were to have a protective tariff we might have to pay a little more than we do now for some things, but I don't see why we should not have the same patriotism and desire for the advancement of our country as the United States have. See what love they have for their country. They bear the duty placed on those things; but what is the consequence? In many articles they are underselling us. And I ask the hon. gentleman if, seeing that the United States can undersell the world, whether it would be any disadvantage to the consumers here to have a high protective duty? I believe in a fixed policy which will build up our industries. We should encourage our trade with the West Indies, and have a line of steamers to effect an exchange of products. But what has been the policy with regard to the West Indies? Our sugar refining trade is closed by a duty of 25 per cent. on the raw material. I say if we would build up this country let us carry out our solemn contract in regard to the Pacific Railway. We have borrowed money on the faith of it from the British Government, to whom we are pleged for its coustruction. It may not be built in ten, fifteen or even twenty years, but let us do what we

can.

Our canals meet the requirements of our own trade for the present. Let us drop unnecessary works in which we are expending large sums. It may cause an outcry here and there, but the country will be the gainer. The people of British Columbia do not insist on the completion of the railroad in ten years so long as we can show an earnest desire to construct it as fast as possible. Let us build that road in advance of settlement as is done in the United States, and it will give employment to the men who are loitering about our streets and prosperity to every interest in the Dominion. I believe that is the true policy of this country, and I would not like to say what I believe will be the consequences to this country if it is not carried out. Mr. DAVIES-In the Maritime Provinces we have to compete with the world. Some time ago we had protection when it was the policy of the Imperial Government. There was a protective duty on timber at one

time, but since then we have had freetrade. Our products are now shut out of the United States, and if, in addition to that, we have to bolster up certain industries in Ontario, it would be hard for us to live. If protection were adopted as a national policy, I am not prepared to say that it would not be good for this country, since the United States has prospered under the system. We should, however, have the whole or none protected. It is not fair that one class should be protected at the expense of the others.

There is no doubt that small manufacturers, such as I suppose we have in this country, can compete very well with large ones. Large manufacturers can produce at very much cheaper rates. Possibly it may be a good policy to afford some additional protection to some of those industries. That would be a very good subject for a Committee to inquire into.

In our Province the Government have been very generous. They not only admit the Americans to our markets, but have given up part of our coasting trade to the United States flag. A line of steamers is allowed to coast to Halifax and various ports of the Gulf in violation of our navigation laws. I am quite aware this is an advantage to others who have no shipping, but it is very unfair to those who have. These steamers are injurious to the Dominion railroad through the Lower Provinces, and monopolize to a great extent the trade which should fall to our own vessels. I think, seeing the United States have refused to allow a boat of ours to carry a cargo on their coast, we have been over-generous in this respect. Although it is a small matter, it is a violation of principle. The hon. member for Leeds says we should show our patriotism by agreeing to submit to protection for the benefit of a certain class. Now, I cannot see why this should be done. In Prince Edward Island we are largely interested in agriculture. We send our products to the neighboring provinces and England. I think we may get a good deal of information from the labors of this Committee. If we see clearly it is necessary, in order to build up large manufactures here, that some small pro

We shall have distress amongst the farmers if the system be not changed ; it is already beginning to show itself and the prices of coarser grains and products are less than they were two years ago. For instance, beef has fallen much lower in this relation. The drovers say that the people being out of employment cannot pay the same amount for meat as formerly. No small blame is in consequence attached to the policy of the present Government, and I thought to a certain extent with great justice. The manufacture of cheese was greatly encourgaed by protection. I do not believe in such encouragement of manufactures, which cannot prosper here. If manufacturers are protected, so should the farmers be, who should have the first preference in our market. Indian corn should be taxed, and our whiskey made out of rye that we raise. The increase of our industries, even with judicious protection, would not decrease our revenue. I believe that the Pacific Railway should be built, for I have no faith whatever in the great bug-bear of a large national debt. It would give employment to idle men ; and during a time of depres. sion railways should be constructed, as material can then be purchased cheaply. Mr. DECOSMOS--I do not believe that the appointment of the Committee in question will be productive of much good.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALDHear, hear.

