Mr. PALMER explained that the sum of $150,000 was given to New Brunswick in lieu of the export duty which she retained under the terms of Union. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT agreed to a very great extent with the hon. member for Northumberland that there should be a special case made out for interfering with these particular duties. The reasons were briefly these. Very few manufactories exist in Canada, if indeed any at all, for the manufacture of these stave-bolts. It had been shown again and again that the export duty had affected this particular interest injuriously. Having failed of any useful effect and having worked positive mischief, it was thought expedient that these two particular duties should be removed. Mr. WHITE (Hastings) thought the remarks of the hon. member for South Grenville deserved some consideration. Certainly there was a good deal of cedar exported from the country which ought to be sawed by our own mills. It would be nothing but fair to put a duty on cedar logs as well as on cedar bolts. The amendment was lost and the committee rose and reported the resolution which was concurred in. GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked leave to introduce a Bill to amend the general Act respecting railways. He explained that the object of the Bill was simply to apply certain provisions of that Act, regarding the expropriation of lands and other matters, to Government Railways generally, in accordance with the recommendation of the Railway Committee. Mr. BOWELL-Is this Bill confined to. railways of a particular length or to all Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-To all railways that are under the control of the Dominion in any way. The Bill was read a first time. Hon. Mr. POPE said the people of the Eastern Townships were placed in exactly the same position with regard to their lumber as those in whose interest this Bill was pressed. There was not a single word expressed with regard to the hard-railways? ships encountered by the farmers of Norfolk that did not apply with ten times more force, because the quantity was so much greater, to spruce lumber along the frontier. There were many sections where there were no mills, and where the timber could easily be carried down the streams running southward, but for this duty. They had not pressed the abolition of this duty hitherto because they understood the general interests of the country demanded that it should be imposed. It had been asserted, however, that by the passage of this Bill there would be money brought into the country, and every man would have cash jingling in his pockets. Well, why not extend the measure to spruce logs and put cash in the pockets of the Eastern Township farmers? Mr. COOK said one would think there was no place in Canada where lumbering operations were carried on except in the Ottawa Valley. Now, there was a large lumbering district on the coast of Georgian Bay, where the lumbermen would be benefitted by the removal of this export duty on saw-logs of all kinds. He asked his hon. friend to extend the amendment so as to include white and red pine sawlogs. This would enable our lumbermen to compete with their Michigan rivals in the export trade of round timber to Eastern markets. Mr. Palmer. SOREL CUSTOM HOUSE. Mr. BARTHE asked whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the Petition of the inhabitants of the Town of Sorel in the District of Richelieu, (P. Q.), praying for the erection of a Custom House to serve also as a Post Office, and in which building the Inland Revenue and Harbor Masters' offices might in like manner be located? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE The Government have not come to any decision of that kind yet. THE WAY-OFFICE AT LAKE SETTLEMENT. Mr. MITCHELL asked whether the Government have done away with the Way-Office at the Flannagan Settlement, on the road between Richibucto and Miramichi ; and if so, for what reason, and whether they intend to restore it? At Hon. D. A. MACDONALD-There is. no Flannagan Settlement on the books of our Departement. I suppose the hon. gentleman refers to Lake Settlement. the death of Mr. FLANNIGAN the office was discontinued. Since then there has been no application to re-instate the office. The Postmaster at Chatham reported to the Department that there is no necessity for the office, and no application having been made the office has been closed. IMPORT DUTY ON FLOUR. Mr. FRASER asked whether it is the intention of the Government to impose any duty on foreign flour, imported into and consumed in the Dominion of Canada; if so, when and what amount ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—It is not the custom for the Government to intimate before hand to the House the changes they may propose in the tariff. DREDGING HARBORS. Mr. McDONALD (Cape Breton) asked whether, owing to the large amount of business in the coal trade from Port Caledonia and from Little Glace Bay Harbors, and owing to the large amount of private capital invested in those harbors, the Government would send the Government Steam Dredge after it has finished at Lingan, to assist in further deepening the entrance into those harbors respectively ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE The Government have no application of any kind from those places for any of the works indicated. We cannot assume anything about the large amount of business, not knowing what that large amount is. We have no dredge