March 8, 1911

LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Messieurs

Ministerial.

Brodeur,

Templemam,

Emmerson,

Pardee,

Stratton,

Low,

MoGiverin,

Guthrie,

Bickerdike,

Sinclair,

Chew,

Roy (Dorchester), McMillan, , Turcotte (Nicolet), Ethier,

Delisle,

Gervais, .

Lanctot (Richelieu).

Opposition.

Haggart (Lanark), Magrath,

Fraser,

Smyth,

Gordon (Nipissing), Wallace,

Osier,

McCarthy,

Rhodes,

Crosby,

Chisholm (Huron), Lewis,

Bristol,

Clare,

Armstrong,

Cowan,

Doherty,

Sproule. I

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   P. C. KNOX,
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. LLOYD HARRIS (Brantford).

Mr. Chairman., I think that the question before the House and the country is perhaps the most important question that we have had to consider in Canada since confederation. I have one of the hardest tasks of my life allotted to me to-night, for the simple reason that I find I am not able to support the government on this important proposal. I have reached this conclusion with very considerable regret. It is not easy, I think every one will admit, to cast off party ties on an important issue of any kind, and I deeply regret the fact that I have been forced to the conclusion that I cannot support the government in this proposal, because I do not think the proposal is in the best interests of Canada. Ever since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made his announcement in this House, I have been endeavouring to get a sane and safe view from a Canadian standpoint as to the effect of this proposal on our present national life and on the future development of the national life of Canada. When the announcement was first made, I had a very strong impression that it wa3,.a departure from a policy which I had thought had been the policy of the Liberal party, but I also thought that it was a departure which would lead us into ways and in directions which _ would not he for the. future best welfare of Canada. At that time I was apparently alone on this side of the House because the announcement was greeted, I thought, with considerable enthusiasm on the part of members on this side, but since I find that the views I formed at that time are shared very largely by very many people throughout the country. I do not consider that all the brains of Canada are confined within the four walls of this room. I think there are men engaged in large undertakings who are just as good Canadians, who have just as good, and perhaps a great deal better opportunities of sizing up the real conditions in Canada and the real facts of an issue of this kind as we have in this House.

I have purposely refrained from making any public utterance on the question until I had an opportunity of listening to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I listened to him yesterday with a very great deal of interest and with a very great deal of pleasure. I think I might say that I have always been an admirer of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I have been very glad indeed to serve under him, because I think that he has done as much for Canada as any man whom we 154

have ever had here, and I listened yesterday with perhaps more admiration than I have ever had for him before for the simple reason that he made certainly a magnificent speech; he aroused the enthusiasm of our friends on this side of the House. He covered every aspect of the subject, excepting the one important one. I was glad to see the right hon. the Prime Minister very frank about this, because he frankly admitted that he was not a business man. I must confess that the only training I have eveT had has been along business lines and perhaps I look at things from too practical a standpoint, there may not ibe enough sentiment in my makeup. However, I think what we need in this country is a good practical business consideration and discussion of a measure of this kind before we allow it to become law. I had intended saying a few words on the amendment, which was introduced by the hion. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) before the recess; I thought an opportunity would have been given for the members to speak on that after dinner.

Apart entirely from the economic features of this case, I have four good and sufficient reasons, at least they are sufficient for me, for opposing this measure. First of all I do not think that this government has any mandate from the people. The main arguments that have been advanced in favour of this measure have been the fact that this is an historic policy, a policy of both parties in Canada for the last 50 or 60 years. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in making his announcement reviewed the history of the different negotiations which have taken place between Canada and the United States with reference to reciprocity between the two countries. Other speakers have done the same thing. I am not going to weary the House by going into the details of these different negotiations, but all the speakers who have touched upon the subject, have brought down the history of these negotiations from 1854, the time of the first treaty, to 1896. Since 1896 I do not think that any case has been made out. For my own part, I can only say that unfortunately I was. absent from Canada from 1889 to 1900 and have only been familiar with Canadian conditions and politics in the last 11 years, and I know positively that in that 11 years reciprocity has not been an issue with either party in this country. I have no mandate from the people of my own constituency to support this measure. If I go back to my own constituency and tell the people exactly what I think of the effect this is going to have on that particular constituency, and say that I have supported it, I do not think they will have any use for me in future.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   P. C. KNOX,
Permalink
LIB

William Chisholm

Liberal

Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).

