232 COMMONS DEBATES May 14, 1872
[...] from this the member
for Durham would see that the exclusion
of the Americans was not quite as efficient as we imagined.
Hon. Mr. TUPPER said he could not speak as to that; but the
question was altogether a captious one, for it was well known that the
headland limit had not been enforced for years. He maintained that the member
for Durham West gave us the whole argument when he spoke of bounties being
necessary to enable the Americans to compete with the Canadian fishermen. If
however, the hon. member would read the proceedings of Congress, he would
find that the question of bounties had been scouted from the very first, and that
it was admitted on all hands that a system of bounties was utterly impossible;
but further, the highest system of bounty would be $400 to a vessel, while the
relief would amount to $1,200; and therefore the bounty could not, under
any circumstances, do away with the advantages on the side of Canadian
fishermen. He again referred to what he termed the unpatriotic action of members
last year.
Hon. Mr. HOLTON thought the hon. gentleman was out of
order in reflecting on the action ofthe House.
Hon. Mr. TUPPER said he was quite satisfied to find the hon.
gentleman acknowledge that a reference to his former action was a reflection.
Hon. Mr. HOLTON said, however that might be, the hon.
gentleman assumed the responsibility of that action.
Hon. Mr. TUPPER said that was under compulsion. If hon.
gentleman would read a statement recently made by the chairman of the Committee
of Ways and Means of the United States they would see that it would be
impracticable for the United States to adopt a policy that would counteract the
advantages derived by Canadian fishermen. He would now ask hon. gentlemen
to turn their attention to the effect of the Treaty on the shipping interest of
the country. The member for Halifax (Mr. Power) had told them that he went to
visit a fishery in which he was concerned, when the Treaty of 1884 was in
force, and found that, out of the forty or fifty vessels, scarcely one was
American; but that on another occasion, after the abrogation of that treaty,
among an equal number of vessels, scarcely one was Canadian.
It must be remembered
that our marine amounted to a
million tons, and the House would see that, whether in
connection with the fishery or the ship-building interest,
the
value of the Treaty could not be over-rated. He would now
refer to the state of public opinion in Nova Scotia. When the
Treaty first became known the Nova Scotia Government put a
very strong resolution in their journals. Since then the Treaty
had been promulgated
to the world, and had been read by
every fisherman in the Province, and now the same House had
been in session for over two months, and there had not been
one word of disapproval of the Treaty. He believed that the
feeling in Nova Scotia was that Parliament could not inflict
greater wrong on them, and could not paralyze their industries
more than by refusing to ratify the Treaty, which promoted
and protected the great national industries without injuring a
single interest, or being counterbalanced by a single drawback;
and that a refusal would also tend to prevent the obtaining of
reciprocity in the future.
He was not so well
prepared to speak as to New Brunswick;
but the same thing took place there. The New Brunswick
Legislature at first strongly opposed the Treaty, but though
they had now been six or eight weeks in session, there was not
a single hostile resolution on their records. As to Prince
Edward Island, the Treaty was as good as accepted.
Hon. Mr. TUPPER said he would not detain the House
further, and regretted that he had trespassed so long at so late a stage of the
discussion; but the question was one in which not only the interests of Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick and the whole Dominion were concerned, but also the
interests of the Empire, and he would not have done justice to himself if
he had not given utterance to his views. The hon. gentleman took his seat amid
loud cheers.
Mr. JONES (Halifax) said he was obliged to ask the
indulgence of the House at this late hour, while he referred to the arguments
of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down (Hon. Mr. Tupper). He would say, in
the first place, that he desired to approach the consideration of this subject
in a manner worthy of its importance. He would further say that he came
to the House in full expectation of being able to sustain the Government in the
course they had taken in the earlier part of these negotiations, when it was
made known through official and semi-official sources what was the course the
Government were taking. He shared the views they then expressed, and up
to the present time he had seen no reason to change his opinion. The hon.
gentleman who had preceded him, as well as others on that side of the House,
had sought to convey the impression that the adoption of this Treaty was in
the interests of permanently peaceful relations between the United States
and the Empire.
He might refer by way
of illustration to the celebrated
Tichborne trial. The claimant brought witnesses to prove his
pretensions; but when he was put in the witness box himself,
his case broke down. So it was in the case of the Ministers.
