%^ e>. ^' 1^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 7 // // /. ^ 1.0 1.1 11.25 •UUtI m U 11.6 Sciences Corporation 33 riCST MAIN STRUT WEBSTIR.N.Y. MS80 (716) 873-4503 iV iV i :1>^ \ :\ o^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Noteft/Notes techniques et bcbliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of th's copy which moy be bibiiographiaaiiy unique, which may alter any ot the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n D D D a Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured init (i.tii. other than b!iue or blacic)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ PI Planches et/ou illubtration^ en couleur Bound with other material/ Reiii avec d'autres documei>its r~n Tight binding mr^y cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La ffliiure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArleure Bianit leaves idded during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ I! se peut qun certaines pages blanches ajiouttos lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M f^lmies. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 4t6 possible de se procurer. Les d6trMs de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Page.! restauries et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages dicolortes, tacheties nu piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tach6es Showthrough^ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ in^gale de I'impresslon Includes supplementary materii Comprend du mat6riel supplAmentaire I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ j~T1 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ [~^ Showthrough/ ryi Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I 1 Only edition available/ Seuie Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un ^euillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmtes d nouvsau ds fafon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqu-^ ci-d«ssous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX 30X ■■■" ■■^" ^™" J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has bean reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire fi'nrtd f ut reproduit grAce A la gAn6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible coneidering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed bdginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copiei* are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame or each microfiche shal! contain the symbol — 4^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les im«>ges suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu d9 la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par !e second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par ia premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifio "A SUIVNE", le symbols V lignifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one expostre are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as man*' frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, k/lanches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, si est film6 it partir de I'dngle sup6rieur gauche, de gituche d droite, et de haut en has, on prenant le nombre d'!mages n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la methods. 1 2 -> — 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 F MI • ~ T^ THE NATIONAL POLICY AND THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION - OF THE PRESEIST GOVERNMENT. SPEECHES DELIVERED IN THL HOUSE OF COMMONS : at MR. THOS. WHITE, M. P. FOR CARDWELL ■H J^;.„; _,■ DURING THE SESSION OF 1882. { ' |.l 1 FINANCES AND NATIONAL I'OLICY. The Issues before the Country 3 The Financial Administration. = 4 The Expenditure of 1873-74 5 Comparison of 1873-4 and 1878-9 Liberal and Conservative Expenditure . . 6 Some remakable Contract? 8 The Increase in the Publir^ Debt 8 Expenditure in Capital Accouut 9 Kesponsibiliy for the Debt 9 The Canadian Pacific KJlway 10 The National Policy 11 The Influence of the Crops on our pros- perity . . . . 12 The Influence of the National Policy. . . 14 The Cotton Industry , 14 Eff'ect of Prices. . . ". 15 Wollen Manufactures 16 Profits of the Cotton Manufaciurers .... 16 Foreign and Hame-made Goods 17 Hovvthe N. P. has affected the Tea Trade 17 The Attack on Mr. Redpath 18 Sugar llefining and Foreign Trade 19 The Decrease in Exports 20 Pacific Railway and the North- West. ... 20 The changed Condition of affairs 21 Sir John Macdonald's Loyalty 22 THE SUGAR QUESTION. Should Sugar Refineries be Protected ? 25 Sir Richard Cartwright's former views. . 26 Effect of the Tariff on the Revenue 27 How the money in refining is expended 27 The price of Sugar to the Consumer 28 Why Protection was necessary 30 Results of the policy 30 The Production of Wealth 31 THE BUDGET DEBATE. SPEECH BY MR. THOMAS ^A/'HITE, M.P. Delivered in the House of Commons on Thursday Evening, March 16. 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 28 30 30 31 The following in the SIANSiARD Iteitort I of tlie speecli of the budget delivered by the hon. member for C'ardwell on Thursday evening, the 16th Mareh, in reply to the hon. member for Month Srant, Mr. Paterson. Mr. White (Cardwell)— I do not purpose, Mr Speaker, to follow the hon. {gentleman ■who has just addressed the House in all the subjects to which he has reterred. It will be within the observation of hon. members that during this debate the Opposition have taken a somewhat new position. The hon. member who has just taken his seat, antici- pating the debate, to some extent, on a mo- tion he introduced into this House, evidently proposed to place himself before the coun- try in a position less inimical to its great industrial interests, than that which during the last three years he and his party have •occupied in Parliament. Sincfl that time al- most every speech which has been delivered on that side, if we except the speech of the late Minister of Finance, who, I am bound to say, was honest and ccndid enough to maintain here the same views that he has always maintained — has indicated that they propose to go to the country with the as- surance to the manufacturing interests, that those interests will receive a certain amount of protection at their hands. Well, sir, we can remember what took place during the last Parliament ; we can remember that there were in Parliament, supporting the then Administration, a certtyn number of very pronounced protectionists ; we can re- member that the hon. member for South Brant, the hon. member for NorLh Norfolk, the then hon. member for Lincoln, tbe late hon. member for West Montreal, the two hon. members for Hamilton and other hon. gentlemen in this House, made speeches in favor of protection, which undoubtedly tor force, vigor and strength of argument, have not been excelled by any speeches ■delivered on the same subject since. But, sir, we remember also that, with all the influence they possessed m Parliament, and with all the undoubted infliiein e of the conviction that reigned in the minds of many people that they more accurately represented the popular sentiment than many of their friends, they were yet utterly powerless to induce their leaders to modily their trade policy ; and I am sure that, under those circum- stances, the great manufacturing and indus- trial interests of Canada of every kind will be slow to entrust the government of the country to gentlemen who, as a party, proved quite regardless of the utterances of a few of its membeis, and stubbornly adhered to the principles of free trade, so far as those principles can be applied in this country. There is one satisfaction to be derived from the statement the hon. member for South Brant h;i8 made to-night. We have listened with some anxiety to learn what is precisely the policy they are to give us, and to-night we find that the hon. member for South Brant has spoken of the tariff which he proposes to give us as the tariff that was formerly in force. Well, sir, that is, at lef it, a candid, a frank, a straightforward statement (hear, hear). The change we are to have is a change to the condition of things thatexisted under the late Administration ; the tariff of the future is to be the 17 J per cent, tariff that existed then, if the change of Govern- ment takes place ; and with that frank and plain statement, 1 think we may fairly leave the issue to the intelligent people of this country. (Cheers.) THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNTRY. Hon. gentlemen opposite, beginning with the hon. member tor North Norfolk, seem to be alarmed lest the issues before tbe coun- try myy be confined "to the National Policy ; they tell us that long before the elections take place, that question will be so over- whelmed by the other issues which have since arisen and are arising, that it will have but little influence with the people of Can- ada. The hon. member for South Brant, in a speech delivered in another place a few II i^ f w evenines ago, made the statement that the National Policy was no longer an issue in this country, that it was not worth while discussing it at all, that the questions which would be decided by the people of Canada in the elections were the question of finan- cial administration of their affairs, the ques- tion of the Pacitic llailway, the questions connected with the development of the Northwest and other questions apart alto- gether from the National Policy ; and we were told that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were most anxious to avoid the discussion of these other questions. Sir, for one, I have no desire to avoid the dis- cussion of the other questions. I should be sorry indeed if this party had to go to the country in 1883, if the elections sliall then take place, depending simply upon its record in connection with the question of free trade and protection. I have no doubt that we will be able to appeal to the country on all the issues the hon. gentlemen opposite have named ; that we will be able to show that the financial administration of the affairs of this country by the hon. gentlemen now in office has been a wise, economical and patri- otic administration ; that we will be able to show that in relation to the development of our g.eat Northwest, they have adopted a policy which was not only wise and patriotic iu its inception, but which has already vindi- cated itsely in the results which have since taken place ; that we will be able to show that in consequence of the land regulations of the Gov- ernment, settlers and capital have been flowing into that country, giving it a develop- ment such as we could never have hoped for two or three years ago. Upon all these ques- tions the party now in power will be able to appeal to the country quite as certain of a favorable verdict as they are upon the great question of the National Policy, upon which I venture to say, if you were talking with hon. gentlemen opposite in their private chambers, simply as their private friends, nine-tenths of them would declare that the paople of this country are against them. (Cheers.) THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION. Sir, much has been said iu relation to the financial administration of this Government, and though 1 do not propose to take up much time in discussing it, 1 have grouped together a few figures which I think will show that we have nothing to fear in presenting the record of this Government on that subject. It is important that this should be referred li., for two reasons; the quefttion of whether the hon. gentlemen now on the Treasury benches or hon. gentlemen oppo- site happen to hold office, is in itself, apart from the interests of the country and the policies they represent, a matter of no great consequence ; men govern and pass away^ but the influenre upon the country of the discussions yhich take place are lasting and abiding ; and it is because of the settled determination apparently on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite, for what reason it is difficult to appreciate, to show that this country is going headlong to finan- cial ruin, that it is important to present the facts as they exist as tersely and es briefly as possibH. (Hear, hear.) Scarcelj a speech i» made by hon. gentlemen opposite, especially outside of Parliament, in which we are not told of the enormous increase of expenditure which took place under the Conservative Government of this country, from $13,500,000 in 1867, to nearly $23,500,000 in 1873-74; aud we are asked to believe, from that bald statement of figures, that the financial ad- ministration of the Conservative party v. as disastrous of the interests of the country. Let me, in the first place, protest against the method of calculation which hon. gentlemea opposite adopt. The year 1873-4, which they always assume to be a year of Conservative ac'ministration, does not in any sense belong to that party ; they are not responsible for the expenditures of that year, as I shall bo able to show. (Hear, hear.) But even as- suming for the purpose of this argument, that they were responsible, what are the facts ?" Surely the hon. gentlemen, in the interests of the country, might be honest enough to state that the Dominion then comprised only four Provinces. We were for the first year only laying the foundations for the future govern- ment of the country ; the expendi- tures were small in all the Depart- ments ; Parliament simply met together for the purpose of paving the way to that greater policy of development which was followed afterwards ; and therefore to speak about the expenditure for 1867 as an expen- diture which ought to be considered in any matter of comparison or calculation, is to do a great injustice, not to the party then in power, but to the country itself. (Cheers.) At the end of the period what was the posi- tion of the country? Instead of having four small provinces we had seven provinces and the great Northwest. The country as it exists to-day had been completed as regards 1 its geographical boundaries. At the end of that period, and as a consequence, IhoHe ex- penditures which were made during those «ix years were all expenditures, as was stated by the late Finance Minister in his celebrated ■circular when he went to England to float his first loan, made on works of great public «tility, on works of improvement, on objects of development, and on the necessary expen- diture connected with the enlargement of the Dominion and the acquisition of tho great Northwest Territory. (Hear, hear") I have the accounts here, but I will not detain the House by dealing with particulni- items of increase. All ot them are of the character to which I refer ; but if it were wrong during those six or seven years to have increased the public expenditure, if it were a crime on the part of the Conservative party to have done so, what shall we say of hon. gentle- men opposite, who came into power