Have you a mandate to oppose it?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   P. C. KNOX,
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

That is am easy question to answer. A man always has a mandate to oppose anything he has not a mandate to vote for. I have been a little surprised that no authorities have been quoted on this subject. I have been looking up the question, and I find in. a work entitled ' The Government of England,' by Lovell, who, I believe, is a recognized authority, under the head, ' The Doctrine of Mandate,' the following:

Another sign of the times is found in the doctrine, now sanctioned by the highest authority, that parliament cannot legislate on a new question of vital importance without a mandate from the nation. The theory that the individual representative is a mere delegate of his constituents, so that he is hound to resign and submit to re-election if he changes his views, has long been a subject of discussion; but the idea that parliament as a whole exercises a delegated authority in the sense that it is morally restrained from dealing with questions that have not been laid before the people at the preceding general election would formerly have been regarded as a dangerous political heresy. Yet during the recent agitation in regard to fiscal policy, Mr. Balfour, while repudiating the suggestion that the existing parliament, having been elected on the single issue of the South African war, ought to be dissolved when peace was made, refused to grant time for a debate on free food on the ground that it would he constitutionally improper for parliament to act on the question until it had been submitted 'to the people at a general election, and that it would he unwise for the House to discuss a subject on which it could not act. I

I think we are wasting time in discussing this question, because we have not any mandate from the people of this country with regard to it.

My second reason for opposing it, is the method of doing it. If the government had a mandate, the method would have been quite correct, but the government having no mandate, the very fact that we in this House, who have been elected by our several constituencies to represent the people of this country, have never even been called into consultation, that we have never been asked to express our views on a measure which is perhaps the most radical departure in policy that we have ever had in this country, and the fact that two men went to Washington and made this arrangement and have come back to this parliament and aTe practically trying to force this measure through the House, is a method which I, personally, cannot support. Let us consider for a minute the procedure in the case. It has not been brought out in the debate, I think, up to the present time, what tppIIv has happened. As I under-Mr. HARRIS.

stand it, a year ago representations were made by President Taft through Mr. J. A. Macdonald of the Toronto f Globe,' to this government, that he found himself in a difficult position, owing to the Payne-Al-drich tariff having in it a clause which required him to penalize Canadian importations into the United States. I do not know whether it is known or not, but I have heard, and I think it is quite correct, that this clause in the Payne-Aldrich Tariff was copied from the Canadian tariff. We had such a clause in our tariff for some dime. We had it several years ago when Germany found it necessary to- .attack us in its tariff, and what was the answer that Germany got? We simply put the Act into force as it was, and we said to Germany: Very well, if you want to penalize us, we will penalize you, which we did; and I think that action had the support of everybody in this country. And when the United Slates made representations that it was necessary to have legislation put through at Ottawa to save the president of that country, I think we should have given them the same answer that we gave to Germany. Now, what consideration has been given to this arrangement? I have been very much interested in these negotiations ever since they commenced; and as far as I can find out, the two ministers returned from Washington on a Wednesday, and at that time apparently the other members of the cabinet, or at least those that I spoke to, knew no more about the conditions of this compact than I knew myself. The council evidently met on Thursday for an hour-if I am wrong in this, I hope I shall be corrected; this proposal was evidently considered by the council for one hour, at three o'clock this House met, and at 3.30 the hon. Minister of Finance came in and laid the agreement before the House. "I am ..only speaking for myself, but personally, I do not think that any man should be asked to support a measure which is forced through in that way, and which means so much to this country.

