Mr. T. CHISHOLM (East Huron).
That is a very interesting story which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) who has just taken his seat has told us about the two trees. It was a very pretty little tale for children, and possibly will have some influence on hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, but I might point out that there is one thing which he failed to note and that is that the tree he described as not being very flourishing has at any rate no graft about it. As I cast my eyes to the other side this afternoon at the close of the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and saw the downcast looks and the thoroughly disorganized appearance of hon. gentlemen opposite, I could not help thinking that they must find themselves in a very perilous, discouraged condition indeed, and I wondered if it was possible by any means to revive their spirts. They have, however, put up this evening one of their ablest men. Perhaps the speech of the hon. egntleman who has just sat down is about the best tonic they could have had under the circumstances; and that hon. gentleman, after his very able effort, surely deserves to be rewarded by a portfolio at a very early day.
Referring to the beginning of this debate, I may say that I listened very attentively to the speeches made. I was very much pleased with the effort of the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. McGi-verin). And I may add that I was as well pleased as any one on this side could be expected to be with the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. gentleman struck, I think, a very good and a very tender note. His reference to our departed King Edward VII. and the loyal way in which he expressed himself in connection with our present sovereign, King George V., were particularly gratifying to me.
I was pleased that this should come at this particular time, especially from him because I think it would be well if we should let the world outside understand that Canadians are not just quite so bad as some people on both sides would try to make others believe they are. I think the loyal part of the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska deserves thanks even from this side of the House.
And why should not the hon. gentleman speak in this way? He is a French Canadian ; why should not he be loyal to King George V.? When that Sovereign is the direct descendant of William the French Norman king who came over in 1066 and took possession of the English Crown, and the descendants of William have reigned there ever since. William and his nobles carried the French language with them, and it was practised not only in the King's own court but in other courts of England for hundreds and hundreds of years. If it had not been for the foolishness of King John, Normandy and Britain would still be under the same sovereign You must remember that the Norman French and the other French people are not the same race at all. The Normans are descendants from the North men and have m their veins the daring blood of the sea kings. For many centuries they fought shoulder to shoulder with the English speaking people who lived in Great Britain against their common enemy, the French. And when Jacques Cartier left St. Malo on the 20th of April, 1534, he left Normandy, and at that time the whole of Normandy had not been conquered by the French ; the city of Calais was still under control of the English. And we have even to-day.the Channel Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and 'Sark, a remnant of Norman territory, where the people speak French, and there are no more loval subjects of our beloved King George V Those who left Normandy and came to the banks of the St. Lawrence and. took up their habitation there found themselves, in a short time, once more under a British King. But that British King was their legitimate and hereditary sovereign. I am not going to allow myself to -believe that the French 'Canadians of this country are not more loyal than would be indicated by what is being said of them in some parts of this Dominion.
Now, I had intended to say something, on the navy question but we have had so much talk about that question that it would toe as well, perhaps, if I said nothing about it. But I desire to say a word about one little point that was brought up to-day. A reference was made to the boundaries of Canada by the hon. member *for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who said :
The reason simply is because the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario or Quebec.
,, I a.m 1101 a lawyer. I can understand that it would be right to say that a man did not own a horse if he had sold it, but I do not see how he could possibly be justified in saying that he had never owned it. It seems to me that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthriel made this statement either he was splitting fine legal Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
hairs or was altogether in error. Under the Quebec Act of 1774, the northern boundaries of Canada were defined by the British parliament. The boundary was stated at that time to be the watershed between the rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence system and those flowing into Hudson bay. Now, 'when King Charles II. made the grant to Prince Kupert and other gentlemen adventurers of the territory of Hudson bay, he stated they were to have that territory that was watered by the rivers that entered into Hudson bay. Therefore the whole northern watershed of Ontario and Quebec belonged to the Hudson Bay Company. We know that in 1869 the Canadian government purchased the Northwest territories from the Hudson Bay Company. Did not this include the northern watershed that now belongs to Ontario and Quebec? Why, I find in the year -book for 1904, issued by the government, this statement :
July 6. Order in Council enlarging the boundaries of the province of Quebec to the shores of Hudson bay, and adding 118,450 square miles of territory to the province.
