiscal policies which we are discussing. I think that all the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate on the other side have bestowed much study on the trade returns, and have evidently resorted to sources of information outside of this Chamber.
Another thing which I was pleased to notice was the fact that the hon. gentleman who has preceded ne has studied the Scriptures. The subject which he treated this afternoon is one of deep interest, that was the subject of the scapegoat. If I remember the story aright, the scapegoat was set free in the wilderness. The hon. gentleman says that the industries of Canada are the unhappy scapegoat. Well, if he will let them free according to the divine ordinance concerning the scapegoat, I do not think we will have any cause to quarrel with him. If he will allow the industries of Canada to be free to pursue their own course and to work out their own destiny, we will not quarrel with him.
Now, the hon. and learned gentleman who offered the amendment, the leader of the opposition, referred to the old cynic, Diogenes. He told us that one day Diogenes went through the streets of the city where he lived with a lighted lamp, and when people asked him what he was looking for, lie replied that he was looking for a man. Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman was reminded of the story when he looked around
among his own followers, and saw the straits they were in. But there is another incident in the history of Me great philosopher which it may be useful to refer to. On one occasion he paid a visit to the philosopher Plato. Plato had imported, which was as great a heresy, perhaps, in those times, as it is now, a very elegant Persian carpet. Diogenes, to show his contempt for it, stamped vigorously with his feet and said : I trample on the pride of Plato. Monday, I think, was the visiting day of Mrs. Diogenes. Plato returned the visit. Diogenes had got out his old carpet, and displayed it to Plato in order to shame him because of his luxury and refinement. Plato said to him : I see the pride of Diogenes through the holes in his carpet. Now, the lion. Minister of Finance has brought out his carpet, and has laid it down, all woven in silver and gold tissues, and for ornament in the middle of it, he has placed his $8,000,000 surplus. The learned gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell), whose[DOT] talents I recognize, and the learned gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), looked into the old dust hole of the Liberal-Conservative party, drew out the old tattered carpet of the national policy and commenced to beat it. The learned gentleman himself took a sturdy whack at it. the kon. member for Pictou took another beat at it with a pretty long pole, the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace) vigorously applied the lash to it, and my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) this afternoon has given it a fresh beating: but, there is no use, because all that will come out of the old national policy carpet is dust, with a liberal assortment of microbes.
Was it a Liberal assortment of microbes ?
Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
Yes, a liberal assortment of microbes. My learned friend from York will excuse me, as my metaphors are not as legitimate a subject of warfare as were the metaphors of the hon. Minister of Finance the other day. In regard to the speech of Mr. Bell, I wish to say a few words. He will excuse me for mentioning his name, and hon. gentlemen opposite will excuse me for mentioning names, because I am not familiar with the constituencies from which they come. I mean no disrespect to them, but I mention their names simply to indicate the gentlemen to whom I refer. Now. the learned gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell) admitted that we had this surplus of $8,000,000. He could not dispute that very well, but he admitted it with the best grace he could. When he could not exactly deny that there was a surplus, and I think he had no intention of denying it, he tried to excuse the surplus and to minimize the effect of it in the country by saying that there had been surpluses before in the days of Sir Leonard Tilley, and he found fault, not with the Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
surplus so much, although he intimated that there was some inaccuracy in the calculation, and claimed that there was an excess of money collected from the country by means of the tariff ; but, because of the use that was made of the surplus. And here there is a legitimate cause of dispute or of a difference of opinion. He said that Sir Leonard Tilley used the surplus for the reduction of the debt, that Sir Leonard Tilley had also the Riel rebellion to provide for. as well as the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that, having applied sums for the payment of this service and for the reduction of the debt, this was a precedent which should have been followed by the Minister of Finance. Now, there may be cause for difference of opinion on this subject. I do not think that the circumstances will be repeated. Under the same conditions, no doubt, the argument of the hon. gentleman might legitimately apply, but when conditions are different the argument cannot be made to apply. I do not think this governemnt will have another Riel rebellion in the west, and if I can judge from the sentiments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) who has preceded me, and the sentiments expressed by other hon. members in the House, the present government will not repeat the bargain which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. They will not pay $25,000,000, or grant the numbers of acres of land which the late government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I beg the pardon of the hon. member for Pictou when I state that Sir Leonard Tilley and the Conservative government did not build the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe that they gave a subsidy towards the building of that railway. I believe they made a donation of land, but they do not own the Canadian Pacific Railway at this moment. It may be that the Canadian Pacific Railway own them, but, from the expressions I have heard lately, and the opinions entertained on this side of the House, I do not believe the Canadian Pacific Railway will own this government. The hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon laid down some of the essential features of protection, and he gave them with a certain amount of elaboration and in detail. My idea of protection is. that it is the whole of the inhabitants of the state giving, by their influence and by their authority, support to all the industries of the state, and support to all the employment of the people, and to do that in such a way as will employ the energies and resources of the people. Now, we believe that result is best attained by a revenue tariff. Protection, simply and in the abstract, is not the question which we have before this House. The theory of protection is not one which has been employed by the previous government or will be employed by this government. What took place under the national policy ? The national policy was