The third reason which I have for opposing it, is the one to which I attach the most importance. No donbt all of the hon. members of this House have had the same experience that I have had while these negotiations were in progress. I had letters and interviews, and when I went to western Ontario, I met a great many people who expressed their anxiety that something might happen which would effect them or their interests adversely. To one and all of such requests for information, I said: You need have no fear whatever, because there will be no revision or alteration of the tariff of thisi country without a thorough investigation. I want to state my reasons

for having given that -answer, -and if I make a longer quotation from ' Hansard 5 than I would like to do, I hope the House will bear with me. The right hon. the Prime Minister, on the second day of this -session, speaking in the Debate -on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, referring to his visit of last summer to the west, made this statement-:

The people of the west are now asking for a reduction of duty on certain articles which they consume. That is a very proper subject of investigation, and we intend to investigate it- Bnt at the proper time. My hon. friend (Mr. It. L. Borden) is very impatient. We who have been in office for a certain number of years know that if there is one thing more than another essential to the business prosperity of a country it is stability of character. And my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who has special charge of these matters on his side of the House will not dispute this, although when in office he was delinquent on this point-he tinkered with the tariff year after year. But with the warning before us given by his course, we were particularly careful not to fall into his error. It has been our policy to have a revision of the tariff periodically, hut not year after year. I stated to the people of the northwest during my recent trip that it would be ou-r duty to consider their requests and to deal with them in the spirit in which we have always dealt with requests from the people. And I repeat that now. I stated, and my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) quoted my words, that we would have a ccmmission of investigation before we undertook a revision of the tariff. I noticed that that-evoked a cheer on-The-part of hon. members on the other side of the House. And may I be permitted to say without offending my hon. friend, and with every hope that he will pardon my pride in the matter, that the parts of his address that were most applauded were his quotations from my speeches. I trust that this flattery will not make me vain; I mention it only as a fact which is within the knowledge of all who heard the hon. member's speech. The statement made by myself and quoted by the hon. gentleman that we would have an investigation by commission before we altered the tariff called forth a special cheer from hon. members opposite. Does any hon. member on the other side take issue with the promise I made? Would any of them advocate rushing into a revision of the tariff without previous investigation?

That I consider a statesmanlike utterance. I was perfectly satisfied1 with it. I took it as a distinct and definite promise, and I made other promises on the strength of it.

The fourth reason that I have, is one which may not perhaps appeal to some members of the House, but I do not think we should look upon this reason in too light a way. It is that it has hurt the pride of Canadians. Some of my hon. friends laugh.

I think a glance over the history of Can-1544 -

ada since confederation will prove my point. For many years we felt that we were absolutely dependent on the United States, and we had these pilgrimages to Washington, for the purpose of negotiating free trade relations. But every time that we went wearing out our shoe leather, as one hon. gentleman has put it, what was the result? We simply met with one rebuff after another. Every time we knocked at their door, we were refused admittance; and the load we had to carry in Canada for a great many years seemed greater than we actually could bear.

Had we got, however, what we wanted at that time, the whole course of Canadian history would have been changed. We would not have had a country such as we now have. Our maritime provinces would have been connected by trade and commerce with the eastern states; Ontario would have been dealing entirely with the state of New York and the adjacent states and in the Northwest of Canada, I doubt if we would have built a railway around the north shore of Lake Superior. But not having been able to get what we wanted, we were forced to initiate a policy of our own, and that was to take off our coats and seek to bind this country together and create a nation. We have done this. We have done perhaps what no other country in the world has accomplished. You all know what it means for a man when he feels he has done something. It makes him a better in every respect. One of the good things That has come to us in recentr yeaTS is The knowledge that we have a separate and distinct entity. The word ' Canadian ' stands to-day for something. Years ago it did not stand for much. At present, however, it means that Canadians have done something that they have accomplished things, and that means a great deal to a people just as it does to an individual.