How could the hon. member for South Wellington state that the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario and Quebec? This territory added to the province of Quebec was larger, much larger, than the whole province of Manitoba. Now, the people of the Northwest have a right to complain. They say that at this time Quebec and Ontario have their public lands. Take the case of Quebec, for, while one will do as well as the other, some confusion might arise if Ontario were taken as the exemple because of the dispute as to the boundary. Quebec is given a large territory including minerals, timber, and everything and given it out of territory that was purchased by the Dominion government from the Hudson Bay Company. They can manage it, receive the revenue from it, have all the benefits of it. And at the same time the people of the northwest provinces are not allowed to have their lands. There are lands in the province of Saskatchewan aggregating about a million acres not yet alienated by the Crown. That land is very valuable. We see by reports that have come in from government surveys and others recently that a great deal of that land can be cultivated, even to the very northern part of the jprovince, and what can not be cultivated is exceedingly valuable, either as mineral lands, timber lands, or, particularly, pasture lands. And the waters of that country are full of fish ; I suppose there is no country in the world whose waters have a greater stock of fish than those of that territory.
Now then we have another complaint from the Northwest. Not only have they not received their lands, but they complain
that 'the pivotal province of the Dominion, the province that regulates the unit of representation, has been increased by 118,000 square miles and that under that arrangement, in a short time the unit of representation may so increase that the smaller provinces down by the sea will be deprived of their representatives in parliament ,and they are complaining of it now. The same effect will be felt in the western provinces, who are likely to find their representation less than it should be in consequence of the addition of this immense territory to the province of Quebec.
Another question that is mentioned in the speech from the Throne is that of reciprocity. Now reciprocity with the United States is a thing that I think we should consider very carefully. Personally, I would favour reciprocity if I thought we could get a fair deal. The-very word ' reciprocity ' implies fair dealing, even-handed justice, with no selfish or dishonourable advantage taken by either party. In fact, reciprocity has been defined as a condition of things in which equal rights and mutual benefits are given and received. . Now according to that definition, the very first step towards reciprocity between Canada and the United States should consist in an equalization of the present tariff rates between the two countries, if the United States will only do this, and thus put themselves in a position to begin negotiations on a proper basis, I feel satisfied that Canadians, irrespective of party, will support any just and reasonable tariff arrangements which this government may make. But unless a perfectly fair and equitable preliminary arrangement is made, it appears to me that the present Dominion government should either stop short in their negotiations, or at least proceed very guardedly. They should remember what Canada has suffered in the past from the unfairness and greed of their sharp and selfish southern neighbours. For example, in a very recent fiscal year Canada allowed $104,000,000 worth of United States goods to come into this country absolutely free of duty, while our big uncle across the way reciprocated by allowing less than one-half that amount of goods to enter his country free. Again, Canada purchased $164,000,000 worth of dutiable goods from the United States, this was reciprocated by the purchase of only $75,000,000 worth of dutiable Canadian goods by the United States during the same time. Then, Canada charged only a fraction over 24 per cent as an average duty on the portion of the United States goods that were not allowed to come into * this country free. This was reciprocated by President Taft and his friends by not only charging an average duty twice as high as the Canadian duty, namely, 48 per cent, but also by actually standing with a big club in the shaDe of the Payne-Aldrich tariff, threatening that they would put 25 per cent more on top of the 48 per cent if Canada did not still further reduce her already comparatively low duties on goods coming from the United States. This was a double injustice, in so far as it was partly directed against Canada's tariff preference for the mother country. To say the least, it was a very mean and ungrateful way to return Great Britain's kindness for allowing the free entry of hundreds and millions of dollars worth of United States goods into Britain's markets. One would have thought that a strong Canadian government would have resented this brutal and tyrannical conduct on the part of our neighbours. I may remark, however, that the present Canadian government is not noted either for strength or wisdom especially when they deal with the United States.