Mr. DECOSMOS-I therefore propose to offer an amendment to the hon. gentleman's motion, with the object of obtaining the sense of the House as to whether it is in favour of protection, or a revision of the tariff, or of free-trade. In doing so, I take occasion to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments in order to make some allusions to the state of matters in British Columbia, where, as far as I am aware. business has been in a very healthy condition during the past year. I am informed by merchants from all parts, that it was never more so; also that the Dominion revenue in that point, never reached so high an amountover $500,000 between the 1st of Janu

There is another point in this connection. Our Province is the only part of the Dominion which has the balance of trade in its favour. It imported during the year ending 30th of June to '75, $2,490,593 worth of merchandise, and exported to $2,824,812 worth of products, with foreign goodsto the value of $50,000. The balance of trade is in its favour, without taking into consideration the large sum of money, possibly half a million, in the shape of gold carried away by parties leaving the Province. This leaves about $350,000 to the credit of our Province. When we take the Province of Prince Edward Island,with a population of 100,000 we find that the balance of trade is against it to the extent of $600,000. It is against Manitoba to the extent of $700,000, New Brunswick $3,000,000, and so on. I may, therefore, conclude this point by saying it affords me gratification to see that our much-abused Province has thebalance of trade in its favour.

The Hon. Minister of Justice took occasion to remark during a recent election in Toronto, that British Columbia only contained about one-third the population of that electoral district, which on enquiry I found to be 20,000and a fraction. This would allow the Province a population of about 7,000, and of the $500,00 paid into the Dominion it could give us something like $70 per capita, while only $3 per capita is paid in Ontario.

The subject of the Pacific Railway will come before this House in a short time, and I think it is right; in order to have a fair discussion, we should understand what is the population of British Columbia. The Customs Report of 1874 credits us with a different population than that estimated by the Minister of Justice. That report places it at 50,000, and gives the per capital at $8 and a fraction.

The Indian population is about 30,000. Taking each of those Indians to be equal to one white person as consumers, there would be a total consuming population in the Province of 30,000, paying a per capita tax of $20, which is seven times that paid by the Province of Ontario, four times that of Quebec, six times that of Nova Scotia and four times that of New Brunswick. This will give the House a fair notion of our population and the tax we pay, and will show that a Province with so small a population, which imports $2,490,000 of merchandise in one year, and exports nearly $3,000,000, docs not deserve the abuse it receives. Having made this statement, I will make a further one. I am in favour of a protective tariff, but I am not in favor of a prohibitory one. So far as my information goes, every nation that has risen to any manufacturing prominence has been at one stage under a protective tariff. The United States, Germany, Russia, and other countries have been in favour of protection until they could stand alone and compete with other nations of the world. Following their example, I think it will be sound policy to revise our tariff and discriminate in favour of home industries. In order to afford

the House an opportunity to express its opinion on this question, I ask leave to offer the following amendment, that all the words after that" in the said motion be left out, and the following inserted :

"That the early revision of the tariff is very desirable, and that a revised tariff discriminating to a greater degree than the existing tariff in favour of home industries and manufactures, but not unduly stimulating one section of the country or one industry against other sections and industries, would be productive of great benefit to the whole Dominion "

Mr. SPEAKER-I think the hon. gentleman has not put the amendment in a shape to be submitted. As it stands it is certainly not germane and cannot form part of the same resolution, and it is not proposed as a substitute. Perhaps the House will allow the hon. gentleman to put it in such a shape as it can be submitted to the House.

Mr. MILLS—It seems to me there is another point besides the one the Hon. Speaker has made. Not only is the amendment not germane, but it pro

poses to commit this House to the principle of increased taxation.

Mr. SPEAKER--If the amendment is so worded as to be admisible, in the language of the authority it is such a resolution as is "barren in result." It is a mere abstract expression of the House, even supposing it to mean a revision of the tariff. I think the hon. member will find, if he consults the books, some extreme cases of that kind.

Mr. DECOSMOS amended his resolution and submitted it to the Speaker, who still thought it was not in the proper shape to be presented to the House.

some

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE This amendment either involves change in the taxation or it involves nothing. It either involves a re-distribution of something at present existing or nothing, and a re-distribution of existing duties imposes extra charges upon certain classes and lighter charges upon others. An expression of opinion in that direction is clearly imposng a burden on certain classes.