full of promises of economy and retrenchment, with a backing such as no Government be- fore that time had, and yet went on adding to the expenditure all the time they were in office? THK EXPENDTIURE OF 1873-4. But I have said the oompurison was not a fair one. The Conservative party were not responsible for the expenditure of 1873-4. I am not going to refer to the fact that the accounts weio made up by hon. gentlemen opposite so as to include certain items of capital expenditure, such as the expenditure on the Intercolonial llailway. on the Daw- eon Route and certain customs refunds, in order to give an appearance of extravagant expenditure. But there is an easy way of testicg this matter. The Government of that day were responsible for the estimates they submitted to Parliament. The estimates were the measure of what they believed would be the proper expenditure during that year. What do we find ? That the total amount included in the first estimates brought down was $31,008 423; that the expenditure on capital account included in that was $9,974,240, leaving the expenditure, accord- ing to the estimates as first brought down, « little over |2.i ,000,000, exactly $21,034,183. Then there were certain supplementary es- timates brought down, three sets, aggregat- ing $604,483, making the total estimate, fcr 1873-74, as brought down by the then Ad- ministration, $2 1,639, G6G. The expenditure for that year — hon. gentlemen opposite were in office for eight mouths of the time — was $23,316,316, or $1,676,650 more than the Conseivat've Government obtained power from Parliament to expend in the estimates which they brought down at that time. (Cheers.) It may be said that Gov- ernments very often spend more money than is estimated ; but I think we may fairly ass):me that had the Administration which was in office before 1873"ontinued in power, they would not have spent more, judging by their record of the preceding year. The warrant for assuming this is to be found in the fact that the estimaies brought down for 1872-73 amounted to $29,675,460. including an estimate for capital expenditure of $9,- 949,500, leaving $19,725,960 on account of consolidated fund. The Supplementary Es- timates amounted to $575,774. making the estimates brought down by the Government for the expenditure required for 1872-73, $20,301,734; and yet, although they obtain- ed the power from Parliament to expend that amount, theactual expenditure made by the Government at that time was $19,1 74,- 647, or $1,127,087 less than they had ob- tained power from Parliament to expend. (Cheers ) If we find a Government bringing d^n Estimates on the eve of a general elec- tion, as those Estimates of 1872-73 were brought down, with every desire to make the Estimates as low as possible, and it we find the Administration remaining in office able to get through a year's butiness and expend $1,000,000 I'^ss than they haa obtaiaed au- thority from Parliament to expend, ve may fairly ho*d that the same Governmen; had it remained in office would have made ends meet and be able to carry on public affairs without increasing the expenditure over the next year's Estimates. (Cheers.) Yet. we find that hon. gentlemen opposite ex- ceeded the Etimatesby $1,676,850. How was that excess made up? In Civil Government, for instance, hon. gentlemen opposite spent $150,226 more than had been vcted by Par- liament; and when I tell the House that in the one item of contingencies they spent $75,000 more in that year than the Govern- ment had estimated would be neces- saiy and had taken the authority ot Parliament to expend, I think the House will agree with me in the state- ment that this was a reckless expenditure on their parts. (Cheers) Then in the Admin- istration of Justice they spent $78,776 more than Parliament had voted. For Legislation they spent $354,970 more than Parliament had voted. It is quite true there was a gen- eral election which was not anticipated when 6 the Estimates were brought down, and they are entitled to say that they could not have anticipated that expenditure. But, sir, it Ih not unfair to hold the late Government re- Bponfiiblo for that increase. We were told when that Government came into power, and especially as a reason for the entrance of the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) into that Government, in violation of the principle which he. himself had laid down that the number of the Executive Council should not be increased beyond that which the iaw defines, even in cases where an hon. gentleman entered without salary, that 119 members of the House, which is a good Avorking majority, had re- quested the hon. gentleman to enter the Cabinet, and had given him assurances of support it he did so. With 119 members supporting the Government in a House of 206, I may lairly say that they were not boimd to have a general election. Looking at what occurred at that time, they had no intention of having a general election until they began to see, looking at what they might be requested to do during the five years they would be in office, that it would be bet- ter to secure, ;»" possible, a larger majority while the influence of that great slander usually called the Pacific Scandal was upon the country. (Cheers.) Then I find that for the collection of Customs they e7:pended $56,0G2 more than Parliament voted ; and in the collection of Public Works revenue they spent $319,034 more than was voted. For Post Office revenue collection they expended $71,270 more than voted ; so that in these items alone, and which it must be admitted were controllable expenditures and within the competency of the Government, within certain limits of course, to regulate, they ex- pended $70,338 more than had been voted by the preceding Administration. (Cheers ) COMPARISON OF 1873-4 AND 1878-9. I am aware that it may be said, in relation to the year 1878-9, that the Government which is now in office expended also more money than had been voted by their predecessors ; but we may fairly account for that from the fact that during the time hon. gentlemen oppo- site were in office their financial adminis- tration was very severely criticised by the press and public men of this country, and going to the country and preparing for the election their estimates were so framed as to give the appearance, at any rate, of the great- est possible economy. Although that was the fact, what was the real result? The Conservative Government spent $758,508 more than their predecessors had obtained the authority of Parliament to spend ; but of that, the increase for the collection of the revenue from public works alone, largely connected with the working of the Interco- lonial Railway, there was $414,714. Well, sir, the Liberal Government had expended $1,676,650 more than the Conservative Par- liament had voted. Now, let us take some contrasts. Under Civil Government hon. gentlemen opposite spent $150,226 more than their predecessors had voted ; the Con- servatives when they came in spent $27,804 less than their predecessors had voted. (Hear, hear.) Under thf head of Adminis- tration of Justice the Liberal Government spent $78,776 more than their predecessors bad expended ; the Conservatives when they came into office expended $36,734 less than their predecessors had voted. On Weights and Measures the Conservatives spent $25,- 296 less than had been voted by Parliament for that service. In the collection of Cus- toms duties the Liberals expended $56,062 more than their predecessors had voted while the Conservatives onlv expended $13,875 more. In the collection of Post Office revenues the Liberals had expended $71,270 more than their predecessors had voted, the Conservatives only exceeded the amount by $17,423. In legislation the Lib- erals expended $354,970 more, while the Conservatives only spent $58,071 more. (Hear hear.) The only fair method in making a comparison of the two Administra- tions is to take the last complete year of each Admiuis'ration, of the results of which there can be no doubt as to where the responsibil- ity rests. Doing so, what do we find ? LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE EXPKNDITDRE. We have been told, if I mistake not, by the hon. gentleman from West Durham, in a speech which he made out of session that the increased expenditure during the five years of Mr. Mackenzie's authority was only $200,000, and referring to a remark made by the First Minister in a speech, that the Libe ■ erals when in office were like soldiers mark- ing time, moving but making no progress^ he said that was true with reference to the expenditures of the country, because they had succeeded in carrying on the Government during these five years, and at the end of that period found themselves by $200,000 in ad- vance of what their predecessors had spent. Now the ordinary expenditure — what w in the Public Accounts is put down as ordi.iary expenditure in 1873-4 was $7,002,095, and in 1877-8, $6,542,610, an ap- parent decrease of $519,585. But in dealing with questions of expenditure, it seems to i me that we must always include the ordin- aay charges upon revenue. There is not after all any part of the expenditure, except perhaps Public Worlis, Militia and large items of that kind, which is more within the control of the Government of the day than are those expenditures connected with the collection of the revenue. If we add these items we find the controllable expenditure of 1872-3 was $10,457,570, while in 1877-8, it was $11,843,634, or an increase in the aggre- gate expenditures of these two periods of $1,386,004. (Cheers.) Let us see, Mr. Speaker, how the decrease in ordinary ex- penditure was effected. We !ind in the matter of Militia and Defence a decrease of $630,527 ; we all know how that was effect- ed ; the country corps were all cut off from their drill, and if hon. gentlemen «ippoBite had simply wiped out the Militia altogether, as I believe some of them would desire to do, they could have made a much larger re- duction than that. (Hear, hear.) They could have presented a much more taking aggregate to the people. Then wr find in the matter of public works expenditure, such as improvements in harbors, putting up public buildings, and oiner works of that kind, there was a decrease of $599,017. In that case also all they had to do was simply not to spend a dollar on harbors or public buildings, and stop all public works ; they could thus have saved very much more than that, they could have made a much better show in the aggregate figures. Then I find in connec- tion with the expenditure on Dominion lauds there was a decrease of $150,048 ; they had only to stop sending out surveyors, and stop everything in connection with the develop- ment of the Northwest in order to make the decrease very much larger, and to present a better picture. But in these three items alone, which I will not admit were econom- ies, which were simply a starving of the pab- lic service, in these three items alone the de- crease was $1,379,592 or $800,000 more than the entire aggregate decrease of which they are in the habit of boasting so much. (Cheers.) Now, while this is the case, what do we find ? That in the matter of Civil Government, which they told the people the Conservatives had been much too extravagant in administering, that during their five years of office, they increased the cost by $100,180. Under their rule, the cost of the Administration of Justice increased |163,!»:'.4 ; the cost of the Post Office De- partnuut, of the collection of t bound to go on. But when wfa remember that the first act ol the Government was to increase the aunual tax- ation of thfc country by three millions of dol- lars, because the ordinary requirements of the country necessitated it, including, of course, the expenditura on the Pacific Rail- way — every oue will admit that the hon. member for Lambton should have taken that course, and said our finances will not permit us to enter into the work, and, tbere- fora, we will not enter on it (hear, hear). He entered on the work on his own responsibility as a Minister ; hip party supported him on their own responsibility ; and their organs in the country, the Mon- treal lleraui, the Toionta Globe and others, actually called on the people of this country to sing peans of praise to them, be- cause they entered on the work of enlarging these canalt. promptly which their predeces- sors had so long neglected to the injury ot the country (Cheers) In relation, there- fore, to th" canals they were undoubtedly responsible and solely responsible for the expenditures. THB CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY. Then, sir, as to the Canadian Pacific Rail- way. This House had committed itself, Had the Parliament of Canada had committe*? it- jielf to saying that the Canadian Pu ifio Railway should be built by a company, aid- ed bj subsidies of land and money. That was the resolution that accompitnied the contract with British Columbia. It was, in fact, part ot the contract to all intents and purposes, and was accepted by hon. gentle- men who were hero • presenting British Columbia ; one leading gentleman from that 11 province, Mr. Trutch, declaring in a speech he delivered ia the Russell House that it | was part of the contract and that they w^re i prepared to accept it as such. When tuese i hon. gentlemen came into power it was f'tr ; them to determine what they wouid do ! about the Pacilic Railway. They arranged ! the policy. The member for Lambton (Mr. Mackenzie) said in a speech to his own con- | stitnents that he proposed to go on with the work as a public work, because the country would then have the profits instead uf the contractors in constructing the railway. And yet, after he had gone ikito the work, more as a matter of profit to the Government than of profit to the contractors, his friends now come down and say that they must not : be bald responsible for the expenditure, be- cause, forsooth, the agreement that the Paci- ! fie Railway should be built was entered into { before they came into office. More than that, \ we have had caring the last three years, in ! every Session of thi*3 Parliament, declara- tions of the most formal kind — declaratioris recorded inthe Journa 'oof the House, which, j if they mean anything, meant that that bar- gain was not biudine: on the people of this country ; that it was a bargain to be exe- cuted or neglected just in proportion as the Parliament of Canada might consider it to be in Ihe interests of the country .0 do con- sistently with the then condition of its fi- nances. And, sir, it was these same gentle- men who have since declared that to be the nature of the bargain imposea upon us for the construction of the Pacific Railway who are responsible for the increase of debt in- volved in connection with it. (Cheers.) That 1? the position in rela^iion to this mat- ter of the public debt ; and I think, therefore, we might fairly say on that question, nr, in relation to the ordinary public expenditure — we can fairly claim that the policy of this Government, not as compared alone with the policy of their predecessors, but viewed simply by itself as a polity to be judged of in the interests of the country, is one that we can proudly defend and one which tho people of this country will amply sustain. (Cheers.) mn NATIONAL POLICY. Now, sir, I come for a moment to deal with the National Policy. There is one fact, on which I think we may all congratulate ourselves, and that is, that with the excep- tion of the particular surroundings of the hon. member for Charlotte C^r. Gillmor), the condition of this country is everything we can desire. We flnrt that every hon. member who has spoken on that side, from the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Mackenzie &r;d through all the others that have address- ed the House — and I do not say through all the others in any tone of disrespect — I say we find an admission that this country is eminently prosperous ; that every branch of industry, every branch of commerce is in % condition in the highest degree satisfactory. We heard to-day from the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Paterson), and 1 do not wonde- that lie was so good-natured, so pleasant-looking when he made tht* an- nouncement, I do not wonder that it prompt- ed his eloquence to such an extent, that in his o'vn particular business this last year had been one of the best years of hi^ record. 