When their own statements were placed in evidence against
their present arguments, it might be held their case had broken
down. The argument that the Treaty was in the interest of
May 14, 1872
COMMONS DEBATES 233
peace was
contradicted most emphatically by the despatches of
the Government. (Hear, hear.) In their minutes of Council of
the 28th of July last-and
when they penned that they knew
the provisions of the treaty just as well as they do now-they
knew then as well as now whether it was in the interests of
peace, whether it was for the interests of the Dominion, that it
should be accepted-yet
in that minute they state as a reason
why they could not accept the treaty that the principal cause of
difference between Canada and the United States had not been
removed by the treaty but remained a subject for future
anxiety. He answered the hon. gentleman out of their own
mouths. The last speaker had referred to the remarks of his
colleague from Halifax (Mr. Power) respecting the advantage
the treaty would have conferred upon the fishing trade of
Nova
Scotia had it been in operation last year. He stated that in that
case Nova Scotia would have saved between $500,000 and
$600,000 on the duties on herrings and mackerel which had
been sent to the United States.
He (Mr. Jones) held
in his hand the trade and navigation returns
for the past year, which he presumed were tolerably accurate. He
found from this document that the total amount of pickled fish-
herring and mackerel and alewives-sent
into the United
States last year was 47,000 barrels, which, at $2 a barrel,
would be $94,000, instead of $600,000 as claimed by the hon.
gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. President of
Council (Hon. Mr. Tupper) also stated
that the treaty of 1854 was a great boon. Well, no one denied
that; but contrast that treaty with the present treaty. Under the
former one, agricultural products, our coal and lumber, were
admitted free of duty into the United States. How different
was this from the present treaty! The same hon. gentleman
stated as one reason why this Treaty must be a good one for us
that the American fishermen were opposed to it. The hon.
member for Durham West (Hon. Mr. Blake), the other night,
speaking on this point had hit the nail on the head. He stated
that the reason why American fishermen opposed the Treaty
was that Gen. Butler had gone down to Gloucester and
harangued them, telling them that now was their time to wrest
from Congress what they had long wanted, namely, a system
of bounties and the bonding of their supplies. That was the
sole course of their outcry against the Treaty, and the Minister
of Justice (Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald) knew it very well,
and he (Mr. Jones) had grave apprehensions that such a policy
would be adopted by Congress. Of course they would not do
so while the Treaty was pending but when this Parliament
accepted the Treaty then would be their time to grant bounties
to their fishermen, and to allow the bonding of their
supplies.
The President of the
Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Tupper) had
contended that the admission of American fishermen into our
waters would not destroy the value of our fisheries, but the
reports of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Senator
Mitchell) had told a different story. He gave the value of the
fisheries before and during the Reciprocity Treaty, and
showed
conclusively that if
we had adopted an exclusive policy after
the abrogation of the treaty, we would now have had control of
the American markets. The House was told that the arbitrators
appointed to decide upon the relative value of our fisheries
and the American fisheries would pay us what we lost in
giving up our fisheries; but the very
first question that would
have to be decided before they could estimate the relative
value was where were they to draw the boundary line of our
fisheries, whether from headland to headland, or along the
coast? lfthe former, of course our fisheries would be greatly
increased in value; but how were the arbitrators to decide? It
was, therefore, of the very greatest importance that the High
Joint Commissioners should have settled definitely the
question of headlands, so that the arbitrators would have had a
basis on which to make their valuation.
The hon. gentlemen
opposite, particularly the Premier, had
stated that the American markets were the only markets we
had for our fish. He had not had the pleasure of listening to
the
speech of his colleague from Halifax (Mr. Power); but he
understood that gentleman had given some figures to show
that a large portion of our fish was sent to the United
States.
He was not aware from what source that gentleman drew his
information, but he felt it his duty to be as correct as possible
and he had taken the trouble to consult the public documents
for 1862, 63, 64 under the Reciprocity Treaty, and also after
that Treaty in 1869, 70, 71, when the United States imposed
duty on our fish. He found that under the Reciprocity Treaty
only about 7 per cent more of our fish went to the United
States than when the duty was imposed.
