Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD---We| Finance Minister was met by an amendhave all but one object--to despatch ment that you do not now leave the business as quickly as possible. I re- Chair. That amendment, after a full gret that the Government did not in- discussion, has been negatived, and I troduce three or four Bills in the Upper hold that under the rules of the House House, as the latter might have thus the motion must now be put-that no been kept out of mischief, for it is further debate can take place on the said that Satin finds mischief for idle original motion. hands to do.

certain conclusions that I have arrived | I am prepared to say, for one, after at with regard to it. such consideration as I have been able

lieve free-trade, pure and simple, would be desirable. On the other hand, I take the ground, and hold it most strongly, that a policy of absolute protectionof high protective duties-would inflict the most fatal blow on our interests that could be inflicted.

An Hon. Member-No one asks for

that.

The difficulty of discussing the ques-to give this matter, that I do not betion in this House is that we have no positive definition of what gentlemen mean by free trade and protection. We have certain gentlemen rising, like my hon. friend for North Norfolk, in his clever speech the other day, and arguing in favour of protection, yet closing with expressing their belief that 17 per cent. duty was sufficient protection under the present circumstances of the country. Again, we have other gentlemen who call themselves Free Traders who reached the conclusion that they would not object to having even 20 per cent. put on eertain classes of articles. Therefore one difficulty in discussing this subject on the floor of Parliament is that gentlemen do not start from the same point--that we have not the definition of what is really meant by those two principles.

The writings of such men as Smith, Ricardo, and Mills

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD---Smith never saw a steam engine.

Mr. YOUNG-That may be true. I say that the writings of those gentle throughout the world---that, provided men have been generally accepted all countries would adopt freedom of trade, the system is best adapted to promote the wealth of a country. For my part I hold that, however true those principles may be in themselves, you cannot apply them to all countries without taking into consideration the geographical, political and other circumstances of the particular country to which they are about to be applied. On this question, as I trust on most other questions, I am no theorist. prefer to look at it from a practical point of view; and regarding the position of Canada, situated as we are alongside the United States, and geographically and politically, to a certain extent, connected with that country, I think that the best fiscal policy for the Dominion is neither absolute free trade nor absolute protection. So far as freetrade, pure and simple, is concerned, the engagements of the country, the demands of the public credit or render such a policy as that impossible; and

Mr. YOUNG-Wait until I come to Hon. Minister of Finance,in the exceedthat point-I will refer to it. The ingly able speech he made in introducing the Budget, exhibited to us the exact financial position of the country at the present moment. He told us that next year he could not calculate on a revenue of more than about $23,000,000; whereas last year our expenditure was close upon $24,000,000. It therefore became necessary that Government to equalize the revenue some action should be taken by the and expenditure, for anybody can see that a deficit under present circumstances would be a most unfortunate thing.

After full consideration of this questake in the interests of the whole countion, the Government arrived at the con take in the interests of the whole country was to retrench the public expend

clusion that the true course for them to

iture and reduce the amount that would have to be raised. They might have increased taxation, but they de

cided that the true solution of the matter was to enter on a system of economy. The leader of the Opposition hon. member for Cumberland did not said he was surprised, and though the say so, it was apparent he felt surIprised at the policy of the Government, to censure them for again increasing and had come to the House prepared to censure them for again increasing taxation and inserting the thin end of rived here my impression was that an the protectionist wedge. When I ar

increase of taxation would be necessary, and I was prepared to say, looking at the importance of our manufacturing interests and the depression which undoubtedly exists among them, to approve of the principle on which our Governments have acted for the past twenty years being carried out, and that, in adjusting the tariff, inci

Now, Sir, I approach the point in my argument where I propose to consider the effect of a high protective policy, such as exists in the United States, upon the manufacturing interests of this country; and it is my opinion, and has been for many years, founded upon observation and experience, that no policy could be devised which would be in the end more fatal to these interests generally than that I have mentioned.

ests-the lumbering, importing, ship- | forced to give one bushel of wheat as a ping, farming, manufacturing and present to the salt maker. So it is trading, in which I include all traders. with nearly every article the farmer The lumber, importing and trading in- consumes, and I am prepared to show terests could not possibly be benefited if we in this country adopt that prinby a protective policy, and when through ciple we cannot help going further, its operation our shipbuilders were com- and you will find that many of the pelled to pay more for the iron, steel, farmers of Canada will be soon scarcely copper and cordage which go into their able to make more than a bare subsisvessels, instead of being the third or tence. If they are rendered less profourth maritime power in the world, sperous, if their purchasing power be we would fall to the ninth or tenth. decreased, the markets for our manuLook at the effect it would have on the factures will be largely destroyed---it agricultural interests of this country. will be found we have destroyed the Say what we may, there can be no doubt goose that lays the golden eggs. that interest is the real foundation of Canada's prosperity. The effect of a policy like this would be that the farmer would have to pay more for every implement he uses, more for all the clothing he and his family require, and more in the shape of taxation. It would reduce the value of every bushel of grain, every animal, every pound of butter and cheese and every dozen of eggs the farmer raised. (Hear, hear). Hon. gentlemen may say "hear, hear, but I refer them to the history and experience of the United States to prove the position I take in this matter. In many parts of parts of that country, to-day, farmers are unable to make any profit out of their land, because under a system of legalized robbery their money has been legislated into the pockets of other classes of the community. An illustration of this is furnished by Hon. David Wells, of the United States, a gentleman who is one of the highest authorities in the world on this question. I believe I am correct in stating he went into the Treasury Department of the United States a Protectionist, and from the facts he learned there came to the conclusion that their commercial policy of protection was ruinous. In consequence of the large amount of duty on salt in the United States, imposed for the benefit of the Onondaga Company in New York State, Mr. Wells shows that the western farmer has to give two bushels of spring wheat to buy one barrel of salt; whereas, if there had been no duty, or only a moderate one, he could have bought that barrel of salt for one bushel of wheat. The farmer was therefore

My hon. friend from Hamilton alluded the other day to the fact, that an important manufacturing interest existed in my own town and neighbourhood, and I am proud to say that Galt has more manufactures for its size than probably any other town in the Dominfon; and further, that my Riding, as is shown by the statistics contained in the late census, turned out more manufactures than any other Riding in the Dominion with the exception of those embracing large cities. I shall not retort with respect to certain remarks made by the senior member for Hamilton in the course of his speech, but I wish to say to the hon. gentleman, I am never afraid, here or elsewhere, to state my views on this or any other question; and if the time should ever come when I am unable on the floor of this House to advocate what my judgment and conscience assure me is right and for the good of Canada, I shall cease to have any desire to remain in public life.

I would refer for a moment to the benefits conferred by manufactures on a country. Some hon. gentlemen believe that manufactures of any class, and whether profitable in themselves or not, must be a benefit to the com

It is quite clear, for instance, that the iron industry must come under this head, and I hold that the arguments in favour of such a course are stronger with regard to this interest than with reference to many others. The coal interest must also be protected under such circumstances; in a very short time our taxes would be increased, working men could no longer live on their present wages; and in a very few years our manufacturers would find that there would be such an increase in the cost of production that they would be far less capable of competing with the manufacturers of Great Britain and the United States than they are at the present time under a revenue tariff. If the principle be once adopted-that the Government must be responsible for the success of certain industries-then, I contend, as soon as they again become unprosperous, further taxation would have to be imposed

munity. I dissent from that opinion. | lar industries: we must extend it to all; I consider that they are an advantage- and in that case everybody would be as is the case with any other interest- exactly in the position they previously only when they can be carried on with occupied. profit, and show a surplus between revenue and expenditure. I go further, and assert that if any branch of industry cannot be conducted in Canada with the incidental protection of a revenue tariff, one of two things is perfectly clear either we do not possess the natural facilities necessary to its success, or the individuals engaged in that department of trade have not the requisite capital and skill. If the former be true, no one will gain by the existence of such an industry; and if the latter is correct—and we know that this is the case in many instances to-day-it is too much to tax the whole community in order that incompetent persons may be kept in an unprofitable calling. I regret as much as any one, that our manufactures should be in such a depressed condition as they are at present, but other interests occupy a similar position----such as the mercantile and lumbering interests, &c. I maintain, however, that taking the last ten or twelve years into consideration, our manufactures have developed as rapidly and as largely, and have been as successful as any other great interest in this country. All manufacturers do not, by any means, hold that a high protective tariff would be beneficial to their interests; a large proportion have never demanded more than reasonable encouragement, and I must say that I have been extremely surprised to find that many of the men who have come to this House to insist the most vehemently upon the adoption of the American system, have been citizens of Montreal who have, during the last ten or fifteen years, made large fortunes. What would be the effect if the advice of these gentlemen were followed? In a verv few years we would have colossal establishments built up in Montreal and neighbourhood, which would crush out by their immense competition the smaller manufactures in Ontario and other sections of the country. This has been largely the result in the United States, and it would be the same here.

If we are to adopt a high protective system, we cannot confine it to particu

The hon. members for Hamilton have said that nobody demands extreme protection, and have admitted that such a policy has been elsewhere most disastrous; but I maintain that when we depart from a revenue tariff and adopt protection as the principle of our fiscal legislation, we will have started upon an inclined plane and cannot logically arrest our course short of absolute prohibition. In a short time, when further depression occurred, more protection would be demanded, and the principle being admitted, demand could not be resisted. I accordingly believe that such a policy in the end would be disastrous to our manufacturers themselves.

the

If even prohibitory duties were adopted, would they restore prosperity to many of our manufactures now depressed? I answer No! for the very simple reason that their want of prosperity is to-day due to over-production within our own country. I take as an instance the boot and shoe trade. I know that the annual production in this article, in Montreal alone, is estimated at over ten millions of dollars; and in the census of 1871, the produc