1 think the same thing may be paid of almost every man, for whatever may be the condition of the country there will always be exceptional cases from excep- tional circumstances of people who do not do as well as their neighbors. f>ut I think we may fairly conclude thai that is the opinion and that in the estimate of every mac in tbis country in relation to the pres- ent condition of the country. But, sir, we are told, although the country is prosperous, although every industry is flourishing, al- though commerce is yielding a larger return to those engaged in it than it has yielded at any time in the past history of this counfry, that all this is not due to the National Policy ; and, curiously enough, we have the statement made with most emphases by gen- tlemen who tell us that although they do not agree precisely with the arrangement of some of the duties under this National Policy, yet they always have been and are pro- tectionists, friends of the manufactur- ers. They tell us that this im- provement is entirely due to Providence. Sir, 1 bow with awful reverence and with profounde&t tcith in the presence of that great mystery. I consider that now, as in all ages past, national blessings will follow national well-doing, and national curses will '!o\' -w national wrong-doing, lamai- ofound believer in the over-ruling guidance of Pro- vidence ; but I say the manner in which the hon. gentlemen have been dealiuj with this subject is little less than impious. It is a fatalist doctrine which they have proclaimed. They tell us, the sun shining and the rain falling will give everything thut is required, and that nothing is left to wise fiscal laws or to the industry of the people. According to their doctrine men may fold their arms 12 and drop on their knees and leave the rest to Providence ; but if there is a doctrine of undoubted truth it is that Providence helps those who help themselves. In the very same breath in which they tell us that you cannot make men rich by Act of Parliament these hon. gentlemen propose to make them rich by Act of Parliament changing this policy for another. Their whole argument is that this policy is a bad one, an injury in- stead of a benefit to the indus- tries of the country, and that if they were in otiice they would in- troduce an Act of Parliament by which they would promote the industries of the country aud make men rich. (Hear, hear.) Sir, ve have great reason in this country to be thankful to Providence, but I think that in Parliament, deahng with ques- tions of legislation, we may lairiy look after that legislation and consider its eflects on the condition of the country, all of us recog- nizing how much we owj to Providence without this perpetual invocation of that power as the one source of the increased prosperity ol the country. I am sorry, sir, -and I say it in no irreverent mood, that this over-ruling power did not reach to the region of the hon. member for Charlotte, which seems to be the only place in the whole of Canada on which Providence frowns. I hope it is not a judgment on the people for send- ing the hon. gentleman to Parliament. <^ Laughter.) THE INFLDENCE OP THE CROPS ON OUR PROSPER- ITY. Now, sir, we are told that the w^ ale of the increased prosperity is du«' to the fact that we have had better crops dtiring the last year than we had before. What are the faots ? The year 1877, for instance, was not a pros- perous one in this country, but the very re- verse. It was one of those years which hon. gentlemen opposite told us, happening to be e. dull year in all depaitments of trade and commerce, paved the way tor that great change which iook place on the .17th of September, 1878. Now, what do we find with regard to the | < ops of that year '! I hope that some day or i her we shall have a Bureau of Statistics in iinada which will give us information on '• bubjects of this kind. ;2ut in the absence of such, the annual crop reports furnished by the Grand Trunk Railway may be taken as oflicial. According to them wo find the averagj crops inlS77 and 1881 to be as fol- lows:— Fall wheat, the returns above the average in 1877 were 65, in 1881, 45; and be.ow the average in 1877, none, in 1881, 12. Spring wheat, above the average, 53 in 1877, and 41 in 1881; below the average, 5 in 1877, and 9 in 1881. Oats, above the average, 56 in 1877, and 42 in 1881 ; below the average, 6 in 1877, and 3 in 1881. Barley, above the average, 47 in 1877, and 42 in 1881 ; below the^average, 3 in 1877, and 5 in 1881. Pease, above the average, 43 in 1877, and 28 in 1881 ; below the average, 13 in 1877, and 23 in 1881. Thus weilnd from the only evidence of an official kind that we can get at, that the crop in 1877 was actually a better and larger crop than that of 1881. (Hear, hear.) But what do we find further ? We find that the value of the crop, as entared for export in 1877-78, which was thecrc-p of 1877, of wheat, flour, pease, oats and barley altogether amounted to $15,375,466, against $15,697,987 in 1880-81, or an increase in the latter over the former year of $322,501, or only two per cent. (Hear, hear.) And will hon. gentle- men tell me that this difference of two per cent, accounts for the difference betveen the depression of 1877 and the prosperity of 1881 ? But, sir, we have been told that the National Policy has lessened the price of cereals to the Canadian farmer. What one cannot very well understand is this :— That when we are dealing with manufactures We are told that the imposing of a duty on the foreign articles coming into Canada in- creases the price to the Canadian consumer by the amount of that duty ; but when we are dealing with the cereals of the farmer, we are told that it has the very opposite effect ard decreases the price of the ar.icle coming into the country. (Hear, hear.) What do we find ? I know that the hon. member for North Norfolk the other evening referred to the prices in Chicago as compared with those in Toronto. If they were dis- posed to deal with that question in that spirit of tairnef3 to which the hon, member for South Brant adverted in his closing remarks, they would not make that comparison. They know the reason that at times prices In Chicago were higher than in Toronto. They know that for the same reason wheat in Chi- cago, during the last year, has been at times 6 cents higher than in Ne«v York, and there- fore the/ were perfectly well aware that it was not because of any question of fiscal policy either on this side or the other that this particular fact exists ; on the contrary, it is due to that miserable gambling spirit which IS eating like a cankfr-worm into the whole commercial transactions of the United 13 states and this country. That is the cause of the wheat corners in Chicago, where men seek, not by legitimate trading, but by using finesse, by holding a hatd which they think to be a strong one and going one better if they think it be necessary. This wretched gambling which, as I have said, is eating like a canker-worm into the commercial honesty and honor of this country and the United States, is the causo of the fact that at times the prices of wheat have been higher in Chicago than in Toronto. But what is the general fact? I take the average value of Am- erican wheat exported from Canada by cus- toms entry, and that again is the only way we can arrive at the facts in connection with this matter. In 1877, the average value of American wheat was $1 50 per bushel, while the average value of Canadian wheat exported was $1.22, or a difference in price in favor of the American wheat of 27f cents per bushel. In 1881, the average price of American wheat lor export, as entered at the Customs, was $1.07|, while that of Canadian wheat xi&s $1.03, or a difierence in favor of the Araericans of ?7 cents in 1878, and of 4^ cents last year. That is the fact as derived irom the customs returns in regard to the price for export of those cer<;als in the two years, 1878 and 1881. I do not say, I hrve too much respect for myself to say, that is due to the National Policy. I do not say anything of the kind ; I should be sorry to say it. During the discussions which took place when those hon. gentlemen were in office, I never charged them with the whole of the depression that existed ; what I did charge them with was this — that in the presence of the depresoion and in spite of suggestions made by wise merchants who understood trade and saw means by which the depression might at least be re- lieved and mitigated in severity, they failed to do anything. But although I do not think that change in the price of wheat fur export is due entirely to the National Policy, yet I do think it is an all-suthclent ansver to the statement made by hon. gentlen^sn opposite, that the effect of the National Policy has been to reduce the price of wheat to the Canadian farmer. If it has, then I ask upon what ground hon. gentlemen opposite are going down to the Maritime Provinces, as they did last year, and talking to the fishermen about the enormous tax on breadstuffs. [Hear, hear.] How can a tax on breadstuffs be detrimental in consequence oi the lisoal policy, if the effect of that policy is to reduce instead of increase the cost to the consumer ? Let them take one course- or the other. Let them at least have this- amouLt of candor, that they will have the same story for all parts of the country. [Cheers.] If they will only do that I venture to say we will meet them fairly on every platform. But when they go to Ontario and tell the farmers that wheat was higher in Chicago on a particular oay than it was in Toronto, p.nd that this was due to the National Policy, and when they go dawn to the fishermen of the Maritime Provinces and tell them they are paying 50 centq per barrel more for flour than before the duty was imposed — when they undoriake to adopt a policy of that kind, then they are not adopting a policy worthy of a great party, as they are, or consistent with that fair, uro- per and reasonable method of discussion which the hon. member for Brant commend- ed to us at the close of his remarks, although I am afraid he did not act quite up to it dur- ing the progress of his speech. [Cheers.] What has been the effect on imports of agri- cultural products into this country for homo consumption ? I take the Trade Returns for 1878 and for 1881. The hon. mem- ber for Centre Wellington [Mr. Orton} last year made a comparison with the Trade Eeturns one year earlier than I am now able to submit. Taking the years- 1878 and 1881, 1 find there is a decrease in the receipts of barley for home consumption, equal to 285,214 bushels, the aggregate in 1878 being 302,147 bushels, and, in 1881^ 16,933 bushels. I find that the imports of Indian corn have decreased 5,344,198 buF.h- els, and I venture to think that the coarser grains ot the Canadian larmers supplied that largo decrease. Oats declined 2,089,933 bush- els between these two periods. Pease, which are not a large importation, decreased 6,306 bushels ; wheat decreased 5jtp8,759 bushels ; rye, 145,598 bushels; wheat flour, 126,939 barrels ; and I venture to think that the void was filled up by the productions of the mills of this country which had to that ex- tent a greater market for their output. (Hear, hear.) Then I find this fact, which is of in- terest to the fishermen of the Lower Pro- vinces and the people of Lower Canada, who do not grow much wheat and have to get their flour from abroad, that, instead of in- creasing the price by reason of the tax, the average price of flour in 1878, which ought certainly to have given us prosperity in that year, if the mere condition of our crops ia one test either of prosperity or the reverse^ was $6.93 per barrel, while in 1881 it waa 14 $4.65. (Cheers.) The people of the Mari- time Provinces had certainly nothing tc c jm- plain of in connection with the price of flour nnder this policy as com^-ared with what it ^88 before. THB INFLUENCE OP THE NATIONAL POLICY. But how far have the changes that have taken place in the country been the direct result of the National Policy? I quite admit that a change of policy with good times following, and with good times following in other countries at the same time, renders it ex- tremely difficult to apportion precisely where the influence of the policy comes in in theso improved conditions ; but there are some facts which I think go to show very clearly that the National Policy has done its fair share in improving the condition of the people of this country. It has not been the only factor in bringing about that improved condition, but it is a most important one, and without it that improved condition would not have taken place to the same ex- tent. (Hear, hear.) It is admitted that Canadian manufactures are improving — that they are in a prosperous condition. It is ad- ipitted, moreover, that new manufactures have been started. I am not going into de- tails to show whether the two gentlemen who made the report to the Hon. Minister of Tinance made a strictly correct one ; they do not pretend to have done so, but they have given an approximate report of the condition of things as they found them in the different cities and towns they visited. I do not pro- pose to go into those particular details, but eimply to state what everyone knows to be the truth, that there has been a large in- crease in the manufacturing industries of the people of