Now, how can we expect to have good results from negotiations that are to be conducted, in the near future, by the same parties who made the last treaty? Talk about Canada being a nation. Why, Sir, Canada's government dare not say their souls are their own. We made lately a little trade treaty with France, and the United States found fault at once, and demanded similar privileges. I presume the present Canadian government were taught a lesson at that time that they are not allowed to manage their own affairs without consulting their big neighour to the south. I think they would be careful not to do anything like that again without consulting our neighbours. Why, Sir, even our Canadian Railway Commission appears to be under the influence of the United States, for not only is Canadian farm produce sidetracked on Canadian railways after we have given them hundreds of millions of dollars in the way of bonuses and grants, but similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed to have the right of way and to get a freight rate of less than one-half. Surely Canadian 'farm products should be allowed to come over subsidized Canadian rails without paying a freight rate which is twice as high as similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed that charged on agricultural products coming from the United States. Again, a Canadian has to pay three cents a mile to ride over our subsidized railways in the Northwest, while an American citizen can sit in the same seat with him-I have seen it myself-and pay only one cent a mile. I say that our Railway Commission, or our government, should interfere to prevent such bare-faced discrimination against Canadians in their own country. It may be thought that I am speaking rather harshly. But it is1 well to Temember that the present is not the only Canadian government that has been over-reached bv the cool chicanery of Yankee diplomats. In 1871 Canadian fish
were to be given free entry into the United States markets in return for certain concessions granted to American fishermen in Canadian waters. The United States showed their ideas of decency and honour on that occasion by first monopolizing and alm'ost ruining our fisheries, and then evading their share of their treaty obligations by putting such an extremely heavy tax on the boxes or packages containing Canadian fish, that the free entry of the contents were of no advantage. By the same treaty it was arranged that the United States should give Canada the use of her canals in return for their use of ours. They, however, succeeded in wording the treaty in such a peculiar manner that although they had the full use of all our canals, when we came to pass our barges through their canals they were not allowed to carry any cargoes. Again, we were to have the privilege of conveying wheat in bond from Collingwood and Owen Sound to Ogdensburg, but just as soon as the United States found that we were exercising that right they gave notice and cancelled that part of the treaty. At the present time Canadian fish oil is supposed to go free into the United States, but the duty is so high on the barrels that our fishermen have no advantage under that provision. The packages and boxes containing other commodities are so heavily taxed that there is very little advantage under any concessions that are made. Both countries are supposed to give free access for anthracite coal. Canada does, but the United States does not. Canada's standard for anthracite is the usual one, but the United States will allow no anthracite to come into their country free of duty that does not come up to a certain standard of fixed carbon, and they have deliberately placed that standard so high that it is said that no anthracite in the world can meet it.
Then, take the question of copyright. Canadian publishers going to the United States have to set up the type, print and bind their books in the United States. American publishers do not require to do these things to get the same privileges in Canada and I would compliment our Minister of Agriculture upon the fact that he is about to put that right. I know he has taken this question in hand, I am pleased to see that he has done so and he deserves the thanks of the Canadian authors and publishers for it. I hope the result will be satisfactory.
However, I may say that the United States has never used Canada fairly. The first thing they did after they gained their independence was, under the treaty of Verseilles, to take advantage of the' fact that Lord Ashburton and other Britsh representatives were not so well acquainted with the wilds of America or the geography of the country as the people who lived in it, and by availing themselves of That cir-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
cumstance they succeeded in juggling us out of the northern half of the State of Maine and out of our natural winter outlet to the ocean. We were deprived of the immense territory lying north of the Ohio and west of the Mississipi to the Great Lakes. That territory belonged to the French before it was ceded to Great Britain, and that same territory was granted to Canada by the Quebec Act in 1774, but Canada was deprived of this also. Immediately after the revolutionary war was over what do we find? It was natural that there were people in the American colonies who, when the rebellion broke out, were not willing to go out and fight against their king and country, and shoot down their neighbours. They were the best people who were in that country. But when the war was over, how were they treated? Their homes were taken from them, their property was confiscated, their children were ostracised, theiT lives were made unbearable, and the poor things were driven naked and homeless with their aged parents, wives and little