that we can send there, and we are not able. to tell when we can serious consideration of the House. The agricultural population of the Dominion comprised two-thirds of its inhabitants, and anything which affected their interests would affect the interests of the whole people. Through the enlightened policy of former Governments, which had been carried out to a considerable extent by the present Government, we had established in this country, home markets to very large extent. Through the improve ments of our inland navigation, the assistance given to railways, which had been very ably sustained by the Local Legislatures communication from one part of the country to the other had become more easy, Hon. Mr. Macdonald. | and transportation had been cheapened. By the action of Parliament the commercial and financial condition of the country had been improved, and our progress had been so rapid during the last eight or ten years, that our large cities, towns and villages now afford a home market for the farmer. We had expended a very large amount of money in procuring this desirable result, a very large portion of which had been paid by the farmers, and it was nothing but just to the agricultural community that they should have the preference in their own markets, over the farmers of a foreign country. The result obtained. during former inquiries showed that the ourable position as compared with those of farmers of Canada occupied a very unfav. the United States, and that the Government had not done its whole duty towards them, and that much might yet remain to ourable as their neighbours on the other side. be done to place them in a position as favThe exports of farm products from Canada to the United States, on which import duties were paid, were of the value of $12,980,670 for the year ending June 30, Barley, 3,745,087 bushels, worth $4,074,1874, as shown by the following statistics : 553, duty paid $451,763; 89,982 bushels, worth $132,508, duty beans, paid $26,501; bran, 13,989 cwt., worth $27,998, duty paid $5,599; flax, 782,504 cwt., worth $113,256, duty paid $195,625; flax-seed, 15,257 bushels, worth $15,257, duty paid $8,475; flour, 138,845 barrels, worth $802,895, duty paid $160,579; fruit, 31,826 barrels, worth $62,104, duty paid $6,210; hay, 25,904 tons, worth $282,660, duty paid $56,532; hops, 168,951 lbs., worth $40,022, duty paid $8,447; malt, 481,099 bushels, worth $529,208, duty paid $105,841; meal, 9,539 barrels, worth $41,959, duty paid $9,539; oats, 138,125 barrels, worth $57,148, duty paid $13,812; peas, 571,256 bushels, value $452,291, duty paid $57,125; vegetables of the value of $214,622, duty paid $21,462; wheat, 1,874,202 bushels, worth $2,248,200, duty paid $374,840. A very large amount of duties was also paid by our farmers in order to pass animals and their products into the United States. The total duties paid on the imports of Canadian farm products into the adjoining Republic amounted to $2,218,237. The agricultural imports from the United States into Canada, which are admitted free reached a total value of $18,516.125, during the same period. If duties were levied on these imports at the same rates as the American tariff $2,975,732 would be received, or $500,000 in excess of that paid by Canadian farmers to the United States Treasury. Another point worthy of consideration was the fact that, while it was generally supposed that Canada had a large amount of surplus wheat which was exported, it appeared that the surplus only amounted to the value of $332,683, which divided among two million farmers only allowed 15 cents for each. If the Dominion Government imposed on American produce coming into this country the same rates as were levied by the United States authorities on produce going over the line, a large saving would be effected to this country. When the condition of our farmers was considered it was not to be wondered that the agriculturists in all parts of the country were rising in their own interests and agitating for a policy which would give them greater advantages, and place them in a more favorable position than they at present occupied as compared with the farmers of the United States. It was not surprising that they were asking for a national policy which would not only increase the home markets, but would give them the preference in those markets which they had contributed largely to build up, and when they saw the farmers of the adjoining Republic receive fifteen cents a bushel more for their barley and thirty cents more for their wheat and every article of breadstuff in proportion, that a large number of our farmers were, every year, removing to the United States, where they appeared to obtain a larger return for their labor. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Government to consider this question seriously and inaugurate a national policy that would give our farmers the preference in our home markets. A protective policy for manufactories would increase home markets and thus add to the prosperity of the country. Our imports of manufactured goods amounted to $60,000,000, and it was generally estimated that one-third of those goods consisted of farm products. If we manufactured one-third of that amount of goods we would attract to this country a sufficient number of artizans to consume the whole of our surplus products. The Mr. Orton. benefit of having, a home market for the farmers was very great, for it was well known that the most profitable kind of farming was that of cattle breeding, by which means the fertility of the soil was improved. That desirable result could only be brought about by developing the internal resources of the country, and promoting manufactures by a policy of protection which would enable the Canadian manufacturer to compete with the rest of the world. It had been proved by experience in other countries that a moderate protective tariff did not increase the price of manufactured goods, although the contrary would, no doubt, be urged by hon. members. In the United States, for example, previous to the inauguration of a protective policy, cotton goods were much higher in price than to-day, and an article which then cost thirty-five cents per yard, could now be purchased for ten cents. The great benefit of a modern protective tariff was that it enabled the manufacturer to have the preference in the home markets, and by encouraging capitalists to invest therein promoted competition which had the effect of reducing the price of the goods; and at the same time a market was afforded to the farmers: not only so, but each artisan employed in the manufactories contributed to the revenue of the country. The result, therefore, was not to impose additional taxation on the agricultural class, but the action of a protective tariff was to provide a home market where the farmer could dispose of his live stock. There were two great classes in the community, consumers and producers, and it should be the object of every Government to obtain as many as possible of both these classes in every country. He could easily conceive of a policy that would have the effect of ruining the country by placing it in a position of being almost entirely producer, and thereby dependent on a foreign market for consumption. Wherever such a policy had been carried out it had been attended with disastrous results. With respect to the free trade doctrines of Great Britain, no doubt enthusiastic advocates of free trade would refer to the benefits which Great Britain had derived therefrom; but if we pared the condition of Great Britain, when it inaugurated that policy, to the condition of Canada at the present time, no intelligent person could for a moment com maintain that the conditions were the Ontario would be carried down to the same, that because free trade was a wise Maritime Provinces, and coal, fish and policy for that country, it would be at- other articles would be brought back. tended with similar advantageous results The increased trade between the different in this Dominion. It might be a wise sections of the Dominion would more than policy for Canada to adopt if it adjoined a compensate for the loss which might be country which believed in free trade doc- sustained from the imposition of these trines, but when the United States estab- duties. It was argued by some that it lished a high protective tariff and closed was absurd to put a duty upon grain and up the markets to foreign producers as the productions of the farm, because the much as possible, it became almost a ne- consumer was the one who actually had to cessity for Canada to pursue the same pay this tax. If that were the case why policy. Again, at the time Great Britain | should the Government of this country be established the free trade policy the agri- so anxious to pay such a large sum for culturists of that country were a small reciprocity in those articles for free trade class compared with the manufacturing between the two countries? Because accommunity; manufactories in England cording to that argument it was the conhaving assumed very large proportions in sumer who paid the duties and we were the cities and towns, as was the case at not sustaining any loss. But he thought present. The English people did not pro- that idea had been pretty well exploded. duce sufficient farm products for their There were other matters to which he own consumption, and therefore foreign might draw the attention of the House in produce was required, and it was wise for connection with the agricultural interest, that Government to admit foreign bread- but at this late period of the session he stuffs free of duty. Great Britain having would not detain the House any longer. decided that free trade principles were We import some eight or ten million dolcorrect, was willing that those ideas lars worth of sugar, and if the Governshould be carried out in her large colonial ment could by any means encourage the possessions, particularly as the colonies manufacture of sugar from the beet, they would be disposed to trade freely with would be doing a great service to the agriher, and would not adopt protective cultural interests of the country. When tariffs, as against her manufactures, sim- so much money out of the treasury was ply out of respect to a policy that was being expended, and apparently without beneficial in her case. He was sure any great object in view, he thought a when we came to consider our relations small sum might be devoted to the enwith foreign countries and with the couragement of a beet sugar manufactory United States, we ought in justice to in this country. He thought the Dominthe people of this country to impose the ion Government should devote at least same duties upon articles they have to $100,000-as much as was voted for the send us as they impose upon the same ar- Menonites-for the encouragement of this ticles we send to them; especially industry, In France it was one of the with regard to farm