this countrv, as illustrated by im- provements in old factories, and the new in- dustries that ba^e sprung up in all parts. In opite of that and of the fact that the existing factories have been employed full timqf it is only with the greatest ditiiculty that orders can be filled at this moment. (Hear, hear.) Let me give you an illustration. Last year we bad a provincial exhibition in the city of Montreal, and we had occasion to get an engine and boiler for the machinery hall ; we sent round notices to a number of the people of Montreal who were in the habit of making those articles, and in addition we sent similar notices to other parties outside, tor we were required to have them within a particular time ; and what was the fact ? That only one man in Montreal even offered to do thb work or an^«rored ; and when we went round and asked tham why they did not make an offer, they said they were so busy it was impossible for them to get the order through within the time specified in the con- tract. (Hear, hear.) One gentleman from Stratford, who was anxious to introduce an admirable engine into the factories of Mon- treal and the Province of Quebec, made a stretch to give it to us. We got the engine irom Stratford sim- ply because our own factories in the city o; Montreal were so crowded with busi- ness that they could not possibly undertake to perform that small piece of work within the tiir« required for our exhibition purposes. (Cheers.") There is no merchant in the coun- try who will not tell you to-day that he has the greatest possible difficulty in getting orders filled in almost any line of manufac- ture. Some of our factories have been ac- tually stopped that would otherwise have been going on ; they have been retarded in their progress towards completion because of the difficulty of getting machinery from manufacturing establishments of that kind in different parts of the country. Therefore I think I may fairly say that the industries of the country are all most prosperous and busily employed now, and it is certainly ad- mitted on all hands that they were not in that condition in 1877-78. Now, is that due to the National Policy ? Let me take only two ezamplt^s. THE COTTON INDD8TRT. I take first the cotton industry, which is the special antipathy of hon. gentlemun op- posite. In that industry there has undoubt- edly been an enormous development during the last three years. The Hudon cotton fac- tory of Montreal is not referred to, I think, in the returns submitted to the hon. Minister of Finance, because it is not a new factory. It was in existence before that time, but it has had two additions made to it since then, and if l am rightly informed another building very nearly as large as one of those additions, if not larger, is about going up immediately alongside ot it. (Hear, hear.) The Hudon factory bas been trebled in capacity, and new cotton mills have sprung up in all parts of the country. We have the Stormont mill, the Hamilton mill, the Coaticook and Stratford mills, all of them in operation before the 30th of June last — new mills started as a direct result of the National Policy. Then we have in addition to that, a large number of new mills which were in progress at that 15 time, which are approachiDg completioa, and some of which, I believe, will be very soou in operation. I was glad to see, onlv the day before yesterday, a new establishment near Montreal — the Merchants Manufactur- ing Co. — for the purpose of turning out white cottons, put in motion, and operations have commenced, and they are now turning out cotton tor the Canadian market. Now what I want to point out iu that in spite i of the old factories and their enlarge- ; ment and the building of new factories, we cannot meet the demand ; that the im- ; ports of all classes of cotton goods actually \ increased from 1878 to 1881 by 66J per cent. | The hon. member for South Brant would say, by that process of reasoning which he adopts in this House, and which reminds one very ! much of that process by which a gentleman ; undertook to prove that fish-pie was better i than Heaven — he said fish-pie was better i than notliing, nothing can be better than | Heaven— therefore fish-pie was better than | Heaven, that this increase of imports proved | that cotton manufncturers were not prosper- | OU8. But what do we find? That the large importation of cotton is simply an evidence of the increasing purchasing power, and o the increasing wealth of the people of this country. It shows that our people are to- day much wealthier and more comfortable, in so much better circumstances, that they are able, in spite of this enlarged out-put of goods in their own factories, to in- crease their importations from abroad by this 66J per cent. (Hear, hear.) But we find that of the two classes ol bleachad and unbleached cotton goods that are going out of our own factories there has been a increase of 27^ per cent. What is the fair inference from that ? It is that the National Policy has, by the establishment of these factories, been able to supply that larger want of our peo- ple, and has thus added to the prosperity and wealth of tne country. Look at the fact that in 1878 we imported of raw cotton 7,250,000 pounds, and in 1881 over 1G,000,- 000 pounds, very nearly 9,000,000 pounds of cotton manufactured in this country more than was manufactured in 1878, and I be- lieve more than we would have beea manu- facturing to-day if the National Policy had not gone inio effect. (Hear, hear.) We are told, however, that the cotton manufacturers are all growing rich, and therefore this improvement in the condition of the cotton tiade, instead of being a matter for which we ougkt to be gi.*d, is a ground for disBatiafactioa on the part of this country. What has been the experience of people who have invested their money in cotton in Canada? Why, in 1877 and 1878 everybody knows cotton stocks for which people had paid 100 cents on the dollar in order to establish industries and to improve the country, could be had for 10 up to 60 or 70 per cent, of their value. You could have got the stock of the Cornwall Cotton Mills at 10 per cent., and people would have thanked you for taking it even at this price. We find to-day that cotton stocks have gone up, and those ^ho bought at such low prices are now reaping their reward. Is it any harm that they should make a good thing outotit? Has anybody been hurt? Mr. Anglin — Yes, a great many. Mr. Whiti — Will hon. gentleman explain who? Mr. Anglin — Everybody who has had to pay the additional price for the cotton manu- factured. I Mr. Whitk — Well, sir, I shall go on with ! the argument ; I propose to come to that i point in a minute or two. I BFFEOT ON PRICKS. I I say that these people have not increased I the price of their cottons, as compared with > the foreign article, by the imposition of the { duty. (Cheers.) What do hon. gentlemen i opposite propose ? A 17^ por cent, duty, I even if the effect were to wipe out the cotton i industry altogether. In fact they regard that indust'-y as something that, if wiped out, would be a national blot effaced. Then what would they have instead ? Foreign manufacturers, cotton lord^, cotton princes in New England and in Old England, instead of in Canada, sending their goods in here ; and the consumer, because of the non- production of the article in Canade., actually paying the 17^ per cent., and the merchants' profit into the bargain. (Hear, hear.) That is the way in which they propose to benefit the Canadian consumer. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not deny that there must be duty on those articles. They had a duty of 17 J per cent, themselves, when in power ; and they tell us that that is the Tariff they are going back to. But they must admit that 17^ per cent, according to their principles, if it involved the wiping out of the cotton in- dustry, would bo added to the price to the consumer, with the merchants' profits be- sides. The difference is, that when the mer- chant imports from abroad he is away trom the area of competition, but when he buysm Canada he is within that area. An Ontaiio 16 (it merchant may go to Montreal — take that as an illustration— and enter the stores of Uault Bros, to purchase cottonB,manufactured in the Hudon factory on the one side, or in the Cornwall factory on the other. At either of these establishments he may buy them. Competing with these manufacturers, we have the mei chants, who are thus compelled to sell at a smaller margin of profit. But, by importing the cottons from New or Old Eng- land, with no manufacturing in Canada, the merchant would be removed altogether from that area of competition and would secure a higher profit— as we are told by hon. gentle- men opposite — a higher profit not only upon thfe price of the goods itself, but upon the duty as well. PROFITS OP THB COTTON MANnFACTDRKBS. Those cotton lords of Canada, as they are called, have succeeded in making some money, at least those ot them fortunate enough to hold their stocks, or buy them when low. They are yielding a fair return to-day. But the price to the consumer of the [ ordinary cotton goods manufactured in Can- ada — and I challenge hon. gentlemen oppo- '< site to go into an investigation of the facts — : is not, on the average, ten per cent, in ex- ' cess of the price in the New England factor- 1 ies, from which the larger portions of those '. cottons were coming to us before the National Policy was adopted. But there are cotton lords everywhere. One would imagine, from the speeches of those hon. gentlemen, that it is a sin for a Canadian to make money by investing in industries of this kind. He may lend his money on mortgage, and take what interest he pleases, add commissions and adopt any other tactics he likes in order to get a large sum out ot the unfortunate who is compelled to borrow, and is respected by hon. gentlemen opposite as a man to be ad- mired. But let him put his money into an industry which employs hundreds of people and furnishes bread to them and their fami- lies, and if he makes money and is encour- aged to continue in his business by making money he becomes an object of dislike to hon. gentlemen opposite. In England, with free trade, cotton lords aio well known ; they are the rich men of the country, many of them having made enormous colossal for- tunes, and how ? — by the protection which cheap labor gives. That is the way they have succeeded ; and hon. gentlemen oppo- site will argue that that is a policy in the in- terest of the people of the country where it prevails ; that it is a cheaper country to live in, where the toiling masses will eke out «» miserable existence on small wages — that that is a system that we should adopt in or- der that our cotton lords should make moucy after the same fashion and by means of the same protection of wretchedly underpaid la- bor. (Cheers.) WOOLLEN MANUPAOTURKS. Then, sir, take woollen goods. I find that the effect of the National Policy in relation to them, or at any rate the fact as it exists with the Na- tional Policy if hon. gentleuien oppo- site will prefer that way of putting it — is that the imports from the United States have declined 48 per cent , and the imports from Great Britain have increased 4 per cent., so that this policy cannot be said tu have injured our trade with the Mother Country. The decrease in the importation of woollen goods in 1881, as compared with 1878, is $476,970. To that extent and the extent of the increased purchasing power of the people, for the increased production in the country itself, we have had a home mar- ket secured to our woollen manufacturers, to an extent not witnessed before the National Policy was adopted. What do we find ? The importations of wool have increased from 6,- 230,084 lbs in 1878, to over 8,000,000 lbs io 1881, or an actual increase of 1,810,203 Iba-^ and that increase has been almost entirely in the finer grades of African or Australian wool, which we do not produce. The im- ports from the United States, of the class of wool which might to some extent compete with our own wools, decreased last year by 157,000 lbs. I find that of the exports of woo! from Canada which formerly went inta the manufactures of other countries, instead of those of our own, in 1878, we export* ed 2,250,000 lbs of wool ; and, in 1881, 1,250,- 000, or about 1,000,000 lbs of a decrease. The farmers did not raise less wool in 1881 than in 1878 ; the decrease was simply the result of a laiger consumption of Canadian wool in the factories of this country. Mr. Patkrson — Do you not think less wool was grown in 1881 ? Mr. White— If less was grown, all I can say is tbat the fact is exceptional, because there has been a larger production of every- thing else in the country. I know that in my own distriot there has been an increased production. But the hon. member for Soath Brant, who, 1 know desires to deal with thia question candidly and fairly, will not say that the woollen factories of Canada have. It not been enlarg^ed aud better employed in 1881 than in 18V8 ; and they must therefore, in the nature of things, have consumed a larger quantity of Canadian wool, ap illus- trated by the decrease in the export of that article. What do we find now ? There is an enormous improvemeut. The woollen trade of Canatia is an old trade — in existence for many years. It has had an existence of such a struggling kind that, I venture to be- lieve, that but for the change of policy in 1878, the nutnber who would have abandoned the manufacture of wool would have been very large — nearly all. What do we find lately ? In consequence of the pre- sent tariff policy and the introduction of new machinery, a very great improveaient. Let any one go up to Almonte, as my hon. friend from South Brant and I did the other d'-y, and take a walk to the mills ; let him look at the improvements in the machinery there visible, and at the enlargement of the establishments, as well as at the cloth turn- ed out, and he will certainly experience no little surprise. Indeed, to-day, no man need wear foreign cloth unless he likes. FORBIQN AND HOME-MADB GOODS. My hon. friend was pleased to refer to the Minister of Finance and to the clothes he wears. Well, that is ^ kind of argumentum ad hominem that perhapi has some little in- fluence. I happen to have a Canadian suit on ; I like Canadian tweeds — not particu- larly because they are Canadian, but because they are cheap. I am bound to fay that if people do not like Canadian tweeds and wish to wear foreign tweeds, I can see no reason why they should not have the privileere of doing so if they are willing to pay the duty. (Cheers.) But what I mean to say is this — and I know it from my own experience, that experience that comes to a man who is not rich, and w!io is compelled to calculate what everythi)ii> is going to cost him — I know I can get a suit of Canadian tweeds as