^. '.A IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (AAT-S) ^0 ///A ^% f/j fA ^ ■^ 1.0 ^i^ IM I.I 1.25 " lis III M !.4 6" 1.6 t* P^>w ^^# % /a & ^A ■///>, Hiotographic Sciences Coiporation <^ ^5 ■^ 23 WEST N.AIN STREET WEBSTER, MY. MfSC (716) 877-4503 6^ ## fe CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCIVIH Coliection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ■y Technical and Bibliographic Notes/rv^otes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute hes attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. FeatureTt of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the imaqes in the roproduv^tfon, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n Coloured covers/ Couvertiire de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e dt/ou pellicui^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planch □ D D :hes et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduitc, ou qui peuvent exiger une n^<odification dans la m^thode normaie de filmage sont indiqu4s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages detachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~y Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I "1 Showthrough/ I j Quality of print varies/ □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibh D 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 feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fagon it obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est i\\m6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. lOX 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X ] 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la g6ndrosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning 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 copies 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 on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filn^age. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre 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 apparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ♦- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Dh I THE DOMINION FINANCES AND THE NATIONAL POLICY. A SPEECH DELIVERED DURING TEE DEBATE ON THE BUDGET, IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE EVENING OF THE 30fA MARCH, 1883, Bf MR. THOMAS WHlTli, M.R FOR CARDWELL, ONT. The Dominion Finances and the National Policy. m Defeat of Liberal Leaders 3 Financial Administration 4 TLe Government Railways 5 Cobt of Collecting Ciiytoms 6 The Post OfiBce Expenditure 6 The State of our Public Debt 7 The National Policy 9 Increased Imports and their Efifect 9 The Sugar Duties iO The Effect on the Tea Trade 12 The Trade hi Woollen Goods , . . . 13 The Development of the Coal Trade 13 Agricultural Protection 14 The Mult Question 15 The Effect of Turiff on British Trade 15 The Balance of Trade 16 Manitoba and the Northwest 17 The Commercial Outlook 18 The Position of Parties 19 i THE BUDGET DEBATE. cy. ! 13 13 1 U 1 15 15 f 16 i' 17 18 19 SPEECH BY MR. THOMAS WHITE, M.P. DELIVERED IX THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, OX FRIDAY EVEXIXG, MARCH G0//(,' 1883. The following is the Hansard report of the speech delivered by the member for Card well in reply to Mr. Paterson, M.P., on Friday night, the 30th March. Mr. WniTK (Cardwell)— Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has devoted a large portion of the time which he has occupied in replying to the budget speeches of last year and of the year before. Sir, those speeches were before the people of the country in June last ; the replies of these hon. gentlemen to those budget speeches were also bt fore the country, and in the face of argumtnth used by hon. gentleman oppo- site, the people of Canada — not the people of Ontario alone, but the people of t'.=) whole Dominion — returned to this House a major- ity to support the hon. gentlemen who now occupy the Treasury Benches. The hon member has been good enough to say that we should not boast of that triumph because of the fact that it was achieved, as he alleges, in some parts at any rate, by what was com- monly known as the gerrymandering Act. I ^id not understand the hon. Minister of Finance when he referred to the fact that eight ex-ministers who were in office during the five years that the opposite party were in power, had fallen victims to the popular indignatioa at the last election — I eay I did not understand him to refer to the triumph in the Province of Ontario alone. The fact Is that of those eight hon. gentlemen only one can, with any 8h»w of reason or truth, be said to have fallen a victim to what is called the gerrymandering Act. DKPBAT OF LIHEKATi LKADEHS. The late member for Bothwell is now, it may be, occupying a position which is not an uncongeniiil or unpleasant