The American
fishermen stood in a very different position
from our fishermen in many respects. 1n the first
place they
had larger and better vessels, larger outfits, larger capital, and
they had in operation a system of mutual insurances. They had
the additional advantage of being able to fish all the year
round. Our fishermen fished in the early part of the year
only;
but, after the mackerel fishing was over in the fall, the
American fishermen went off to the banks, and caught halibut
and other fish, which our fishermen could not do. He would
tell the hon. gentleman why. lf he were to send his vessel there
he would have to sell his cargo wholesale, and would not be
able to pay the expense of taking it to market. But those
people had a market at their own doors. The American
fishermen thus had the advantage over ours. They were able to
earn during the winter season what would pay their expenses
all the year round, and that was a very important
consideration. The hon. gentleman had referred to the position
of the American markets during that time. Within the last two
years so great had been the increase of American fishermen,
since the war, since they had gone back and engaged in old
pursuits, that fish had been cheaper in Boston than Halifax,
and there had been large imports from Boston, and the West
Indies markets had been trading from Boston instead of
Halifax. 1f the hon. gentleman understood the matter as he did
he would see those people would come with better appliances
234 COMMONS DEBATES May 14, 1872
and they would
compete with us as they had during the last
two years in the markets of the West Indies.
If under his views we
would gain a trifle in the American
market-even
supposing such things were correct, which he
contended were not-we
would more than lose the advantage
in our trade with other countries. We had exported last year
163,000 barrels of pickled fish, only 45,000 of which went to
the United States; and if American fishermen competed with
us they would send their fish to the West Indies and decrease
the price more in proportion than what the hon. gentleman
claimed we would gain by having their markets.
It was said our
fishermen were in favour of the Treaty. He
denied it. (Hear, hear.) Many of them were, but he utterly
denied that the majority of the people ofNova Scotia favoured
it. He did not mean to say that every man who was in favour of
it was an annexationist, but he did assert that every man in
Nova Scotia who was an annexationist and looked forward to
early political connection with the States was in favour of it.
(Hear, hear). And they were right enough from their point of
view, because they argued, if you give those people the water
they will soon own the land. If our fishermen were not so
much opposed to the Treaty as he thought they ought to be it
was because of the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite, to
the effect "in the interest of the empire;" and
"England would
not protect us;" and "we had better take a loaf
than no bread;"
and that if they did not accept this emasculated arrangement,
which just condemns themselves, the Americans would get the
whole-those
were the circumstances under which these men
were not all satisfied.
But fish
was not all Nova Scotia produced. She had great
mineral wealth, and her coal interest was of even greater
importance than her fisheries, yet this had been entirely
overlooked. Those interested in the case said and with very
great force, that if the Government had been earnestly desirous
of reducing the duty on coal, they would have avoided the
seizures which they made during last year. From the moment
the schooner Horton was recaptured by the Americans and
towed into Gloucester, whatever chance existed for the
reduction of the duty on coal and lumber was lost. The hon.
gentlemen opposite and the Minister of Justice especially had
asked hon. members not to put troublesome questions, not to
suggest doubts with reference to the Treaty; yet the hon.
member for Peel (Hon. Mr. Cameron) in his brilliant address
had left an impression on the House that Americans almost
had a right to the Fisheries, because they had enjoyed them for
17 years longer than they had been excluded from them. He
(Mr. Jones) took a directly opposite view of the question. His
colleague referred last night to one argument in favour of the
Treaty, that trade to Cuba would be injured by its annexation
to the United States. The hon. gentleman should know that we
are obliged to pay a duty on goods exported to that island,
double that on the same goods exported to the United States:
therefore trade would
hardly be injured by the annexation of
the island.
The hon. member for
Lanark North (Hon. Mr. McDougall)
had referred to the fact that Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland had accepted the Treaty; and New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia had not apparently been very warmly
opposed to it. The hon. gentleman had also sought to create
the impression that the Government of New Brunswick were
acting in concert with the Clear Grit party when they took the
step they did in communicating with the Government of Nova
Scotia on the subject. The resolution of the New Brunswick
Legislature was passed on the 18th February, while the High
Commission was sitting, and when it was thought that the
opinion of the Legislature would strengthen the hands of those
who had charge of our interests; they accordingly telegraphed
to Newfoundland, and as the latter had no interest but the
fishing interest to consider, they replied that they were
well
satisfied to leave the matter to England, for the reason that
she
had left them to exercise their own discretion and free will on
the subject of entering the Confederation or not. That was a
very good reason for Newfoundland, because she had been
accorded a privilege which had been denied Nova Scotia.