I claim that this measure-the method of doing it, and the measure itself-is one that will have far reaching consequences on Canada perhaps more than anything that has ever happened. I give these four reasons for opposing it, which perhaps will not be considered sufficient by my hon. friends on this side. But for these four reasons alone I have made up my mind that I cannot support the government in this measure. I propose now to deal with its economic features, and shall have to do that in my own way. Each one approaches all these questions from his own standpoint, but I think every one will agree that we should approach the discussion of a measure of such importance as this in a sane manner. I cannot say that some of the arguments and remarks of the advocates of this measure are made in that spirit. I was Teading in the Toronto ' Globe,' of March 4, an account of a meeting at Woodstock the other

night at. which the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) was present. The article is as follows:

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   P. C. KNOX,
Permalink

VOICE OF CANADIAN TRUST.


In this agitation against the agreement we find the beginnings of the subtle and skilful manoeuvrings of the Canadian trust. We are being warned to-day to beware in this arrangement that we do not deliver ourselves into the hands of the American trusts, but I sometimes think that we hear in this warning the voice of the Canadian trust speaking not so much for the Canadian people as for its own selfish interest. What is the first principle of a trust? It is monopoly of tha market, complete control of the sources of supply. What is one of the most effective weapons in combating that influence? It is the opening of new markets, the giving co those who have products to sell other and wider markets in which to make their sales. I wonder if the so called Canadian trust was responsible for the unanimous resolution of the Berlin Board of Trade condemning the proposal.


LIB

George Gerald King

Liberal

Mr. KING.

Will my hon. friend permit me to say that the Berlin Board of Trade did not pass the resolution attributed to it, according to a statement made subsequently by the secretary of that board.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   VOICE OF CANADIAN TRUST.
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

I think I got the information in both cases from the Toronto * Globe.' I did not read that, however, to in any way belittle my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. What I read it for was to contrast the utterances of one of our Canadian ministers with those of one of the American ministers, which were delivered a few days ago at a public meeting in Chicago. At a dinner given by the Chicago board of commerce on the 15th February, at which one of the speakers was Mr. James J. Hill and Mr. Knox, Secretary of State for the United States, the latter spoke to this large and important gathering of Chicago's best business men on the question of reciprocity as follows:

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   VOICE OF CANADIAN TRUST.
Permalink

BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.


This function could cease now and here without a moment of speech, and still go down in history as almost epochal, because when has it occurred that a matter of such grave economic significance as the one which is now not only being considered by the Con-giess, but by the people, has gathered together such an assemblage as this, men whose hands are upon the throttles of great enterprises for the development of our country, and who are worth more to its ultimate and its present prosperity than a thousand times as many politicians going up and down the land demanding that something shall be done for fear something will happen. The point I was making was this, that there is a great deal of opposition to this measure throughout the country, not confined to any particular class. The opposi-Mr. HARRIS tion to it is not restricted by any means to the business, manufacturing, financial and commercial interests, but it also extends to the farmers.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

I have been interested in following several of these ballots which have been taken by different newspapers. In one Canadian Agricultural journal which 1 was reading to-night, I find that the number of votes throughout Canada apparently in favour of this measure was about 1,000 and against it 600, so that the opposition to it is not, as some hon. members would have us believe, coming from the one quarter. But even if it did come from one class, every Canadian has the right to make up his mind on any important question, and in so doing he shoulld not be subjected to the imputations of unworthy motives. We have in Canada all classes of people. We are not purely and simply an agricultural country. Manufacturing is a necessity. At least I think that we require manufacturing industries, but if it be not the policy of the Liberal party to have manufacturing, I suppose I shall have to remove myself from Canada. But I submit that one man in one industry in Canada is just as good as a man in another industry. We are all Canadians working together for the general benefit.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to all the arguments which have been put forth in defence of this measure. I listened with great pleasure to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the other night-I always listen with pleasure to the hon. member because he always says something good, something of interest. But, in reading his speech next day, I found that it was one of his characteristic speeches. He quoted Peel, and Cobden and Gladstone. I am interested, as much as anybody possibly could be, in the free trade history of England. The men who inaugurated the policy of free trade in England were doing exactly what we at the present time in Canada are trying to do. They were trying to frame a policy which will make England a great country. Their policy, I believe, was the best that could possibly be pursued for that country at that time. But the fact that that policy was a good thing for England seventy or eighty years ago is no reason why we should accept it as the policy for Canada in 1911. We have to study the conditions of our own country.