children away into the unbroken Canadian wilderness, and I suppose that their neighbours thought that they would die of hardship and 'hunger. But, the British government came to the Tescue of these poor, destitute people, and the British people went down into their pockets and gave them a grant of as many millions of dollars as it would take to build two Dreadnoughts at the present time. Thus was averted what might otherwise have been one of the great tragedies of modern history. When the revolutionary war was over how do you find things going? The United Empire Loyalists with the aid they had received in the shape of food, clothing, implements, cattle and seed from the British government, soon had flourishing homes and waving cornfields in Canada. What do we find then? The greedy eyes of those who had driven them out from their homes in the United States began, to look across and to envy them. The peo-' pie of the United States found Great Britain engaged in a life and death struggle with the great Napoleon and when Britain had withdrawn her troops from Canada and from other parts of the empire in order to maintain her supremacy in the very centre of the empire then and not till then did eight millions of Americans attacked 300,000 almost unarmed and defenceless Canadians. They were the loyal French Canadians and the United Empire Loyalists, 300,000 strong, against 8,000.000 They knew what would happen them if they were conquered. They knew that once more they would lose their homes and property and be driven back to the wilderness to die. Therefore, these men fought with the courage of desnair and we know what the result was at Chateauguay and Queens-
ton Heights. Not one inch of Canadian territory was left in the hands or under the authority of the United States troops at the end of three years of warfare. What have we heard ever since? The histories and school books of the United States have been filled with fictitious stories of how the brave American heroes overcame the cowardly Canadians. The average American girl or boy has not the first idea that Montgomery failed in his attack upon Quebec, nor does he or she know that at the battle of Chateauguay a handful of Canadians defeated a whole army of Americans. Nor does he know anything of Queenston Heights, or Laura Secord, or Beaver Dams..
Tn 1817, what do we find? Under the Rush-Bagot treaty it was agreed that neither country should maintain any arm-[DOT] ed vessels on the Great Lakes. I find a correspondent writing from Alpena, Michigan, telling us that on the Great Lakes the Americans have the ' Nashville ' and the 'Don Juan d'Austria ' which they took from Spain in 1898. They also keep other vessels there. They have the ' Yantic,' which was formerly an American war vessel, the ' Dorothea,' the ' Hawk ' and the ' Gopher,' these vessels carry a thousand armed men, and this correspondent says that these vessels are armed with cannon that have a range of six miles, with Morris tubes and all the other modern appliances. Yet, the United States agreed that there should be no armed vessels on the Great Lakes. What are we to expect from a people that claimed that Behring sea was a closed sea and belonged to''the United States, that it was territorial water of the United States, when, at the same time, they claimed that Hudson bay did not belong either to Canada or Great Britain? They claimed that Chesapeake bay, which, at the mouth, is probably fifty miles wide, was American territory, but that the Baie des Chaleurs was not Canadian territory.
Now, I would say to the government to be careful how they deal with these gentlemen. I think that with all our experience we ought to be a little careful. We have a Waterways Commission, and I do not know whether in ten or fifteen years everything that is placed under the control of that commission will not be claimed by the United States as their territory. We gave them the privilege of using our Atlantic coast fisheries in common with our own fishermen and they subsequently claimed that this entitled them to exercise sovereignty in our territorial waters. We gave them the privilege of entering our harbours far wood, shelter, water, and repairs and they claimed that this gave them the right to enter these harbours for any other purpose. I suppose that" they will be claiming our waterways in fifteen years
from now. Again, we are going to have a joint Railway Commission. The United States will no doubt interpret this to mean in a few years that we intended to hand over to them the control of our railways too.
Some people have been talking about a century of peace. Certainly, it has been a century of peace ; not a century of p-e-a-c-e but a century of p-i-e-c-e and the United States have received all the pieces.
Now, if it is just possible that the United States, or the Republican party which, 1 suppose, represent the United States in the meantime, are about to make a dying confession. I think they are on their death bed and perhaps they have repented, and although the government may think that these Republicans and these representatives of the United States have experienced a change of heart and that they may go to a good place, still the government ought to be careful how they deal with those gentlemen, because I have generally found that these death bed repentances are not to be depended upon. I would say to the government: Be very careful; do not buy any wooden nutmegs or basswood hams from Yankees, because I believe a cargo of that kind was once sent over to Canadians. I have now warned the government not to deal in that kind of goods. I hope they will be careful, and if they bring in a proper Reciprocity Bill, r am a kind of an independent man and I might vote for them.
Topic: ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.