He might here remark,
as an instance of the singular
inaccuracies and want of information which characterized the
whole negotiation, that the important interest of seal
fishing
had been entirely unprovided for in the Treaty. The Governor
of Newfoundland made a communication to Earl Kimberley,
enclosing a copy of a minute of the Council of the Local
Government on the subject. That minute of the Council was
not among the papers submitted to the House. The reply of the
Government of Prince Edward Island was worthy of attention,
because they occupied a position precisely similar to that of
Nova Scotia. The people of Prince Edward Island had valuable
fisheries, but they said they were in the hands of the
Americans already; and the agricultural product of that Island
far exceeded the value of the fisheries.
The people of Prince
Edward Island had precisely the same
interest in the fisheries as we had, but they were willing
for
Imperial interests alone to agree to what was asked of them by
the Government of England. The people of Prince Edward
Island did not adopt the policy of the Canadian Government
and say, "Give us so much money for our rights and we will
ratify the Treaty." (Applause.) No; they took a
higher and
more manly and national view of the case; and pursued a
course which contrasted most favourably with that pursued by
the Canadian Government. (Applause.) The people of Prince
Edward Island were not willing to put their loyalty into the
English market and have it quoted at any figure. (Hear,
hear.)
On the contrary, they were willing to make a sacrifice for
the
Empire, though the Treaty did not give their agricultural
interests the market in the United States which they had under
the Reciprocity Treaty. A minute of Council, dated July 25,
1871, from the Lieut. Governor of Prince Edward Island to
May 14, 1872 COMMONS DEBATES 235
Lord Kimberley, would
show the position in which that Island
stood, as follows:-"It
is stated in the minute that the different
Governments and Legislatures of this Colony have always
hoped that these fisheries (the fisheries of Prince Edward
Island) would have done much to secure the advantages of
another Reciprocity Treaty, or of some tariff concessions
authorize the free admission into the United States of the
products of our agriculturists, who form the majority of our
population, and which would have resulted in promoting the
prosperity of the Colony; and that, in the opinion of this
Council, the inhabitants of Prince Edward Island are now
asked to surrender to the citizens of the United States these
invaluable fisheries without receiving in return any just or fair
equivalent, such as was hoped to be obtained."
The people of New
Brunswick from the first had been
entirely opposed to the Treaty, and the Legislature of that
Province, as well as the Lieut. Governor, had spoken of it in
the strongest terms of denunciation. (Hear, hear.) The people
of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland
did not accept the Treaty in the spirit in which this House was
asked to accept it. (Hear, hear.)
Under those
circumstances he felt as a representative of
Nova Scotia, that, however anxious he might be for the
establishment of reciprocal trade relations with the States on
fair terms, he was not willing to give the United States
everything that we had to offer as an inducement for
reciprocity. If we gave them permission to fish in our waters
we put them in
competition with our own fishermen, and
reduced the value of the fish. He stood here not to represent
one country or one province, but the whole interests of the
Dominion, (Hear, hear) and in that capacity he would feel it
his duty to vote against the ratification of the treaty.
(Applause.) He denied that this treaty was calculated to settle
all disputes between Great Britain and the United States, and he
said that, if trouble arose at the present time between England and
America, the latter would not ratify the treaty, and if we pressed it
we would receive a snubbing for our pains. In the interest of the
Dominion, and in the interest of all its products, he considered it
would not be for our advantage to ratify the treaty at the present
time. (Applause.)
Mr. KILLAM would vote for the fishery clauses of the Treaty;
and thought that a majority of the representatives of Nova Scotia would
favour its ratification as the best means of securing peace between the two
countries.
Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD would not oppose the motion,
coming as it did from so distinguished a member of the House as the hon. member
for Châteauguay; but he hoped that the debate, which had now lasted some days,
would terminate tomorrow, and wished that it should stand first on the
orders of the day.
The House adjourned
at 11.50.
This individual participated in:
