! the revenue has to be raised by the im- the consumer. I am prepared to prove you this day week on the question now before the House, I moved an amendment to the resolution then in your hands. That amendment I discovered afterwards was ruled out of order, and very properly so, I believe, according to the practice of the House; but I was not aware when I proposed it that such was the case. I told you then I would take the very earliest opportunity of submitting that resolution again to this House, and getting a clear and distinct vote upon it. With that view I have now risen, and I wish to state that since I offered my amendment on the first occasion I have had the satisfaction of visiting some of my constituents in Montreal, and they have requested that I should bring this measure squarely and fairly before the House and get a distinct and plain vote upon it. In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the nature of the resolution, I will now read it--That all the words after "that" in the origi- | nal motion be struck out and the following inserted instead thereof: "This "House deeply regrets that the Govern"ment has not proposed to Parliament a Mr. WORKMAN-I stand corrected, "policy of increased protection to our then. I may state that I had a conver"various and important manufactures, sation with three gentlemen who are “the large amount of capital now in- thoroughly competent to give an opin"vested therein, and the present de-ion on the subject; and if you will per"pressed condition of the country ren"dering such a policy necessary to re"store them to a condition of pros"perity." I do not intend to detain the House on this question, because it has already been very fully discussed; but, as I have stated, I wish to get a vote on this resolution. To my mind it is very plain and straightforward, and admits of no trimming and no dissimulation. When I had the honour of addressing my_constituents previous to the election, I stated distinctly the line I intended to adopt. The amendment is in accordance with the policy I then foreshadowed, and it is with that view I now bring it forward. The gentlemen who have addressed you on this subject, and especially those entertaining what they are pleased to term free-trade proclivities, have spoken very fully as to their adherence to that policy. I maintain that free-trade is a perfect absurdity, and that we have no such thing in this Dominion. A very large portion of Mr. SPEAKER-The hon. gentleman is not at liberty to speak of what took place before the Committee. mit me, Mr. Speaker, I shall mention their names. One was Mr. Perley, of this city, a very large lumber merchant, carrying on an extensive business; another was Mr. Baldwin, and the other Mr. Booth. I put this question to these gentlemen :---Has the increase of the duties on the articles you consume in your shanties, mills, &c., increased the price of these materials to you within the last few years? Their answer was plain and distinct, that it had not, but on the contrary, their plant (such as saws, augurs, spades, shovels and everything almost that is used in their establishments) are manufactured in Canada, and are really cheaper to-day than they were a few years ago. That is a sufficient answer to those gentlemen who claim that any increase of duty would increase the tax upon lumbermen and farmers. I am prepared to prove the same thing with reference to the farming interest; the implements used by the farmer are cheaper, of a better quality, and better suited to the wants of the country than they were when 2 per cent. duty was imposed. The incidental protection we have enjoyed for the last ten or fifteen years has stimulated manufacturing industries to a certain extent, and the result is that these articles are now produced cheaper and of a much better quality. There are a great many other industries that I might mention to sustain this position, but I do not wish to detain the House too long. But there is one in particular to which I shall, and I wish I understood it enough to enter into all its details----I mean the sugar question. That very important branch is almost ruined by the policy of our Government, and by the policy adopted by the United States in allowing such very large drawbacks as they are doing on the exports of refined sugar to Canada. These drawbacks consist principally of three classes, viz. $3.60 per 100 lbs., $3, and $2.50. Such drawbacks are allowed to the refineries of Boston, New York, &c., on all sugars of certain grades exported from the country, so that sugar coming from the United States here gets this bonus, and the effect has been to close our refineries and throw the refiners out of employment. Hundreds of men are idle and families in almost a state of destitution in consequence of the want of a proper policy by the Government in meeting this unjust proceeding on the part of the United States. I hope this Government, before the House rises, will take this question into serious consideration. A gentleman whom I had a long conversation with lately declared that a refinery in Canada has worked at a clear loss of 12 to 37 cents on every 100 lbs. brought into competition with the United States. I state that on the authority of a gentleman well qualified to judge, and I think my hon. friend from Halifax will probably confirm my statement, or will correct me if wrong. The quality of sugar now sent into Canada is very inferior; the sacharine quality of that. sugar, in some instances, is not more than 60 per cent. of what it used to be, and I believe the average is from 80 to 82, while the genuine article we got some years ago would average 89 to 99 per cent., and the consumer pays quite as high for the article. This arises from the fact that persons in the United States are manufacturing the cheapest and commonest article to send into Canada, in order to secure the enormous drawback. con I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to bring before this House some remedy for this great evil. I also stated on an occasion to which I have already referred, that Canada was made a sacrifice market for various manufactures in the United States and certain kinds of goods. When I was in Montreal, yesterday, I called on one or two people who are engaged in the hardware business-in my own branch of business. One young man who is buyer for a very large house, I asked distinctly and plainly if it was the case that goods were offered to Canadian buyers at lower prices than they were to American buyers for home sumption. He replied equally plainly and distinctly that it was quite notorious, and in proof of this assertion he gave me a memorandum of some articles. First, take locks : These are used extensively in our houses. There is what is called the price list. They are all fixed. There is no