one, one which in some respects has its advantages over the position of a member of this House, that of an editor of a leading newspaper in Ontario, lie occupies that position to-day, it may perhaps be said, because of the change in the boundaries of hia late constituency ; but certainly the ex-Finance Minister cannot claim that to be his case. If the constitu- ency which he form rly represented was changed, thechantred constituency is in this House represented by an hon. gentleman who is in sympathy with him, and who supports the party with which ho was connected. And the other constituency into which por- tions of his constituency went, returned a member to this Hou-?e by tho enormous ma- jority of somewhere about 800 The late Fi- nance Minister himselt chose a county in which to try conclusions with the Conservative party, and in choosing that county he chose one in which, judg- ing by the preceding fair reason to expect some chance of success, suit ? He was beaten and Act election, there was that he might have What was the re- by a majority of 157, the township which was added by the of last session to the constituency only gave a Conservative majority of somewhere about thirty. [Cheers]. How was it with another gentleman in this Province ? How was it with an hon . ex-Governor of the Pro- vince of Oatario, Mr. Macdonald, who ran in Gleng&rry and was so gallantly beaten by the hon. gentleman who sits behind me ? [Hoar, hear] . How was it with the late hon. meml)er for Shelford, whose constituency was not gerrymandered? [Hear, hear]. How was it with the hon. and gallant knight of Westmoreland, whose place was taken by the hon. gentleman whom we are all so de- lighted to see in this House. [Hear, hear]. How was it with the late Minioter of Justice, Mr. Laflimme, in whose constituency there was no clmnge of boundaries ? How was it with Mr. Laird, who ran in Prince Edward Island, and who was so unpopular that if I mistake not he almost prevented his own colleague from lindiiig a seat in thi.s House? [Hear, hear.] How was it with Mr. Jones who ran for Ualiiax, and who, I am glad to know, was defeated by the hon. gentleman who sits behind mo? How was it with the ex-Speaker of the House, who failed to get the votes of one-fourth of the constituency which former- ly supporte<l him ? What influence had the gerrymandering Act iu those constituencies ? [Cheers.] If it had any influence whatever, it should have had an influence in favor of the Opposition. If it was an Act which deserved the name of an infamous act — and I have heard that term applied to it in western constitu- encies — the argument was good in every part of the Dominion, that the party guilty of passing such an Act were unworthy of public confidence ; yet that measure, used along with other measures passed by this Govern- ment, and denounced with equal vehemence when they were before Parliament, and for which they were responsible in all those constituencies, failed to bring b!\cl£ those leading men to the other side of the House. As we gaze on it from this side and miso the faces of those who used to do loyal battle for their party in debate, we ex- perienco a feeling of absolute commis- eration at the poverty of the Opposition in this House. (Cheers). Sir, the truth is that the people of Canada, in Juno last, gave their verdict for the same reason that they gave it in September, 1878. They had had experience of the Liberal party in power. They tound that that party in power had failed to carry out even the pledges they made in Opposition, and they touud that, more serious than that, they had failed to appreciate the wants of the people ; they had ignored the condition of affairs in which the country stood, and, unwilling to trust them again, they preferred, even if the statements made by the hon . gentlemen as to the mal- administration of the Government were true, to trust the destinies of this country to the Conservative party whose administration they had had experience of for nearly twenty years, rather than run the risk at a time like that of placing the afl'dirs of the country in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] There never was in any country a triumph so signal, so significant as that which came to the Con- servative party in June last ; and hon. gentle- men opposite, it they realize the real sense of the country — if they could learn to forget a Httle, or learn to remember a little — would not come back to this House the first session of a new Parliament with the worn-out speeches whic;h had been delivered in the old Parliament, which had been before the country at the time ot the election, and the verdict ot the people ?T;pon which had been one of unqualified condemnation. [Cheers ] FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION. I propose