gooc* in appear- ance, and I believe better in wear than a Scotch tweed of the same pattern, that I can get it, at least in Montreal, for from 33 to 40 per cent. less. But if people will use Scotch tweed — and there are many who will do it as the country gets richer — if the people will do it, then 1 say let them do it, but let them pay the duty upon it. Now, I claim that both as to the Canadian woollen and cotton trades the improvements in them are the direct result of the National Policy ; and I claim further, that in neither one industry nor the other has the price to the consumer been in any way increased by the change of policy. There are people who pre er to wear foreign goods. They are found all over the world. VTou find, as a consequence of it, in the United States to-day, in spite of the enormous increase in the production of the country and their manufactures, you find an enormous increase of nearly 60 per cent, in their importations. Mr. Mills — Hear, hear. Mr. White — Does the hon. gentleman think that is an illustration against a pro- tection policy ? It means that the people are using expensive foreign goods. There aie persons, for instance, wuo will not wear Canadian tweeds, because they say that when they go in the street to hail a carter they may find him with a suit from exactly the same piece, and, therefore, they prefer to pay the extra price for the foreign article. The efi'ect ot the tariff in relation to the article of woollens has been khis : that it has apportioned the tax upon the shoulders of the people who are the best able to bear it. Ttiero i.s no man in Canada to-day that cannot cluthe himself from head to foot without paying one cent of duty or of tax, and who cannot, on the con- trary, get those articles just as good and at just as cheap a rate, having regard to the price of the raw material, as they are to be had either in England or in any other coun- try where the articles are manufactured. But if he wants imported goods he has to pay a duty for them, and nobody will blame the policy whicn places that duty upon him. The effect of ttie other policy would be to drive those woollen factories out of the country, and that is the only way in which this matter can be argued. Drive thtvm out of the country altogether, import the .irticles from abroad, and you put upon the poor man as well as upon the rich, the obligation of paying the full duty with the merchant's profit added. (Cheers.) HOW THE N. p. HAS AFFECTED THE TEA TRADE. Now, I take another article, and perhaps hon. gentlemen will say it is my hobby, but I cannot help it. I tate the tea trade as an illustration, and in consequence of the dif- ferential duty put on by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and accepted by this Parliament in 1878, a very important result has followed in the trade of the country. What do I find? That the import of tea — and perhaps no better illustration can be '\\ 18 given of the geuerally improved condition of this country than is to be found in the in- creased consumption of tea in Canada — we find that the importations of tea in 1881 amounted to 16,647,015 pounds; in 1878 they were 11,019,231 pounds; so that the people of Canada have been able to use half as much more tea in 1881 in consequence of the generally improved condition of the coun- try, the greater purchasing power and com- fort of the people, than they were in 1878. Now, how has this trade been affected ? I find the importations from Great Britain have increased 27 per cent ; that is a foreign trade. I find the importations from the United States, which is not a foreign trade in the ordinary acceptance of the term, have decreased 11 per cent. I find that the im- portations from China increased 358 per cent ; from Japan, 265 per cent ; and from other countries the importations were not large, but I give the figures because the per- centage might appear to indicate a disposi- tion to mislead the House ; the figures are 6,385 for 1878, to 59,687 pounds in 1881, or an increase of 900 per cent, so that from every country except the United States there has been an enormous increase in the importations, while from the United States the importations have de- creased 11 per cent, notwithstanding that the aggregate increase from all countries has been somewhere about 50 per cent. We have had one large importation from the Dutch East Indies to Quebec of 47,475 pounds. Now, sir, I know hon. gentlemen opposite will say these were not direct importations. They will ask where was the ship that brought these teas into Montreal or Quebec f Mr. ANGiiiN — The Flying Dutchman. Mr. White — The hon. gentleman can sneer at a question of trade aftecling the in- terests and well-being of this country when he has no better argument to offer. But, sir, these are questions which affect the well- being of the people of this country, and they will recognize and realize the conduct of hon. gentlemen who, in this discussion, have nothing but sneers to offer. (Cheers.) They ask, where is the ship? Well, sir, in 1878, what was becoming the position of this trade? New York was becoming the great centre or distributing point in relation to tea for the whole Dominion, and as merchants went there for that, they went there for other ar- ticles as well. What was the general tend- ency and course of our trade ? Every year there was an increased importation of goods from the United States, and a decreased im- poitation from the mother country, and from other countries as well, largely in conse- quence of just such a policy as is involved in connection with this tea trade. (Hear, hear.) But as a result of direct importations, whether they came from China and Japan to Montreal merchants, or to Toronto or Ham- ilton merchants over the American railways, or whether they come directly up the St. Lawrence, as a large quantity of tea did come — but however they came, they came as direct importations, as the result of business relations between the commission merchant and the purchaser in the foreign country, or the commission merchant or broker in the foreign country, thus leading to those relations of trade be- tween the two countries which, in the future, I am quite satisfied will produce important Results in the commercial prosperity of this country. That policy has restored the dis- tributing tea business to the merchants of Canada instead of to the merchants ot the United States. (Cheers.) THK ATTACK ON MR. RBOPATH. Now, I will take another article which may be considered a hobby of mine, and that is the business of sugar refining ; I am not going to refer to sugar refining in its or- dinary sense, I am not going to deal with that question as it has been dealt with so ably on the floor ot this House. But I desire to refer for one moment to a sneering reference made by an hon. gentleman to Mr. Peter Bedpath, who, it is said, has recently purchased Chiselhurst in Great Britain. The fiist hon. gentleman who made the sneering reference to that gentleman was the hon. member for West Durham, who, al- though himself a Chancellor of a university largely endowed with the public funds, and therefore not dependent upon the contribu- tions of the benevolent and patriotic people of the country, ventured, at a public meeting in the city of Toronto, during an election, when he hoped to excite the popular mind against the sugar refining business, to taunt Mr. Peter Eedpath with having contributed $50,000 to a museum in connection with Mc- Gill College, Montreal. I am glad to know that it was not $50,000, but $125,000 that he contributed to that object. I do not think it comes well from a gentleman who occupies, in relation to the higher education of this country, the position which the hon. gentle- man from Wesl Durham occupies, I do not think it came well from him to make every man in Canada,who is engaged in the Indus- 19 tries of the country feel, if he contributed to i the support of these great institutionR, he ! would render himself liable in consequeac-e of it to be traduced, viliHed and sneered at by public men. (Hear, hear.) I say it was not what was to be expected from a gentle- man occupying his position. The hon. mem- ber for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) does not appear to be aware that the iledpaths were 'in old family in Montreil long before sugar refineries were heard of in Canada. ! They made money in the ordinary course of trade ; they were not only a family of wealth, butK family of respectability, and they realiz- ed what, unfortu itely few rich men realize, the responsibilities which belong to great wealth, and they were always ready to con- 1 tribute of the means they had accumulated | to the promotion of objects of usefulness in 'the city in which they lived. If the Red- paths had made money in sugar refining they diave made itby a close attention to business, by watchfulness to even the one -hundredth part of one per cent, in connection with' their transactions. In fact I may say that they have made their money more as mer- i chants than as refiners. They were taunted ! with making money in the old times ; and I yet the Molson family — a family of great | business capacity — started a sugar refinery , alongside of them. But it went : down. It had not the pkill which ! was brought to bear for the success | of the Bedpath's refinery, and it passed out j of existence — an evidence of the fact that I 8ugar refining requires great skill, great at- I tention, great command of capital to make i it a success. What occurred only the other I day, and one cannot refer to it without a feel- ing of deep regret, at the City of Halifax ? A refinery was started there, and one would have thought that with the enormous profits which hon. gentlemen are always talking of it would have been able to maintain itself. But it did not maintain itself. It has in the meantime, at any rate, suspended operations, and let us hope it will able to renew these operations. But surely what has occurred proves that all these stories of the enormous profits that are realized as a result of the protection on sugar refining are simply fables ■to catch if possible the ear of the people of this country and of enlisting their sympa- thies against the National Policy. Mr. Red- j)ath has gone to England and it is said that he has bought the magnificent residence that ■has been referred to. With all respect to the -unfortunate and distinguished lady who re- >cently occupied — if she does not now occupy it — it never has had and never will have a worthier occupant than the gentleman who is now going into it. (Cheers.) His going from here is a loss to the country. Men like him are tew and far between in any country, and in this new country where there are so many opportunities for the useful employment of wealth, such men are all too few. I am 8 irry — all his fellow citizens in Montreal — all who kaew him are sorry that he has felt it incumbent for personal reasons to leave the country. But to find a man with his re- cord sneered at and insulted in this House, because he has done that which many mer- chants who have imported goods and made money could have done, because he has em- ployed his wealth in promoting the com- merce of the country and building up a trade with the sugar producing portions of the world, is certainly what no one could have expected from hon. gentlemen having seats in this House. [Cheers.] SUGAR REI'lNINO AND FORGION TRADE. The point to which I refer in regard in re- gard to the sugar duties, is the change that they have effected in the foreign trade of the country. In 1877.8 we imported from Great Britain, 53,237,698 pounds of sugar. We imported trom the United States, 45,195,- 305 pounds — or altogether, 98,433,033 pounds; from the countries of production we import- ed only 12,000,000 pounds, while in 1880-81, we imported from Great Britain and the United tStates, 21,263,390 pounds, and from the countries of production, 108,526,175 pounds — a complete change in the current of trade in this country. [Hear, hear.] Then, in 1877-8, when hon. gentlemen opposite had succeeded in utterly destroying the import trade from Brazil, we did not import a single pound from Brazil, while last year we import- ed no less than 23,603,775 pounds. ^Now, sir, this change in the current of our trade shows us that as our other industries become more thoroughly developed we would be en- abled to send a surplus to those countries. This has been accomplished, and in addition to that an industry has been fostered in our midst which is so important in all its rami- fications that even the leading apostle of hon. gentlemen opposite — Mr. David A, Wells— the great Free Trader of the United States, wrote a pamphlet to show that sugar refining must be taken out of the ordinary category of industries and receive the foster- ing and protecting care of the Government. The aggregate trade with South America has increased from $669,804 in 1878 to f 1,369,- 20 731 In 1881 ; the aggregate trade with the I West Indies from $4,035,534 to $6,742,933. These are the results of the National Policy, j so far as the imports from these countries | are concerned, and, as I have said, the time will come in the nature of things when the multiplication of the industries and manu- factures of Canada will give us a surplus for | exportation, and when that time comes the business relations wehave with these foreign countries will prove to be valuable factors in i the building up of foreign markets for the manufactures of Canada. (Cheers.) ; THE DKCBKASB IN EXPORTS. This brings up the question wnich was started by hon. gentlemen opposite, relating > to the decrease in our exports of mauufac- tured goods. Well, all I have to say about that is this : that, assuming that all the ' manufactories in the country are fully em- ! ployed, assuming that new factories are being | built, assuming that in addition we are im- 1 porting relatively to the articles manuiac- j tured in the country as much as we were be- ! fore, all these things being taken for granted, I and they cannot be denied, they simply ] prove that we are finding a homo market for i these productions, which everybody knows j is the best market. Now, sir these hon. gen- tlemen, admitting that our factories are all busy — I take as a further proof of the fact, the increase in the imports of raw products, such as furs and skins, grease for soap, raw hides and skins, raw silk, wool, broom corn, undressed hemp, unmanufactured tobacco, raw cotton, gums, crude gutta percha, machinery for mills and unmanufactured steel ; and I find that in all these articles we imported in 1881, 80 per cent, more than we did in 1878 ; that is to say, that to the ex- tent of that 80 per cent, we had the manu- facturing going on in Canada, not only giv- ing employment to the people in our mills, but improving the condition of the people in the neighborhood of the mills. The