alteration or change in the prices, but there is an alteration in the discount. The nominal prices are the same for both Canada and the United States, but in the United States the manufacturers allow a discount of 50 and 2 per cent. to purchasers for home consumption; but for Canadian purchasers they allow a discount of 50 and 2 and 10, making a discriminating duty of 10 per cent. against Canadian manufacturers and in favour of themselves really. The next article he gave me was that of enamelled hardware. We have one manufactory up at Hamilton. The discount in the United States is 20 per cent. off their lists, but for Canada, in order to compete with or to drive out our struggling industries of the same, as at Hamilton, and one or two at Montreal, a discount of 50 per cent. is allowed. That is they charge 80 cents in the United States, but only 50 cents for them when the articles come into Canada. The price in the United States for cistern pumps, or the dis- | count allowed rather, is 35 per cent. for American merchants, but if the goods are coming into Canada a discount of 45 per cent. is allowed. In scales a discount of 33 is allowed for home consumption, but if they come into Canada à discount of 50 per cent. is allowed. I think that my hon. friend from Hamilton, who is in the hardware line, will confirm me in this statement. Mr. WOOD-Hear, hear. promptly and in cash-and they take care that all of these sales are for cash-for in 10, 15 or 20 days they have their money, while our merchants are obliged to sell at large credit, and very often they make bad debts. These are some of the difficulties we have to contend with in this country and under the system at present advocated by the Government of the day. These are the great and the trying circumstances under which our manufacturers labour. Is it therefore to be wondered at that there is a Mr. WORKMAN-I was contra- great outcry for some change? I dicted when I made these statements certainly had the best reason for bebefore, but I am prepared to prove lieving that some change would have that this state of things does exist, been introduced to meet this crying and I quote the figures now. I defy evil that is to be heard of all over the any hon. gentleman to contradict country, in every town, in every vil them. There may be certain branches lage almost throughout this Dominion. of dry goods and certain lines of goods You will find that the statements I sold exactly at the same price in the make here are confirmed by facts that United States as in Canada, but there are patent to the people. The hon. are a great many descriptions gentlemen who to-day control the desthat are sold cheaper in Canada tinies of this country, and are responthan in the United States for the pur-sible to it for the policy they pose of crushing out our own manufactories and industries in this country. American manufacturers are determined to do it if they can; and in proof of this I have to quote you the prices I have just read. There is another article, manufactured both in Quebec and Montreal to a considerable extent, viz.: India-rubber goods. The price of these goods is nearly one-third less if they are exported to Canada than if they are for home consumption in Boston, New York, or any other large city in the United States. The difference is so great that I am almost afraid to read it, but I have it from undoubted authority. There is another article-galvanized wire. If for home consumption in the United States, the price is 9 cents per pound in United States currency, but if the order is from a Canadian hardware merchant, the price is 63 cents in gold. The one is equal to 8 cents gold and the other to 64 cents gold. Therefore, we have to compete with what I call an unjust and sacrificing system in the United States. They send their surplus stocks into our markets and dispose of them almost for whatever prices they will bring. They know very well that Canadian merchants, as a rule, pay introduced last week, will find that they are mistaken if they calculate upon our people submitting quietly to have a continuance of this system. If I am out-voted in this resolution tonight, it will be my duty to try and impress upon my constituents, and also upon different constituencies throughout this country, that we must educate public opinion up to this point. We must try to impress upon them the importance of a protective policy to our manufacturing industries here in Canada. And if we cannot succeed in doing that, if we are out-voted by a decided majority, then it will be timeenough for us to submit to the dictates and decision of the House. In the meantime, I am determined by every possible means to bring this question squarely and fairly before the House. With that view I drew out my resolution without consulting any one, and with very short consideration indeed. I placed it in your hands this day week, and I then stated, Mr Speaker, that I should insist or endeavour to force a vote upon it. I do so now. I make that motion, seconded by Mr. Devlin, the hon. member for Montreal Centre. Mr. COLBY—I, perhaps, may be pardoned for making a few observations upon the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Montreal West. I did not care to take part in the debate to which we have recently listened at comsiderable length, upon the resolution of the hon. member for Hamilton, for the reason that the debate was somewhat discursive, and was taking a broader field than I thought was necessary for the consideration of the House in connection with the important question of the tariff. I believe that the question which is interesting this House and the country is not a question between free-trade and protection. I believe there is no hon. gentleman on the floor of this House, however enthusiastic he may be in his free-trade sentiments, who would urge that free-trade, pure and simple, was suitable for this country; and I believe there is no gentleman, although there are some very ardent protectionists here, who would advance the proposition that it would be to the interests of the country to surround it with a Chinese Wall, and to make an insurmountable barrier around it. Our present policy is the policy of the late Government, that which we have had for many years, viz.: protection to the industries of this country. The question is whether the protection we now have is an adequate protection. It is a question as between the protection that is at present afforded, and one of a greater degree. There are many who are not out and out Protectionists, who believe, that in view of the present distress, especially amongst manufacturers, we should increase the protection. who were preying upon this country, and whose only idea and wish was by rings, monopolies and other unfair methods, to promote their own cause. Now, this