I have given a great deal of thought to what I suppose is the real policy of the Liberal party. When the present government came into power, the existing policy was one of protection to all industries. That policy, I think all will' agree. has been retained. It

has been changed to suit the conditions arising from time to time-I do not believe in a hard and fast policy of any kind. Added to that fiscal policy, however, the government immediately inspired a new faith in the future of Canada. They undertook a vigorous programme of development of our natural resources. We advertised in a large and comprehensive way, and in the proper places, our potentialities. We undertook in a large way additions to our transportation facilities. We have followed a policy of encouraging agriculture, the growing of products for our available markets; and, what was more important, a policy of transportation facilities which would carry our surplus products to the best markets of the world in the best possible condition. The government granted the imperial preference. They made very large expenditures on agriculture, in order to give information to the farmers of this country of the best methods of growing and putting up their products so that they might command the highest price. This, I consider, has been the policy of the Liberal party, and that policy has been eminently successful. I can remember twenty-five or thirty years ago-though I am a young man yet- when the farmers came on our market in Brantford and sold chickens at 10 cents each; to-day they are getting in the neighbourhood of 75 cents. They would sell butter at 10 cents to 12 cents a pound, we are paying 30 cents to 40 cents per pound to-day on the Brantford market. Eggs were sold in those days from 8 cents to 10 cents a dozen; now we are well off if we get them at 50 cents to 60 cents at certain seasons of the year. What is the reason of this? The first reason is that we have built up a consuming population in Canada which is the best market our farmers have, and any surplus products can be shipped and delivered and sold in the best markets of the world where they will command the highest prices. We have done all this without any assistance from the United States. We were forced to do it on our own account. Now we have got the home market, and, what I have always felt as to the future policy of this country-and this is the crux, I think, of the economic situation in connection with this measure-is that our agriculture should be put in such shape that nothing should go out in its. crude condition. I do not want to see the wheat of our Northwest go through United States channels. If it must go out of Canada in its raw state, I want to see it go through Canadian channels. But I want to see as much of it milled in transit as possible. That is building up our own country. I do not want to see that second1 grade wheat they have in the west sold on the market at all

-it is not going to give us a good name for our Canadian wheat. I want to see the meat industry established in such a way that such wheat should go out of the country in the shape of dressed meat, bacon, hams, and other similar products. In the province of Ontario, where we are at present growing $200,000,000 worth of field crops,-first, I want to see that raised to $1,000,000,000,-I do not want to see one dollar's worth of it go out of' Ontario in its crude state, but in its most highly finished condition. And that, I think, is an ideal worthy of any Canadian, and a policy that any paTty should be glad to maintain.

A great deal has been said to prove that the effect of opening up our market in this country to ninety millions of people in the United States and to other nations which can send in their products here on the same terms as the Americans can, will have no effect on the farm produce of this country. First, I wish to take up the question of our own, production and export. Many hon. members who have spoken on this subject, ridicule the home market. They want to know what the home market is worth anyway. Well, here are some figures which I think will be of interest to the members of the House. In the year 1908 the estimated value of the field crops of Canada was $432,534,000. In the Trade and Navigation Returns for the year ending March 31, 1909, the total exports of field products from Canada for the year- which would be the crop to which I have just referred-were $82,718,926, leaving a total of $349,815,074, which was consumed in Canada. In other words, for every $1 of field produce raised in Canada, 80 cents worth was consumed and only 20 cents worth exported. That is what all this noise is about- to get markets for that 20 cents worth. Now, included in the exports are the following which have gone through a process of manufacture-I wish to show how closely agriculture and manufacturing must come together in this or any other agricultural country: [DOT]