the greatest pretense which had ever been exhibited before any civilized people, the greatest hypocrisy, the greatest deceit. What did it profess to do '! It professed to protect the industries of the people. It professed to afford assistance, either positively or negatively, to all the industries of the country, and to all the employments of the people, whereas it did nothing of the kind. It did not assist all the industries of the country. There were a few industries selected that were made the subjects of special care in the measure of protection afforded, but the other industries of Canada were left, like the scapegoat in the wilderness, to find refuge in free trade, or to support themselves on the scant herbage of the deserts of eastern lands. That was the national policy. The people of Canada in 1895 were as sick of the national policy as the people of Canada would be sick of the proposals of my friend from York (Mr. Maclean) if they could be carried into effect. What' was the cause of the success of the Liberal party in 1896 ? It was not the racial cry, nor that it attracted the national spirit of Quebec, nor that the Liberals were sufficiently numerous to overcome their opponents ; but it was because the people of Canada were tired of the national policy and distrusted what would become of the country under that highly artificial system. A number of pronounced Conservatives believed that the national policy had worked its purpose and run its course, and rather than it should be allowed to wreck the country they voted for the Liberal government to turn down the national policy and to revive a revenue tariff. That is the reason for the return of this government to power. It was because the so-called friends of the national policy abandoned it and left it to its fate. Now, this national policy which has been lauded by gentlemen on the other side of the House to such an extent, was originally called the American policy. After the conflict between the United States and England, in 1816. the war party in the United States, under Mr. Crawford and Mr. Calhoun, launched what they called the American policy. In 1824 it was introduced into the House of Representatives by that distinguished American statesman Henry Clay, who, in his speech, set out all the arguments in favour of protection as well as any of these gentlemen opposite could do. And Homy Clay enforced his arguments with all the acrimony he could against England. He had been an ambassador to Ghent and had seen the power of England. His country had grappled with the power of England in war, and now the Americans were prepared to grapple with her in peace by means of tariffs. This policy which in Canada is dubbed the national policy was dubbed by Henry Clay and his associates the American policy, and these Americans intended by it, to reduce the pride of England. They intended by it to
share in the trade of England, and to participate in all the advantages which would accrue from the growing commerce of the world. One of the principal articles which was aimed at under that American policy was the woollen trade. Henry Clay pictures it in its decay and tells how they were to grow American wool, how they were to put a high duty on British imported cloths, and imported wool, and how they were going to drive the British manufacturers out of the markets of the world. That was in 1824, but where is Great Britain with regard to the woollen trade in 1900 ? Three-quarters of a century after Clay introduced his policy, Great Britain holds the woollen trade of the world, despite the efforts of the United States and despite their great American policy. And when these gentlemen opposite speak of their desire to aid the suffering mother land ; when they speak of their desire to participate in the struggles and the triumphs of the empire ; when they tell us that her interests are ours, and that England and Canada must stand or fall together, I ask them to look hack to the arguments of Henry Clay when he inaugurated has policy for the purpose of crippling Great Britain, and I ask them to answer us : If these considerations apply to the present exigencies, and if they will not, before they propose such a policy for the future of Canada, pause, and remember that this policy originated in the United States with the intent to endeavour to cripple the trade of England. The learned gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) made war upon a metaphor used by the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister said that perhaps we had seen for the time being as great an era of prosperity as we shall enjoy, that maybe we were on the crest of the wave, that perhaps that prosperity might be temporarily checked, that perhaps we might go on afterwards to a period of expansion ; hut in the meantime it might be wise to be cautious. The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) made war upon that metaphor and he said that if we were on the crest of the wave it was the experience of those who had made a sea voyage that when the ship is on the crest of the wave she sinks down rapidly afterwards. Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) may have been on the crest of the wave, but I would suggest to him that if the ship went down afterwards he will at least admit that he was half seas over on the occasion. The gentleman (Mr. Wallace) went on to enlarge at great length on the disastrous appearance of the country, and he stated that although we really appeared to be prosperous there were signs on- the horizon that that apparent prosperity would soon come to an end. I think the reasons that the hon. gentleman gave for forming that conclusion were insufficient. I think that the leader of the opposition, if he applied his logical and mathematical mind to the subject,
would say that they were conclusions formed on insufficient evidence.
What did the hon. gentleman give us as proofs on which he made that deduction ? I do not believe that from his standpoint he could have made a more powerful address than he did. The subject was well considered ; a great deal of his speech was on the spur of the occasion, and was given with that force which personal encounter evokes ; he made, as he ought to make on every occasion, from his knowledge and experience in this House, a deep impression ; and it was a pity to see a practical mind, an official mind like his, deluded by the insufficient evidence on which he formed his opinion. He may have had a great deal more in his mind, and he may have given us the result without stating the evidence; but while he stated that the trade in animals was decreasing and that the fisheries were decreasing, he did not give the amounts they were decreasing.