hon. gentleman for South Brant, in one of his speeches, referred to sewing-machines as having been injured by the policy. He stated that the exportation of sewing-ma- chines had largely decreased. As a matter of fact it has decreased; 7,946 machines, worth $107,806, have been exported less than were exported in 1878. Well, while the hon. gen- tleman was making his speech I thought I would write down to the manager of the Williams' iSewing Machine Co. in Montreal, and ascertain the cause of that circumstance, and here is the reply : — " In reply to your enquiries, I am happy to be able to state that our business has been vevy much Improved by the operation ot the Na- tional Policy. We ar« now employing three times as many hands, and making three times as many machines as we made belore the Natloual Policy came Into operation, and we find our home market very much Improv- ed, ihat iH to say, we find that more machines can be sold though we do not getany hlghir orlcec. In fact, prices are rather lower tbun they were, but we do not complain ot this ns we much prefer doing a large business oi» small profits than a small buslne-s on large proflls ; It Is much more protl table and satis- factory. , . ^ » .... " There Is one point on which I wish to make a bold assertion, and make It with a strong emphasis, and that Is on the question, ' wha pays the duty on Imported machines ? ' I say that the I'orelgn manufacturers piiy It. Lot a Canadian dealer go to any of the American manufacturers lor machines, and he can al- ways get them cheaper than an American dealer uy the amount of the duty. In other words, a Canadian dealer can buy machines from $3 to $5 cheaper than an American dealer can buy the same goods. Thus the American manufacturer pays the duly which goes Into ')ur Dominion Treasury on machines imported into Canada." Mr. Mills— Then the duty can be no im- pediment to the importations ? Mr. White— There is one of the wise say. ings of hon. gentlemen opposite. I will tell yon what the duty does : it ensures, to a certain extent, the Canadian market to the Canadian manufacturers. (Cheers.) Mr. Mills — Not at all. Mr. White — They can sell more machines. The object of the duty is not to increase the price to the Canadian consumer, but simply to give to the Canadian manufacturer that confidence which will enable him to enlargy his manufactories, to produce a larger out- put, and ultimately to sell to the consumer much more cheaply than before. pacific railway and the northwest. Now, sir, the hon. gentleman who last spoke told us we were going to have new issues presented to the people of this coun- try ; he told ue we were going to have as an issue tht.t terrible bargain regarding the con- struction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have hoard the hon. gentleman on that sub- ject before ; I had the pleasure, the inesti- mable pleasure of hearing him in the town of Cobourg, when he ap- pealed to the people in relation to this terrible, this iniquitous bargain to which he has referred to-night. I remem- ber his graphic description of that loag night's sitting we had here ; hon. gentlemen moved an amendment, afiirming the princi- ple that ought to be adopted; they made 21 their speech upoa it ; no answer was vouchHafed ; the members were called in and the large majority voted us duwa by brute force, and so the hon. gentleman went on with his description. Well, the hou. gentleman might, wlien he goes into tiie country next, at least tell the people that we had been discussing thfit question for six weeks on the floor of Parliament, that every single point in this series of amendments bad been fully discussed, and that it was simply a question of whether there ever would be an end to the discussion in con- nection with the Canadian Pacific K'lilway. But the hou. gentlemaa matle his statemeut, and what w.i8 the result? In that town where he made the statement 125 of a majority was recorded for the Government, and in the entire constituency, in otlier parts of which the hon. gentleman spoke, there was, with the exception of three polling sub.divisions, actunliy a larger ■Conservative vote polled than was polled in the election of 1878 ; and I think I may fairly say that what occurred in that constituency, in spite of the eloquence of the hon. gentleman, will occur in other places when the day of trial comes. Why, Mr. Speaker, the last subject which they care to discuss t)efore the people is the National Policy ; my hon. friend knows that in his heart of hearts ; he kuows that he would give the best doller he ever was worth — yes, more than that — he would give half his last year's business, if he could wipe the National Policy question out of existence al- together, as au issue between parties, if he could only close the mouths of the gentle- men who sit on the froat beaches betore him from presenting this perpetual free-trade view to the House and the country. (Cheers.) lie would give his best half-year's business if he only could by some method preveat them from ever proposing the free-trade view of the tariff. If stories be true — I am not given to repeating matters of that kind in Parliament — au effort was actually made to induce a constituency in this country to drop the ex Finance Minister at the next elec- tions. I know the hon. gentleman found it fiecessary to leave this House and go all the way to Centre Huron in order to be present at the convention, and with his gracious smile and pleasant face mesmerize it into negativing the suggestion made in other ■quarters that he should be left at home thp' they might rid themselves of his influence o. the subject of a National Policy. Air. Patbrson — I hope the hou. gentleman dobS not mean that I made an attempt of that kind ; I have not heard of such an attempt being made. j Mr. Whitb — I have too much respect for j the hon. member for South Brant to think I he would do that secretly which he would : .lot do openly. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, would be glad to get rid of this i question. In their heart of hearts, if we leave I out doctrinaires like the hon. members for I Bothwell and Centre Huron and the hon. i member for (Charlotte, there is not a member I who would not give his best half year's in- I come to get rid of the National Policy as an I issue, but I tell them this now, that when the j trial comes they will be just as anxious to I get rid of the Pacific Hallway contract. There is no subject I know of that has been a sub- ject between political parties in this country where the argument is so overwhelmingly on ] one side, and where, what is very much bet- ; ter, the facts are so much on one side as that j in connection with the Canadian Pacific Rail- I way. [Cheers ] We shall probably have an opportunity of discussing it before the session closes, because, if what : 1 hear be true, hon. gentlemen op- I po^ite are going to move amendments ■ to almost every motion to go into committee i of supply. I shall not object ; it is a fair and ; legitimate course for the Opposition it they ! think fit to adopt, but when the time to dis- cuss it comes there will be no difficulty what- ever in dealing with it. Thee, as to this i question of locking up lands in the North- west, what do we find? If we wanted any ; evidence that those hon. gentlemen do not I believe — I use the word in a Parliamentary i sense— the arguments which they are using I in respect to influence of the Pacific Railway, \ we would have it in the fact that a number of them are now risking' their whole tortunes almost in land investments in that country, which, if all that was said la^t session be true, is going to be utterly paralysed by the j influence of the enormous monopoly imposed on it. (Hear, hear.) THE CHANGED CONDITION OF AFFAIRS. ^ What is the position of the country to- day compared to what it was in 1878? When hon. gentlemen went out of office what was its condition ? Its industries were paralysed, its commerce was almost at a standstill. There was scarce y a merchant or a man who had a dollar to invest in any enterprise in Canadian industries, but looked with anxiety to see whether the same insane policy — and Insaae it was, in view of 22 what was taking place on the other side of the line — was to be continued or not. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to statements made by hon. gentle- men on this side, before the lart election, and referred to a statement made by the hon. First Minister, that the very moment the elections tooli place and the Conservative party were returned there would be a revival of hope in the country . I say there whs a revival of hope in the country. That the mere passing of an act was to operate as if by magic, without the intiuence of the opera- tion of that act on the country, nobody for a moment could believe; but what they would and do believe is this, because it is true and they had a right to believe it, that the fact of placing that act on the statute-book had this effect : more men at once looked forward to see where to invest their money in the in- dustries of the country with a fair opportu- nity of receiving a profitable return. The attempt of the hon. gentleman opposite to prove that the prices of bank stock in Sep- tember, 1878, and September, 1879, when the hon. gentleman knew that matters were un- settled in the latter year in consequence ot bank disasters that occurred at that time, the result, not of what had occurred in the year immediately preceding, but of continued mis- management which at last became developed and known to the outside world — the idea of stopping a moment to contrast the two pe- riods, was simply to insult the intelligence of the country, and an injustice to his own can- dor in dealing with questions of this kind. (Hear, hear.) At that time business was paralysed, the industries of the country were about hopeless, our great Northwest was looked upon by our best minds as an incubus and people talked of abandoning it, and the people were looking forward with but a slight gleam of hope to the future of Canada. What is our position to- day? In every town and village we find reviving trade, in every homestead we find reviving happiness. The hon. gentlemer opposite teil us this Government does not make the sun ti, shine, but I heard a gentle- man the other night say that this policy did make the sun to shine in many a household where formerly there was only sorrow, gloom and helplessness. In regard to the North- west to-day, instead of its being looked upon as an incubus, we find our best men are going there. In every township of the country the hon. gentlemen opposite, like the hon. gen- tlemen on this side of the House, know from letters they have received for map* of that country, that you cannot go into a bar-room or into a friend's house but the subject of the Northwest is the general thetfae. In re- lation to the obligation undertaken by the Dominion for the construction of the Pacific Railway, we find that by the surplus of three years which the policy of this Government has brooght about, and by the advantage which will result tp Canada in saving of in- terest, by the redemption of our bonds, which in the three years we shall have to redeem, we shall be able, without auding a copper to our annual obligation by way of interest, to pay every dollar we have undertaken to pay as money subsidy for the Canadian Pacific Ilailway. If hon. gentlemen opposite will only give this country fair play, if they will remember that though they are in opposition, they yet owe some obligation to the country itself, if they will remember that they may attack the Government in regard to its finan- cial administration and the conduct of the departments, but keep their hands off the countiy itself — I venture to say that the future will be brighter, and one of which none of us need be ashamed. (Cheers.) SIR JOHN MAODONALD'S LOYAT.TV. Hon. gentlemen opposite have also been pleased to refer to the speech made by the hon. leader of the Ooverumeui in Toronto, in which he said he would prefer annexation to independence. What was the occasion of that remark ? it was the demand for imme- diate independence made by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Hear, hear.)" What do we find in the special organs of the hon. member for West Durham — I do not charge him with that view- -why, an open advocacy for independence- because they say our trade can be improved with the United btates to our advantage. Do hon.. gentlemen imagine tba^i the people of the United States, who naturally would prefer that this whole conti- nent should be theirs,— in order to pre erve u n independence, in order to give as that status on this continent which we have sought so hard to obtain, that they would give us thoce trade relations ? Not a bit of it; on the contrary, they would draw the cords- in trade matters more strongly than tboy are- to-day; until men, sickened of the poor re- sults of their past efforts at independence^ would say " Let us have annexation, it is the- only thing now for I's to got." (Hear, hear> It was no wonder thai ^he right hon. leader of the Government said better have annexa- 23 tion at •nee than such a miserable conditloa between the tvo couutriea, not as the result of any hostile — I mean any warlike — opera- tionH of our friends on the o'her side, but an the result of this deliberate policy, which they would atlopt to prevent our getting those trade relations as an independent community, which we have not now, know- ing all the time that the etfoot would be to cause us to look forward in another direction. Sir, the right hon. gentleman requires no certiticate of loyalty at my hands; his whole career in Canada has been one r f fidelity to the Mother Country. Why, the very charge which hon. gentlemoa have urged against him, and which some day when the facts are all known— perhaps when he is gone far from among us, and God forbid thaf: that day m»ve used to the enrichment of himself; and when he passes from us Iim will occupy in the memory of the people of Canada as no other public man has ever done, the proud position of their best and ablest statesman. [Loud cheers.] THE SUGAR TRADE. How it Benefits the People of Canada. Speech of Mr. Tliois. IVliite, AI. P. for Cardwell, on Mr. Paterson'^ motion for a change on the Sugar dutietii. The following is the Hansard report of Mr. White's speech, delivered on Wednesday night, the 5th April, in tbe House of Ccm- monH ; — Mr. Whites (Cardwell) — Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the hon. member for Scuth Brant to desii to close the sugar refineries. As I understand his argument, it is thnt the duties should be so reduced or so readjusted, as that whilfl largely lessening the burdens of the people, they will at the same time enable refiners, who look after their business, to carry on that business in Canada. That. I under- stand, is the proposition of the hon. gentle- man. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is In error in his argument, judjr- ing from history in connection with the Bugar refining business in this country. Hon. gentleiuen opposite wero in office fci five j'ears. They had an opportunity of fix- ing the sugar duties as they might desire to fix them, and the result ot their operations was that the only sugar refinery in Canad' was cloised, that a capital of from $500,000 t( $600,000 was allowed, to remain idle for four years, awd that it was not until a change in tae duties look place that tbe refinery was re-opened and the refining business in Cauada re established. (Hear, hear.) I would like to know why the' hon. mem- ber, .'f he has discovered some talismauic method by which he can remove the burdens on the people, as he points out in his resolution, and at the same time main- tain the refineries in operation, did not make the suggestion of the precise method of doing it to the late hon. Minister of Finance wuen he was in office. It certainly was not to t' e ad- vautage of Canada that the sugar refinery should have been closed, that this industry, which all men who have studied these ques- tions at all, admit to be of very great impor- tance, should have been driven out of the country, and, therefore, I cannot but regret that the hon. member for South Brant, who appears to have made the subject one of special study, who appears to have ascer- tained with precise accuracy how much re- fined sugar can be obtained from a certain quantity ot raw sugar, exactly how much profit the refiner can obtain, did not, when he had an opportunity, and was in the con- fidenct) of the party in power, make those suggestions, when they might have nadsome eft'ect. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I think the hon. gentleman, when he told the Ho!ise — refer- ring to the failure of the sugar refinery in Halifax — that there were various causes which led to the failure of people in business, that it required skill, enterprise, energy and attention to suc- ceed in bu^iness, practically answered the whole argument which he presented to the House during the speech wtilch he had de- livered. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a business that realizes the enormous profits of which he Hpoke, which has put nto the pockets of the refluorH of Canada $1,100,000 u year by way of profit over and above all expenditures which they have made i the operation of refining, ought to be able to sustain itself at least for a few months in Halifax. Unfortu- nately the failure of that business there, as the failure of a similar business a few years ago in Montreal, proves this : that all the stories of the enormous profitp of refiners are simply fables with which to tickle the ears of the people, that they have no toundation in fact, and that sugar refining in Canada re- in 25 ^ quires quite as great sliill and energy, and the expenditure of quite as much capital, as any other business in which the people of this country are engaged. (Hear, hear.) SHOULD SCOAR REFINERIES BE PROTECTED. Sir, there are two views which I propose to take ot this question, two aspectu with which I propose to deal in the remarks I intend to address to the House, and which, I hope, will not be very lengthy. The first is whether it is worth while to protect the business of sugar refining in this country at all, I am aware that during recent years the ex-Finance Minister has dealt with this question of sugar refining, as if it wore a matter of very little consequence to the country. He spoke of " washing our sugai at tiome" as a matter of so little consequence that it was not worth while to give con- sideration to it ; yet 1 propose to show that the hon. gentleman, only a few years ago, did regard sugar refining as of some value to the country, and was prepared, if Parliament had accepted his proposal, to have placed a tariff on the Statute-Bouk, quite as protective as that which is on the Statute-Book to-day. When I ]^ad the honor of discussing this question on the floor of the House on a for- mer occasion, I ventured to refer, as of some value, to the opinions of a gentleman in the United States, whose opi- nions have been frequently cited by hon. gentlemen opposite as those which ought to guido u8 in trade matters — I refer to Mr. David A. Wells— and I pro- pose, very briefly indeed, to repeat one or two quotations which I then made, not for the purpose simply ot enforcing the fact that even so great a free trader as Mr. Wells con. sidered the question of sugar refining as one which stood out from the rest of the indus- tries of the country and was entitled, from its peculiar circumstances, to the support and protection of the Government but for the purpose of illustrating the argument which I intend later ca to enforce. Mr. Wells, in a pamphlet which he wrote, strongly maintaining the importance ot sugar refining and the wisdom of the policy of the Government which sustained tliat in- dustry, used these words : — "Any exhibit of tl)i'< great inter Mt which should stop liere would, however, bo o.Kceed- ingly incomplete, for, uritiko tea or eoftee, which are imported in a condition suitable to enter Into Immediate domestic consumption, nearly all the immense sugar product of foi- eiga co'intries wlilch comes, or rather in per- mitted to come, u der the existing taritt; to the United States, as well as no IncouslderaOle portion of the domestic product, is wholly un- fit to enter Into consumption until it has undergone a process of refining or purlflcatlou. According to tlie census of 1870, this business of sugar refining, measured by the value of Its product, ranlted uimh in the order of Importance of the so-called manufacturing Industries of the country, • * * • • • - 4,.597 hands being employed, with an annu.^1 disbursement of -$3,177,288 in wages But the .^tetistics accepted by the trade, in 1878, give to the existing busi- ness of sugar reflnlng a muc.i higher place among tlie industries of the country than was assigned to it bv ho census relations of '70, and indicate a present employment of some 10,000 men, and also that before the 1,500,000,100 lbs. of foreign sugar annually Imported Into this country, enter Into consumption, the refiners expend, in order to nialce tlie same marltet- able to the people, an average of 1 cent per lb., or an aggrv ,ate of some $15 tK)0,OL'0 per annum. And yet further, that of this grand annual ex- penditure, a very Ir.rge proportion accrues to labor of a multlfovm ciiaracter employed In a great part directly within the refineries." Here is the statement of Mr. Wells, that the refineries of the United States expend about one cent per lb. in the conversion of the raw sugar into the refined article fit for the tables of the people. After pointing out, sir, that the higher the grade of raw sugar imported the less '= home labor" — a« Mr. Wells called it — is employed upon, it, and the lower the grade the more home labor, Mr. Wells went on to apportion the expenditure in sugar re- fining as follows : — "For labor direct 30 per cent.; for pack ages, the materials for which are derived en" tl rely from the northern .States, 30 per cent.; fuel, coal, 12 per cont,; bone black, machinerj'i cartage, Ac, 28 per cent. The I,5n0,rt00,0(10 lbs. of sugar annually refined in the United States, require the expeuditure at the very lea.st, for refining, ot 1 cent per lb. on the average, or wliat Is the same thing. $15,000,000 per annum, which is directly dispersed by the domestic sugar refining Interest on account of labor.ma- torlals and capital." Then, coming to deal with a question which, to an economist like him, was of great im- portance, the question of the cost to the peo- ple of the sugar that is produced, he made this statement : — " The American sugar refiners, the magni- tude and comparative rantc of wlio^e Industry has already been noticed, claim— and their claim is generally admitted— that they can make refined sugar cheaper than it can at pro- ;:ent be produced in Europe, or any other country ; and It Is a fact little known tcv the American public that, if the duties now levied on imported wugars were deducted, the Ameri- can refiners do now actually sell their sugar, ou an average, so'uo il cents per 100 ll)S. cheaper than do the refiners of England, which country now permits importation of all sugars free of duty." That was the statement of a gentleman who, ai I have already said, has certainly always 26 been accepted by hon. gentlemea opposite as an authority on matters of trade. (Hear, hear.) SIR BICHABU CARTWBIGHT'S FORMEK VIEWS. But, sir, he is not the ou'y authority which may be cited as of importance on this sub- ject of sugar refining. I shall cite the au- thority of the hon. Finance Ministe- of the late Government. You will remember, sir, that when that hou gentleman brought in his first tarift in 1874, he included in it cer- tain modifications of the duties on sugar. The tarift" at that time was: Equal to and above No. 9 Dutch standard, 25 per cent ad valorem, and 1 cent per lb specific; below No. 9 Dutch standard, 25 per cent ad valorem, f^ad a specific duty of | cent per lb ; melado, cane Jucioe, &c, 25 per cent ic? valorem, fcent per lb. The proposal made bj the hon. gentleman Tas as follows : Equal to and above No. 16 Dutch Standard, IJ cents per lb. and 25 per cent, ad oalortm ; equal to and above 1 3 and oelow \Q,\\ cents per lb. and 25 per cent. ad valorem, the lower grades being left as they were before. That was tho protection which the hen. gentleman proposed to give to the sugar refining industry under the tar- Ifi' which he brought down in 1874. But the hv>n. gentleman had 3ome difficulty with some of his friends in the country, and I dare say the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gunn) who sits behind the Knight from Westmoreland (Sir Albert J. Smith) will remember some of the circumstances connected with that difficulty with his supporters, who believed that a tar- iff of that kind would practically shut out the higher grades of sugar and give a complete monopoly to the refiners of Canada, there be- ing at the time but one refiner in the coun- try. A fortnight later the hon. gentleman came down with a complete change of his tariff — a change so complete that no one would have recognized in the later proposals the proposals which were made at an earlier penod. (Hear, hear.) On that occasion he made this statement, according tc the report of his speech, published in one of vhe news- papers : — '•He then alluded to the controversy In the case of sugars, and the difflcuUies there were in dealing with the qutstlon, and, in conse- quence the Government liad decided to defer for the preseut any action in the matter. They did cot mean to sny that they were satisfied with the existing siuto ot things ; but tliey re- cognized the serious practical difficulty which existed, and they would reitore sugars to the p( sition they occupied previously. Now, sir, here vas bn announcement, a re- gretful aanouncement, by the hon. gentle- man that he was not able io give, practically, a monopoly to the sugar refining industry. Here was a regretful announcement that, although lor the time being he was compell- ed to give up that idea, the subject viould be considered, and probably he would be able to do something at a later period for the refin- eries. (He-^r, hear.) And he did do some- thing later. A year later— in 1875 — the hon. gentleman, I think, without reference to Par- liament at all — I Bpeak from memory and therefore under correction — but on the authority " an order-in-council he altered the duties, and on the 10th of April a circu- lar was issued to the collectors of Customs announcing the change. The duties were changed in this way: All above 13, 1 cent per lb. and 25 per cent, ad valorem; 9 to 13 inclusive, | cents per ]b. and 25 per cent, ad valorem ; below 9 and melado, | cents per lb. and 25 per cent, ad valorem I venture to cay that if the hon. gentleman who made the speech on this subject to-day will take tho difference be- tween those figures and make a comparison such as he made in his speech, he will find on his method of reasoning that there was a very substantial protection to the refinories. It may be asked it the hon. gentleman made an arrangement of that kind ; if he issued a circular to the Collectors of Customs re- ducing very low the duty on the raw material,, which 'n fact, constitutes a protection to the refiners of the country — why, notwithstand- ing that protection, the refiners broke down? The reason wa? this : I have voason to think, though I do not know, that he was pressed at that time to go one step further and pro- tect these refiners against the bounty which the drawback allowed in the United States practically gave to the refiners of that coun- try ; and the refiners broke down at that time almost as much from tne absence of soma protection against that concealed bounty ab from the absence of adequate protection in the arrangement of the duties themselves. (Hear, hear.) I refer to this simply for the purpose of pointing out that at that time, in .;he ep'-lier career of the ton. gentleman as a Finance Minister, he recognized that sugar refining in Canada was an industry to be protected ; and, in the first instance, tried to induce Parliament to pass a tariff which waS; in itself, far more protective than the one now upon the Statute Book ; and that, failing in that, he subsequently issued a circular, by Order-in- Gouncil, under which he gave a very ma- terially improved protection to the sugar re- 27 finerc of the country. (Cheers.) Now, sir, we have these two great authorities on politicr \ economy, and on the relations in which the Government should stand to the industries of the country. Mr. David / . Weils, of the United States, and the bon. member lor Centre Huron, united — in the one case in a pamphlet, in the other case in the form of an attempt to get an act of Parliament, and afterwards by means of a departmental cir- cular — as to the importance to the country of sugar reiining. I think I may, therefore, assume that it is too late for hon. gentlemen opposite to take the ground that the refiners ought not to have some reasonable considera- tion in the arrangement of the duties, so that they may be enabled to continue thtir opera- tions in the future as they have been doing for the last two years. (Cheers.) THE EFFBCT OK THE TARIFF UPON THE REVENUE, The hon. member for Brant, in the course of his speech, made some reference to the great loss of revenue resulting from this tariff, and took the year 1879 and 1880 as one of the years for ^his comparison. Now, the hon. gentleman, in dealing with this question on the floor of this House, can surely atford to be fair. I hold that the year 1879-80, the first complete year under the tariff, is