Flour $ 7,991,517

Indian meal 4,818

Oatmeal 535,963

All other meal 58,104

Cereal foods 1,380,507

Bran 858,900

Canned berries 204,246

Total $11,064,055

Those products all went through a certain form of manufacture. I use those figures for comparison. In the following year, 1910, the amount was much larger in every way so far as crops in Canada were concerned. The total value of the crops was $531,690,000. The exports were $102,747,694; consumed in Canada, $229,342,406, or exactly the same percentage as the year be-

fore, notwithstanding the fact that the value of the crops was $100,000,000 more than the year before. Our home market increased in one year from $349,000,000 to $429,000,000. The total amount of exports which had undergone a partly manufactured state, was $19,866,653 as against $11,000,000 the year before. That is what our home market consumed in field crops alone. Now in animals and their products, in 1909, the exports were $52,026,710, and of that sum $38,144,107 went out of this country in the form of finished products, leaving only $14.000,000 which went out in the raw condition. I will submit the following tables in support of the remarks which I have just made: i

BEPORT OP TRADE AND NAVIGATION FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH 31st, 1910.

Exports. 1909. 1910.

Animals and their products $ 52,026,710 $ 54,696,630

Agricultural products.. 82,718,926 102,347,694Minerals

37,257,699 40,528,998Fisheries

13,332.871 15,760,391Forest

39,867,387 47,688,256Manufactures

28,711,944 40,331,467Totals $253,915,537 $301,353,436

In the item ' animals and their products ' are included many articles which have gone through a process of manufacture, viz.:

1909. 1910.

Butter .$ 1,575,877 $ 1,010,274Cheese . 20,398,482 21,607,692Furs, dressed . 69,077 35,371Furs, undressed . 2,504,878 3,680,949Grease . 197,299 171,363Glue stock . 7,239 8,872Hair . 147,407 172,583Hides . 4,034,343 5,430,591Horns and hoofs . 5,459 8,924Honey . 1,188 621Lard . 35,883 133,268Bacon . 8,415,247 6,431,359Ham9 . 422,851 416,886Game . 3,330 6,244Tongues . 3,356 264Canned meats . 195,917 193,479Condensed milk . 91,388 541,372Tallow . 34,880 16,279Totals .$38,144,107 $39,866,391It has been stated that the favourednation clause would have no effect on

prices in Canada for farm produce. It is a very peculiar thing, but it is a fact, that every country in the world with the exception of Denmark, which is known as an agricultural country, has high protection. I have schedules here showing for several of these countries the duties on the different articles of produce going into them. As I interpret the Act, Australia is not a favoured nation country, I do not think they get favoured nation treatment that other British colonies get.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

All British possessions.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

As I interpret the Act, I do not think Australia is included, New Zealand is.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. EDWARDS.

In answer to a question I put the other day, the Minister of Finance said that all British possesions came in.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

They do not come in under the favoured nation treaties, but under a policy which the government has announced.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

The policy which Canada has always adopted is not to give to a foreign nation any advantage which is not given to the whole British Empire.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
LIB

Lloyd Harris

Liberal

Mr. HARRIS.

Then Australian produce comes into Canada free of duty.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink
CON

Herbert Brown Ames

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. AMES.

If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will read the clause in the original resolution which refers to that. It will be found in the motion moved by the Minister of Finance on the 26th of January to go into Committee of Ways and Means:

That the advantages hereby granted to the United States shall extend to the United Kingdom and the several British colonies and possessions with respect to their commerce with Canada.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   BUSINESS KNOWS IT WANTS RECIPROCITY.
Permalink

March 8, 1911