The Conservatives have been re proached because they did not give protection themselves. I have shown the only protective tariff we have had in Canada was framed by them. Since that time Confederation has taken place. The people of the Lower Provinces were accustomed to a lower tariff, and we were told under the new system our affairs would be so managed that we would have plenty of money in our treasury. The people of the Maritime Provinces were not willing, to consent to any increase of duty. now. Mr. JONES (Halifax)-Hear! hear! Mr. MASSON-The hon. gentleman says "hear, hear," but I want him to understand that if we have a deficit to-day it is not due as he stated to the Pacific Railway, because there is not an inch of it built. Two years ago we had to raise $3,000,000 and we have a deficit again. We have had to build the Intercolonial Railway, and if we wish to extend a railway to Louisburg, build St. Peter's Canal, to deepen the harbours, build lighthouses, and to construct the Baie Verte Canal-if they want money expended among themselves they must help us to raise it. I mistake the spirit of the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick if they will not do so. A protective tariff has not been needed very badly until We have had the civil war and high priced labour in the United States as a protection in the past; we have had a full treasury, and there was no deficit until the hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. There is no better proof of this than the fact that the Committee appointed in 1872 to investigate the question of protection, reported that the manufacturers of the country were not country were not on the whole in an unsatisfactory condition. Nevertheless, they thought a tariff of twenty per cent. would better enable them to build up their industries. If a tariff of twenty per cent. was necessary then, where there was no such depression as we have now, I ask if we do not require it far more to-day? The greatest enemies of incidental protection or modified free-trade for this country are not the American or English manufacturers, but the abstract-theory gentlemen who have formed their opinions in England, and fancy we should, under different circumstances adopt a free-trade policy here. As far as our manufactures are concerned, we are in our infancy and require protection. As long as countries are situated in different conditions, so long will we have different systems of political economy. If I were in England I would be a Free-Trader, and I would advise the Colonies to confine themselves to the production of the raw material; to send them to the mother country to be worked up there and returned to the colonists with the bill of cost for transportation both ways, and the cost of manufacture. But the reason for which the Free-Traders of England, in their own interest, advise us to adopt a free-trade policy should induce us to be Protectionists. The very fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are driven to defend their policy by quoting from American authorities, is a proof we need protec tion. The policy of the Conservative Party, as laid down by the right hon. member for Kingston, is to so remodel our tariff as to give to our rising manufactures that protection to which they are entitled, and we are ready to go before the country and put that in contradistinction to the policy of the Premier who said in England we should so adjust our tariff as to foster the trade relations with England and foreign countries. Mr. BROUSE-I do not desire to give a silent vote on this motion. I heartily approved of the motion of the hon. member for Montreal West, and cordially gave it my support. The manufacturing industries of this country are depressed, and I felt it was the duty of the Government to foster them in their infancy, but the agricultural and manufacturing interests are not necessarily twin brothers, though they go side by side a certain distance. One can profit by protection, the other be benefitted by free-trade with the whole world. The hon. member for Terrobonne said results are far better than theories. Let us sce what the results have been in Central in Canada. I represent a constituency ency in part manufacturing and in a greater part agricultural. I be lieve the great wealth of our Dominion lies in agriculture, and that it should be protected, but not in the way proposed by the hon. member for Kingston. How can you protect the farmers by placing a duty on the products of the soil? Take the sixty miles along the St. Lawrence from Brockville to Cornwall, in which are situated besides those towns, Prescott and Morrisburg. I have the United States Consul's certificate of all the produce sent from this part of Canada to the United States and ascertained how much returns. This section of Ontario in the fall, winter and spring is flooded with Americans who come here to purchase products of the soil. I find, from the districts to which I have referred, we export butter to the United States as follows: in We sent in 1874, of hay, 4,500 tons, of oats, 30 000 bushels, and of rye, 24,000 bushels. In 1872, from those four little towns I have mentioned, we sent $3,332,000 worth of farming products to, the United States markets; in 1873, we sent $4,625,000 worth; in 1874, we sent $3,517,000 worth; and in 1875, notwithstanding the hard times, we sent nearly $3,000,000 worth. Let us turn to the other side, and see how we could protect our farmers. Let us put large duties on these articles. A drover comes here, pays $2 for a lamb and takes it to the United States. He pays $3 for a permit, and half a dollar gold in duty. Now, instead of protecting our farmers by increased duties we should attempt to get that market thrown open for their products. The farmer would get $2.50 for the lamb which he now sells for $2. This motion of the right hon. member is mere clap-trap, intended to catch a few supporters of the Government, and I do not think he believes in the policy he proposes. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-The hon. gentleman had better keep that speech for the Senate. Mr. BROUSE-If I were in the Senate I would make the same speech even if the hon. gentleman were there too. In 1875 the whole Province of Ontario received from the United States only $680 worth of butter; in the same year we sent from the town of Prescott alone to United States markets $175,000 worth of the same article. Then, in the matter of sheep, this Province imported just three. The right hon. gentleman should demand protection or our sheep. Now there are only three articles We sent of pelts to the United States that come into Canada which can com pete with Canadian agricultural produce—wheat, corn and pork. I understood the mover of the resolution before the House to say a duty should be placed on wheat. We have magnificent water power in this country along the Welland Canal, the Longue Sault and the Lachine Canal; these are leased to manufacturers who bring wheat from the West into the country without paying duty on it, manufacture it and send it out to be sold. Would you shut up these manufactories by taxing wheat and preventing it from coming into Canada? We enjoy the advantages of it passing through the country; advantages we would not enjoy if that policy was carried out. I understand something about corn; the mover would tax it, and what would be the effect? We cannot raise corn enough to feed our manufacturing interests here, and for distillery purposes. There was another manufacturing industry which the hon. member forgot when he was endeavouring to build up these interests; I refer to the starch manufacture, which we should protect. We have three establishments to-day in Canada, one of which is in the County of Grenville, and it uses 600 bushels of grain per day. Although the corn used in this manufacture comes into the country, yet the Americans come in with their starch and successfully compete against it until they compel the Canada starch works to close. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-Hear! hear! Mr. BROUSE―This is an industry I would protect. The right hon. gentleman says "hear, hear," and I say "hear, hear." Let us protect that interest, but if you place a duty on grain that comes in here, where in the name of heaven will you protect it? An Hon. Member-Put it on starch. Mr. BROUSE-There is already a duty of two cents per pound on starch. An Hon. Member-Let us put on four cents. Mr. BROUSE Notwithstanding this specific duty of two cents on every pound they sell it in Kingston delivered cheaper than Canada starch. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-Supposing corn was delivered in the starch manufactory in bond? Mr. BROUSE-I follow out the hon. gentleman's argument when he says facts are better than theories, and I am not going to talk theory. The fact is that starch costs 3 cents of our money, and it costs 6 cents to manufacture it in Canada without a duty on corn. I cannot understand how you are to tax a material brought into the country to be manufactured and yet protect the manufactured article. This to me is absurd, and I bring forward this argument to show that it is wrong to say that this House or the Government should tax corn brought in for that legitimate purpose. In another direction that corn is heavily taxed, as it is used largely in the manufacture of whiskey, and there is a duty on whiskey of 25 cents per gallon. Will you tax it any farther? Can you? You can make a beam so large that by its own weight it will break; that is the law of nature; and are you going to tax raw material and then tax the manufactured article to such an extent as to prevent its being manufactured? It seems to me to be absurd to talk about protecting the manufacturing interests of the country unless you throw open the American markets and allow our farmers to take their produce from there and sell it where they can get the largest price. I think I heard the hon. gentleman say there was no possibility of getting this privilege. Let me tell him that there was a time when he had the lever that would have States our fisheries that he gave opened the markets of the United brought a resolution stating that he away. This I regret, and had he regretted exceedingly that the only lever we had to open the American markets was no longer within our power because of himself, he would have acted more properly. When I heard the hon. gentleman struggling to make his remarks it reminded me of a man trying to ride two horses without any reins. As long as the horses go together it is all right, but they come at length to where there is a cross road, and one wants to go one way, and the other wants to go the other way, and he is in great perplexity because he cannot ride them both. These industries go side by side for a certain distance, and then they diverge, one wanting protection, and the other free trade. Mr. LAURIER The hon. member ber for Terrebonne having made allusion to me in his remarks, I thought it advisable to give my own views on the subject. Still, I feel diffident about expressing myself, being hardly com- | England but in the world at large. It petent to deal with the question. How is also true that free-trade was carried ever, since my hon. friend has chosen in England through political action, to do So, I presume that I can express and that its introduction was opposed my own feelings better than he can. by the Conservatives on political and What my hon. friend has said as to economical grounds; but it is equally my protective proclivities are perfectly true that since free-trade has been in true, and I I do not deny that operation in England, and its beneficent I have been a Protectionist, which results have been fully experienced I am still. I differ with my by that country, the Conservative hon. friend in this, and to-night party has abandoned its former I will give my vote against the prejudices, so that at present both motion. I am a Protectionist as well parties are a unit in this connection. as the hon. member. I am a moderate From Great Britain we cross the ChanProtectionist; he is an extreme Protec- nel, and we find the Liberal party in tionist. Francc divided on the question. When I speak of this party I do not mean the body of hot-headed men who, lacking sound principles, convictions and political opinions, assume, but do not deserve, the name, and who have thrown France into revolution after revolution; but I mean that great body of patriotic men who, at the time of the disastrous stitutioual means (and by such means war of 1871, attempted by every conalone) to endow France with free inleaders Thiers, Gambetta and Say, who institutions, acknowledging as their are divided in opinion on the question of free-trade and protection. Mr. MASSON-No! no! Mr. LAURIER—The difference be tween us is, that he wants the tariff increased, and further burdens put on the people, whereas I believe that we have already enough burdens. Perhaps my hon. friend will say that I am not consistent, but I claim that I am more consistent than he is. I am