not a fair year for comparison in connection with any matter affecting the Customs dutieH. But we may go back, and we ought to go back, to the year 1877-'(8, the last complete year before the cbange of the tariff, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. Now, I find that the duty paid on all kinds of sugar in 1878 was $2,584,370, and in 1881 waG $2,440,855, or a difference of $143,- 524 in favor of the former year. That is to say, we apparently lost in duty last year, as compared with the last complete year be- fore the tariff was brought in, $143,524. Of course, we all understand that this loss was due to the fact that in the former years the importations were almost entirely of the high- er grades, and during the latter year almost entirely oi the lower grades. Mr. Paterson — You forget the extr^ lbs. imported in 1881. Mr. White— On the statement of the hon. gentleman as to the quantity of refined sugar which can be obtained from the lower grades cf sugar, I do not think there is very much difference between the two. Now, sir, the value cf the sugar imported in 1878 was $6,- 142,014, which was imported by the mer- chants ot Canada, and the value in 1881 was $5,070,040, which was imported chiefly by or for the refiners, or a difference in the value of the .'mported sugar of $1,071,974 in favor of the former year. No.v, it has been said by the hon. gentleman that This difference, and the difference in the duty together, make up the profit of the refiners. Let us look at this proposition. In 1881, there were imported altogether, of all kinds of sugar, 135,126,17(5 lbs., and in 1878, 108,- 951,920, or a greater quantity, in 1881, by 26,174,256 lbs. But if we deduct the impor- tations over 14, which may be said to in- clude the finer grades of yellow sugar and all white sugar, we shall find that the quan- tity of sugar imported mainly for refining purposes last year was 119,268,171 lbs. Now, Mr. David A. Wells, the prophet of po- litical economy of hon. gentlemen opposite, states that it costs one cent a pound to refint sugar, and this conclusion he says he arrived at after a careful examination of the books of several refiners in the United States. If we assume that to be correct, what do we find '? That there was expended in the ope- ration of refining the sugar imported last year, $1,192,681, or a difference between the cost of refining the sugar and the difference in the value of the quantity brought in in 1881 as compared with 1878, of $2Ji,- 817. (Cheers.) That represents the profits to the refiners, over and above the expenditures that they have to make, and a reasonable interest on capital, instead of the enormous profit of $1,417,000 referred to by the hon. gentle- man. >ZOVi THB MONEY IN REFINING IS EXPENDED. Well, sir, how is that mocoy expended ? I believe I am right in stating that there are employed in conneetiou with the four re- fineries in Canada, about 1,200 men; if you put the wages of these m«u at an average of a doll ;r a day— and that is very much less than most of these men are receiving — you will have no less than $360,000 paid in wages, by these sugar refiners. Tjon these re- I fineries consume from 50,000 to 60,000- I tons of coal per annum, and I think I am. ; riglit in saying that the coal consumed i as to nine-tenths of it is Nova Scotia coal ;. and if you put that at a value of $3.00 a ton, which is a very low estimate, you have $180,- 000 experded for coal. Another item in. connection with sugar refining is cooperage, and, so far as I have been able to ascer- tain. 350,000 barrels are annually re- quired, tHe staves, hoops, and heade< of which are all of Canadian wood 1 venture to think that hon. gentlemen wil 28 agree with me thai a very important market has been given to certain classes of goods that, before the opening of refineries, had no '2narket whatever 'n the country. In addi- tion to that there were the horses employed, and the cartage, and the number of subsid- iary trades, such as engineers, founders, car- penters, masons and others, employed in the various operations, and in the repairs con- nected with re&ning. AH these things are so much direct advantage to the people of C .nada, so much expenditure in the way of wages among them, which, under the system that prevailed when lion, gentlemen opposite were in office, used to go to foreigners in- stead of to our people. [Cheers ] I will ask this honorable House whether it in to the advantage ot our people that that extra $1,- 000,000, which is the difference between the value of importations in 1878 and to-diiy, is not very much more to the advantage of Canada, whether it does not conduce more to our prosperity, than ii it were expended in the employment of people in the United 8tates. [C sers ] THE I'RICE OF SUGAR TO THE C0NS0MK8. We are told, however — and I suppot e hon. gentlemen opposite will admit, at ^ny rate, that it is to our advantage that millions of dollars should be expended in Canada if there were no compensating disadvantages — that there are compensating disadvant^ages, that the price of sugar to the consumer is very much greater than it would have been had the former tarift' remained in force. We must, in the discussion oi this question, as- sume that if hon. gentlemen opposite were transferred to this side of the House — and God forbid that such a calamity should befall the dominion — they would go back to the ♦irift" which they considered a proper tarift when they were in power. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Brant would have any more influence with the coming Finance Minister — and if all the stories be true, he is not likely to be the late Finance Minister — than he had with the late Finance Minister; but, under any circum- stances, we must, for the sake of argument, assume that the sugar duties would be re- stored to their former position. (Hear, hear.) That being the case, we can deoi with this question as a mere mavhematical problem. The speculations and fine-drawn theories of the hon. gentleman as to how much refined sugar you can get out of raw sugar, and the profit reiiulting to the refiner may be accurate ; but, «8 tho hon. gentleman himself knows, even 80 great a statesman and economist as Mr. Gladstone was compelled to confess this question was one very difficult of solution, and which taxed even his great ability to solve, if he did succeed in solving it. If we can mathematically establish the fact that the people of Canada are not paying more for their sugar than they would under the tari£f of hon. gentlemen opposite, and with- out the refineries in Canada — basing our argument on the experience of the four years during which we haid no refineries, and had the late tarifi — that is a method of dealing with this question which this honourable House and the country will consider much more satisfactory than the theories of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman was good enough to read from a speech of mine in which he says I was inac- curate in some figures that I gave, although he admits that I myself supplied the anti- dote by a table of figures which I presume he admits were absolutely correct, since he lias not questioned their accuracy. Whei I spoke on the question outside this House, I stated tuat the table in which I gave the prices of sugars for the three periods, the 5tb, the 15th and the 25th of each mouth from 1376 to 1879— that that table had never been challenged. It was prepared with very great care by experts in Montreal, and I be- lieve it to be absolutely correct. I have not the speech to which the hon. gentleman re- fers in which he says the error of a figure oc- curred. Whether the error was made or not, the hon. gentleman admits that the table I gave was correct, because he checks n»y ar- gumeat witn my own tables. But take the last fifteen months, and if it be any object to hon. gentlemen, I can give the average for each month during that time. The averages are as follows : — Average prices of granulated sugar in New York and Montreal during 1881 and first three months of 1882 : — 1881. New York. Montreal. January $ 49 $ 9 60 February 9 16 9 33 Msrch 9 29 9 16 April.... 9 38 9 04 May 9 87 9 36 June 10 64 10 23 July 10 08 10 12 August 9 76 9 41 September 10 01 9 31 » (ctober 10 Oft V 22 November 9 72 24 December 9 29 9 22 1882. January 9 50 9 06 February 9 25 8 81 March , .. 9 3;i 8 80 Average $9 65 $9 38 29 The average price of granulated in New Yorli for the whole fifteen months was $9.G5 per 100 lbs., that is the wholeof 1881 and the first three months of 1882. The average price in Montreal during the whole of these fifteen months was $9.33 (hear, heai). My hon. friend from Kingston, who knows a good deal about these subjects, will be able to check me if I am wrong in these figures. The difference in favor of Montreal — and mind you that is not my argument — in the average of that period was 32 cents per 100 lbs. (hear, hear). How would this have been under the old tarift", supposing the refineries were all wiped out ? 1 take the price in New York, $9.65, less the drawback, $3 15, leav- ing a balance of $G.50 as the gold price in bond for exportation. I add the Canadian duty under the late tariii' 25 per cent., or $1.62 J ; 1 cent a lb. specific, $1 per 100 lbs.; and then the carriage which my hon. friend disputes, 30 cents per 100 l^^s. Mr. Patefson — Leave that out. Mr. White — I will strika it out for the hon. gentleman in a little while, but I prefer to add it in the meantime for the purposes of this argument. The effect ot the 30 cents is to make the several distributing points Can- adian instead of American points. The pric; would have been, uader these circumstances, $9.42^, as the average price for the last fif- teen months in Montreal, importing from New York and taking as basis the prices in New York, with the duty and charges imder the old tariff added. The actual average price in Montreal during those fifteen months, was $9.33. Thus the average price in Mon- treal for the last fifteen months of sugar was, on that basis, 9^ cents per lb. less than it would have been under the old tariff, and if the refineries were not in existence. (Cheers.) But, sir, there is something to be added to this. During the four years when the Can. adian refineries were silent, when nothing was being done in the way of refining in Canada, the average price of sugar, gold in bond, in New York, was $6.19 per 100 lbs., that is with the drawback oft". The average price in Canada of tt.'at American sugar, with duty and charges paid was $9.62 per 100 lbs. These are the actual piices in the two places Irrespective of any calculation. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, what should have been the price under the 1p^ 9 tarift? The duty was $2.55, calculated on the basis of 25 per cent and 1 cent per lb, the cairiage — the hon. gentle- man will all^^w me to include it — 30 cents, making together $9.04. But the actual price was $9.G2, bo that we paid no less than I 58 cents in addition for general busine&s of I the merchant, his profit, the profit ot the middleman, the wholesale merchant, my hon. friend from Kingston for instance, who was a distiibutor in Canada for the products ot the refiners of New York, in order to ac- count for the ruling price in Canida. (Cheers.) Fifty-eight cents is the actual result under a calculation, which is not a mere estimate, which is no fine-drawn the- ory, but which is the actual result ascer- tained ; that i.s, if you take the average price, in gold, in bond, in New York for the four years before our refineries were opened, and add the duty under the old tariff, and the 30 cents charges — I am bound to say that these are included — we have then still to add 5B cents as the profit of the merchants, who be- came the distributors in Canada for this sugar, in order to brin- it up to the price which we paid for the American sugar during that time. (Cheers.) Now, if we add 50 centfc -and I have shown that it was 58 cents — to the average during these four years, what do we find? That during the last fifteen months the cost of this American sugar in Canada, under the late Custom* tariff, when our refineries were out of exist- ence, would have been 59,} cents per 100 lbs. more than we paid in Canada during these fifteen months for Canadian refined sugar. Now, sir, 1 will ask you whether whether this simple statement of facts. Mr. Patbrson (Brant) — Has not Bedpath's sugar to be distributed in the same manner as the American sugar was distributed? Mr. White — No. not in the same way. Mr. Paterson — It has to be distributed here. Mr. White — The hon. gentleman is mis- taken ; the smalleiit dealers in Ontario can and do buy sugar direct from the refiners. Mr. Patbrson — But not at your prices. Mr. White — Yes, at their prices. There is no such distribution as the hon. gentleman, speaks of, and that is the real ground of op- position to this tariff on the part of my hon. friend from Kingston. If the wholesale merchants had this profit on the Montreal or Halifax or Moncton refined sugar, there would be no complaint about this tarift' atall. They are patriotic enough to desiie,if they can make the same profits, that the expenditure on tiio refining should be made in Canada, instead of the United States ; but it is be- cause the smallest dealer almost comes into direct contact with the refiners here, which he did not do under the former state of 30 I <§m ;lii i s things, that this diffareace takes place. (Hear, hear.) I think, under these circum- fltances, I may fairly say that this is a suffi- cient answer to the argument of the bon. gentleman. But I will lake the last three months, bringing it down to date ; and I find that the average price of granulated sugar in New York was, for January, $9.50 ; February, 1^9.25, and March, $9.38 per 100 lbs., nuking the average for the three months vJ-38. I also tiad that in Montreal, during the same period, the average price was: for January, $9.0G ; February, $8 81, and March, $8 80, or an average for theae three months of $8 89 per 100 lbs. Takin;? the comparison ot these three months on the same basis, and taking the price at New York, and adding the old tar" ^ and the charges to which I have re- ffe. d, and 50 cents for intermediate profit, I find that the cost of sugar would have been in Canada, during the last three months, if we had had to import it under the old tariff from the United States instead of refining it in Canada, the price, I say, would have been $0.59, while tb-i average price in the city of Montreal was $8.89, or a difference in favor of Montreal of 70 cents per 100 lbs. Mr. Patbrson — Add another $1 for contin- gencies, and you will have $10.59. Mr. Wh[te — Then, sir, I take the price of granulated sugar on Monday last — and this will bring the matter within the cognizance of any hon. gentleman who is engaged in the business, or who kno /