Mr. SPEAKER-The principle on which abstract resolutions is based is this: That the Government is not really bound by them, even if the whole House adopt them. Mr. Todd is very elear and strong on that point..

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-I think a resolution of this kind is strictly within the privileges of this. House. It is not such a resolution as pledges the House in any way. It would be unfair to deprive this or any other Parliament of being a free Parliament, as would be done if we could not express our views generally on the system of taxation, the collection of the revenue ΟΙ the I think re-adjustment of the tariff. the rule of exclusion of the power of Parliament does not go so far as that. But, however that may be, I am strongly impressed that this is not the proper time to offer such a resolution. It is not fair to bind the hands of Government before maturity. The Government are coming down. It is their duty to come down, and they have informed the House that they will come down at an early day; and they have the right to claim from both sides of the House that they shall have full opportunity to lay their views on the question of taxation-whether there shall be an increase or decrease, a

re-distribution or re-adjustment of the tariff-before the House. No hon. member by any motion of this kind should attempt to force the Government into a false position by forcing them to resist the motion or to come

down with their policy before they are ready to do So. The hon. gentleman ought not to press this motion, and if he docs press it and you, Mr. Speaker, shall decide it in order, I certainly shall not vote for it.

Mr. MILLS--The only way such a motion can be in order is by making it express regret that the Government have not brought down a policy increasing the tariff.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD--That is the same thing.

Mr. MILLS-No; the resolution makes this House declare positively that an increased tariff is desired, and it cannot do that according to the English precedents.

Mr. SPEAKER--May it not express regret that it has not been done and a desire that it should?

Mr. DECOSMOS---I believe that resolution is strictly in order. It is an abstract resolution, and does not in any way interfere with the exclusive rights of the Government to initiate money bills. It will simply give an opportu nity to hon. gentlemen to express their views on this subject, and possibly attain the end sought by the hon. member for Bothwell.

Mr. DEVLIN---The constituency which I have the honour to represent has a large interest in the question of Protection, and if it was presented to the House fairly I should feel it my duty to offer a few remarks.

Mr. SPEAKER---If the hon. member has some observations to make he might be allowed to proceed while I am looking up the authorities with regard to the amendment.

Mr. Devlin, however, elected to defer his remarks.

Mr. SPEAKER-Speaking almost entirely from my general impressions of the subject, I think the amendment is in order. I find in May the following :—

"But the rules applicable to grants of money and motions for increasing the burSir JOHN A. MACDONALD.

thens upon the people, do not apply to resolutions expressive of any abstract opinion of the House upon such matters. Such resolutions have been allowed upon the principle that not being offered in a form in which a vote of the House for granting money or im posing a burthen can be regularly agreed to, they are barren of results, and are, therefore, to be regarded in the same light as any other abstract resolution. But for that very reason they are objectionable; and being also an evasion of wholesome rules they are discouraged as much as possible."

I find in Todd a great many cases cited in which abstract resolutions of this kind were objected to as highly impolitic; but in no instance were they spoken of as out of order.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said if this amendment were passed it would commit the House to a re-distribution of

existing taxation, any recommendation Crown. That was the objection which for which should come from the he had taken at first.

Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked how the House could in that case express its opinion on a question of this kind.

it

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said could be done when the Government measure was brought down. It would be for the hon. gentlemen opposite to propose a motion expressing their retaken, and issue would at once be gret that a certain course was not joined. If the amendment should be carried the consequence was well known.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he believed the amendment was inexpedient, but still it was a matter of very great importance, because upon it depended very largely the freedom of Parliament. The House was not obliged to wait unbefore expressing an opinion. They til the Government had taken a step such a step was not taken. He was might wish to express a regret that satisfied the amendment was in order and the question of its expediency should not be considered. If it were carried it would be an expression of the House. If the Government wished to yield to it they could bring down a measure based on it; if they did not they could say they did not think it expedient to advise Her Majesty to send a message in favour of a re-adjustment of taxation. In that case, then, would come the action of the House if it chose to insist upon its first