not at all surprised to see that he is an extreme political economist. He belongs to a party extreme in every way-extreme politically, socially and religiously. An Hon. Gentleman-Hear! hear! Mr. LAURIER-Many hon. members say say "hear, hear," and perhaps my remarks touched ground. I want to set myself right on the question involved in this matter. The hon. member for Terrebonne tells me that the question is one of free trade versus protection. He says that the question of free trade versus protection is a matter political as well as economical. It is asserted by many, and assumed by others, that free trade is a Liberal principle, and protection a Conservative principle. beg to dissent from this doctrine. see nothing political about it; it is purely a matter of social economy. If we turn to the history of both parties in any country where the English language, or British institutions are in existence, or even attempted to be established, we find that this matter has even been treated from a purely economical and not a political point of view. It is true that the Liberal party of England is the father of freedom in trade as well as of liberty, not only in I I While Thiers is an intense Protectectionist, Gambetta and Say are both Free-Traders. As to the Conservatives of France I cannot say what their opinion is on the matter, nor am I aware they have any. The Conservatives of France, and the great body of the Conservatives of Lower Canada, do not trouble themselves with these matter-of-fact questions. They chiefly concern themselves about saving their own souls and cursing the souls of other people. From the old world we come to this continent. In the United States the Liberal party is intensely protectionist and the Conservative or Democratic party intensely free-trade. If at last we come to our own country, we must be compelled to say, from the many discussions we have had, the Liberal party is far from being a unit on this subject. We have consistent and lifetime Liberals on both sides. As to the Conservatives, I am not aware until very recently that the party had a policy on the question, at least their leaders never avowed any. It is true from what we have seen in the House, may be said that this was not the real object in view, but I care little for the motive-I only regard the results. The that the great mass of the party seems to be protectionist, but is equally true they have only within two or three days come to adopt that policy openly, We have at the present time a 17 probably in justification of the well- per cent tariff, which is protection for known and now famous saying that a Canadian manufacturers against foreign political party, like a fish, is moved competition. But that is not all. by its tail. All this I will prove. The Against the English competitor he has question of free-trade and protection the difference of freight in his favor, is not to be applied in any country to and against the American competitor political motives, but is to be treated he has the difference in the price of simply as a matter of pure economy, labour. But notwithstanding all that and its solution depends entirely on amount of protection, we are told it is the condition of the country. It can- necessary to increase it. Has any not be denied that free-trade or pro- evidence been adduced to support that tection is to be applied according to proposition? I have listened attenthe necessities of a nation. If the view tively to what has been said in its of the subject that free-trade must be favour, and the summing up of the arguthe ultimate policy of any nation be ment has been that the country is in taken, it yet cannot be denied that a depressed condition. But is the deprotection is a matter of necessity for pression under which we are now sufà young nation, in order that it may fering the consequence of our present attain the full development of its tariff, or has it been proved that by a own resources. I conceive the most change in the tariff it would have been obstinate Conservative must admit relieved or alleviated? There is not that freedom is the natural condition a tittle of evidence to that effect. of trade, as of everything human; and answer given is this: That the dethe most obstinate Liberal must also pression is not particular to this counallow, that though it would never do try, but is universal and affects highly to build a Chinese wall around our protected as well as free-trade councountry in order to cut us off from the tries. Then will it be pretended that outside world, yet sometimes it is both an increase in the tariff will restore wise and prudent to establish on our prosperity? Hon. gentlemen opposite frontiers à few detached forts to protect have gone sentimental over the quesour territory against foreign invasion. tion. They have said factories are Therefore I can agree with my hon. closed or working on half-time, and friend from Terrebonne, that the that thousands of men are out of emquestion as to the adoption of free-ployment in the cities. All this may trade and protection altogether de be true, but suppose we had a high pends on the condition of the tariff? The result would be the same, country which may be in question. If I were in Great Britain I would avow free-trade, but I am a Canadian born and resident here, and I think that we require protection. But to what extent do we need it? In this relation it is that I am not in agreement with my hon. friend. He holds that the tariff should be increased in order to preserve our manufactures from the injurious effects of foreign competition; but my hon. friend should remember that protection means taxation, which is a burden on the people, and the price a young a vigorous nation must consent to pay in order to rid itself of the yoke of a more wealthy nation. I consider, however, that the present tariff affords sufficient protection. It and we would be even in a worse position than we are now-in the same position as the manufacturers of the United States are. With the thousands of men out of employment, 25 per cent would be added to the necessaries of life, and there would be more suffering. Let us go still further. Suppose we should have the legislation sought, we would be no better situated than we are under a moderate tariff. The United States have a high tariff, and are suffering even worse than we, and the remedy proposed there is a decrease in duties. It would be extremely unfair, unjust and even dangerous if we were to take the present condition of things as a basis to frame legislation. |