produce. We ought to chief sources of wealth, not only furnishimpose the same duty upon their articles ing occupation for a large number of peoas they do upon ours without any excep- ple in winter, but the refuse from its tion. It was true the Maritime Provinces manufacture was utilized as food for catwere against such a policy, but he main-tle and as manure to enrich the soil. A tained that such sectional feelings ought not to prevail in this country, and he thought it not too much to ask the hon. members of the Maritime Provinces to give up their ideas in reference to this question for the general good of the Dominion. He thought it could not be argued successfully that it would be an injury to the Lower Provinces to impose such duties, because if they were imposed there would be a greater interchange of products between the Provinces. The farm products of Mr. Orton. crops further advantage derived from its culti- L 4 roots grew so prolifically. The manufactory could only be established with the assistance of the Government, and he thought it was their duty to do it seeing they were expending such large sums of money out of the treasury for other interests, they should do something for the farmers of the country. He thought he had done sufficient to draw the attention of the House to the important question involved in the motion, and concluded by moving that Messrs. BIGGAR, HARWOOD, PERRY, WALLACE (Norfolk), FLEMING, MCQUADE, BURKE GAUDET, MCGREGOR, BUNSTER, ROSS (P. Edward), MONTEITH, COUPAL, FARROW, and the mover, be a Select Committee on the agricultural interests of the Dominion with power to send for persons, papers and records. Mr. MILLS said this seemed to him a very extraordinary proposition to make at this period of the session-to send for persons and papers at the time when most of the members were endeavoring to get away, and the House would soon be prepared to rise. He had never been able to understand precisely what the hon. gentleman wanted, though he had given some attention to the speech to-day, and he did not see how his motion would benefit agriculture. He believed the hon. Minister of Finance might have had an opportunity of doing something in that way by lessening taxation, and by cheapening articles of consumption if the present financial condition of the country would warrant such a proposition on his part. He did not suppose that the hon. gentleman expected we had the power to make the soil more fertile or the climate more salubrious, or increase the industrious inclinations of the population; and unless we could do something of that sort in one way or the other he did not see what could be accomplished by the motion. The hon. gentleman had spoken about the productions of American industry coming into competition with our own, but that seemed to him to be a very curious matter to complain of. We were an agricultural population, producing more than was consumed by the country. The prices of our agricultural prductions were regulated not by our home markets but by the foreign markets in which our surplus was sold; and while this was the case the hon. gentleman expected that we were going to improve the markets of the farmers, not Mr. Orton, by enlarging that market but by increasing the prices of that portion of the produce to be consumed at home, and increasing the price on the consumer. He supposed that when we were enlarging the canals at a heavy expenditure, we were doing so not merely for the purpose of facilitating the transportation of the productions. of our own industry to foreign markets, because it would not be denied that our present facilities were equal to our own present wants; but we have been laboring under the impression-a very erroneous one according to the views of the hon. gentleman that it was an advantage to this country to secure the carrying trade of the West, an advantage to our shipowners and an advantage to Montreal (and other cities), which might become a gteat emporium of commercial industry. But this was all a mistake according to the views of the hon. gentleman, for we ought to impose duties on American produce and cereals lest we might be injured by competition. While we were endeavouring to secure this carrying trade, we were by legislation here to nullify our efforts and erect barriers in our own way. The general tendency of our improvements was to diminish the cost of transportation and thus take away the natural protection which this distance imposed. hon. gentleman said this was all wrong, that our large expenditure would prove mischievous to the best interests of the country, and, therefore, in order to prevent that mischief arising we should impose duties upon the productions of American industry. we were to encourage our agricultural We had incurred a large interest. expenditure to aid in the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway, and we had diminished the actual amount of our claims against the Great Western and Northern Railway companies. These railways were not sustained by local trade altogether, but received a large portion of the carrying trade of the West. That in the opinion of the hon. gentleman was wrong, He (Mr. ORTON) thought the would interests suffer agricultural serious detriment, and that a great wrong would be done them if we could not exclude American productions from our markets. He (Mr. MILLS) was an agriculturalist, but the hon. gentleman was not, and he (Mr. MILLS) had given some atten But the This was the way |