is not the opinion to which I have been educated, nor do I think it is an enlightened opinion I have always been led to believe, and hold that the great industries of this or any civilized country are inter-dependent; that the agricultural, commercial and manufacturing iterests work concurrenty for our well-being and prosperity. Those of the manufacturer are not necessarily adverse to those of the farmer, nor vice versa; they are coadjutors, working for the common benefit, and an appeal to the farmers as a class, as against the manufacturers as a class, is the purest demagogueism. If I thought, as some hon. gentlemen seem to think, I should say that we should sweep these industries out of existence; but my observation has taught me to consider, and I have been educated to believe that the state of the arts and manufactures in any country is almost a measure, and certainly an index of its prosperity and greatness. If their encouragement then is desirable, how shall it be effected? I would appeal to any gentleman in this House, and ask if he thinks, that our manufactures can exist and flourish with a system of free-trade, pure and simple? Everybody knows that they cannot; our circumstances are such that this is imposible. An Hon. Gentleman-Why? Mr. COLBY--An hon. gentleman enquires why? The reason is obvious to my mind, though it may not be to In view of the unfair and fierce this hon. gentleman; they could not, assaults upon our manufacturers from in such a case, compete with the riparts without this country, and of valry of Great Britain and the United the present situation, I think that if States, two great nations with which manufacturing industries were desired, we have commercial intercourse; their we could well afford, even at a little manufacturing establishments have sacrifice, to come to their relief at the been founded for many years, and with present moment. The solution of this their unlimited capital and acquired question will, however, depend very skill, and business reputation, posses largely upon the light in which these sing, moreover, the trade market of the interests are regarded. I have heard, world, while we are excluded from our I must confess, hon. members of this nearest mart, it would be quite imposHouse denounce those who were sible for us, with our limited means and engaged in these enterprises as cor- peculiar conditions to prosper in this mórants-as persons who had interests relation under a system of absolue distinct from the mass of the people-free-trade, and build up these industries. I am quite aware that perhaps the | it to be the duty of the Administration hon. gentleman who made the enquiry, to intermeddle. He lays down the as well as other hon. members, may be proposition that a Government cannot extreme in their views regarding free- be free and at the same time paternal trade; but I had hardly supposed that this was at present a point in controversy. I imagined certainly that the initial difficulties incident to the establishment of manufactures in a young country situated as ours is, would appal anyone if we had a system of freetrade, pure and simple. ད If then, I am correct in the belief that some measure of protection must be granted in order to make these enterprises successful, the amount to be granted comes into question; and I venture to assert that it is impossible for any man, I do not care how conversant he may be with theories, or how enlightened he may be, to elaborate in his closet and propound a tariff which, evolved by any system of (a priori) reasoning shall be adapted to the changing exigencies of a country like this. Any tariff devised must be experimental, it must be tentative, it cannot rest upon pure, abstract principles, it cannot be procrustean; it ought not to be such as will compel the varying industries and conditions of the country to confcrm to certain fixed rules, but rather a tariff which will yield to our changing necessities, and conditions. Whether protection should equal ten or fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five per cent. is I assume, a matter to be tested; and in this manner alone can it be determined. Our tariff when prepared, gave a fair degree of protection to manufactures; but it now appears, if the evidence by which we are surrounded is to be credited, as well as the testimony of those most interested, that in consequence of the fierce competition to which they are exposed from our neighbours over the line, and of other causes, it is insufficient to accomplish the end in view. That very great distress exists is not controverted; it is admitted; the Finance Minister acknowledge's it-also that it has been largely aggravated by the system of bringing in American goods, which are sold at reduced slaughter prices. He further admits that there are cases of extreme hardship, but he does not feel + that a Government cannot properly exercise a paternal influence over the industries of a country unless it has the power of limiting production as well. I must dissent from that idea; in the strict sense no Government can be free; the very conception of Government is contrary to the idea of freedom, and in that sense no Government can be free. I believe that it can be free and paternal to a certain extent, having a fair solicitude for our industries, and adapting its policy from time to time to the varying exigencies of the country, it may yield to the stress of the times, and yet be a free Government. I don't think that a Government, in order to be free, should be rigid and unelastic, and incapable of adapting itself to the exigencies of the country. The Finance Minister seeing, as he freely acknowledges, the distress of the country, might very fairly, without doing violence to his views on that subject, have met this condition of affairs. There is no doubt, that being a new country and our relations being such with the two great nations with which our business has most to do, our circumstances are somewhat peculiar, and I believe if there ever was a country in which the Government might strain a point in order to encourage industries, that country is Canada. We have valuable resources, and all the elements essential to success in manufacturing enterprise. We have iron, coal, water-power, and as tractable a population as can be found in the factories of any country. I I am not an extreme Protectionist. would not surround this country with an impassable barrier by way of a tariff, but I am one of those who believe that the circumstances in which we find the manufacturing industries. of the country are such that the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Montreal West may fairly be supported by the members of this House. Mr. DOMVILLE-I have listened with great attention to the speeches on this subject, and I must confess I am |