to review very briefly some of the points to which the hon . gentleman has referred in his speech. He commenced by referring to the finances, and he told ua the old story that the Conservative party had increased the expenditure of this country from $13,000,000 in 1868 to |23,000,000 in 1874. Well, we have heard that before, and it has had no efi'ect upon the country. The hon. gentleman decs not believe that there in any force in the statement as a condemna- tion of any party in this country. He knows that in 1868 we were four provinces, and in 1874 there were seven provincea. He knows that in 1868 we were enterintj upon Confed- eration, that we had not yet commenced to expend money upon the development of this country. He knows that in 1873 and 1874 we were in the full career of development ; that we had purchased the Northwest, that we had al- most built the Intercolonial Railway, that we were commencing to enter upon expen- ditures in connection with the Northwest, and he knows that there is no fair compari- son between the periods of 1867 and 1874 fcheers). But, sir, he fell into the further error of misstating the expenditure on con- solidated revenue account, at any rate, in 1873-4. 1 will not here revive the old con- troversies of the last Parliament. I will not discuss beyond the mere statement of the fact which was so ably discussed at that period, that the expenditure of 1873-4, in- stead of being over $23,000,000 was $22,300,- 000, and that hon. gentlemen opposite ac- tually cooked the public accounts — 1 use the word advisedly — in order that they might be able at the end of their period to pre- sent a misleading statement, with a view to making out as good a case as possible for themselves. (Cheers.) By placing sums spent on capital account to the account of consolidated re v- enue, by including Customa' refunds and a number of other items, they add«d nearly a million of dollars that certainlyiJid not be- long to the expenditure of that year ; and they succeeded in raising an actual expenditure of $22,300,000, to an apparent expenditure of $23,316,000. (Hear, hear). But it is when we come to deal with the details of these expendi- tures, that we see the difference between the two parties. It is quite true that hon gentle- men opposite when in power, only increased the general expenditure from $22,300,000, to $24,456,000. But how was it done ? Will any one tell me that a decrease in the ex- penditure on Public Works is a matter of economy ? (Hear, hear). T^e hon. gentle- man who has just sat down, boasted that Public Works were managed for a certain sum of money. I do not know whether he is aware that the expenditure under the head of Public Works has nothing whatever to m do with tLo " luanngoment'' of Public Works. It is expinditure on qaiMtal account for constrU' tion of public works ; and the only dfffrence between the two parties in that respect is this, that at one period, with an overflowing treasury, the Conservative party were enabled to do what, happily, they have been able to do ever since, viz. : expend public money on the public works of the country, whereas, hon. gentlemen opposite, with annual deficits, were obliged to stop such expenditure, and now they claim ore' lit lor so doing, as if it was an evidence of economicaladministration. I^Hear, hear.] So with other eX;)onditures, Buch as those on immigration and quarantine, militia, etc. But hon. gentlemen opposite claim to have succeeded in decreasiug the ordinary expenditure during the five years they were in power. If you examine the cost ot collecting the revenue, wbich must be to a considerable extent included in the con- trollable expenditure, you will find that, in- stead of being decreased during that period, it was very largely increased. (Heart hear!) Between 1879 and 1882, the expenditure was increased considerably, I am not going to trouble the House by reading over the items of that increase, which are connected largely with Publio Works, Dominion Lands, the Census, etc. But when wo come to the col- lection of revenue, in which there is a fair chance for comparison between the adminis- tration of tho two parties, we find the following to be the result : — liEVENUB. 1879. 1882. Public Works $ 1,8(5;i,U9 $ 2,7il,i34 Customs 12,90 ,«59 :Jl,581,570 Excise. 5,-90,783 5,884,859 Post Office l.J72,418 1,587,888 Total $2I,32(),y89 $il,763,45l EXPENDITUKK. 1870 1882 Public Works $ 2,680,979 $ 2,89:5.512 Customs 719,711 72,1,91H ICxcise 211,(i()4 '280,.'J78 Post Office 1,784,423 1,980,5(13 Total $ 5,89(i,177 $ 5,878,565 That is, sir, the income during those years increased no less than $10,438,402, or 49J per cent,, while the cost of collection in- creased only $482,388, or a fraction under 9 per cent. [Hear, hear.] Now, sir, if you compare this with the period when hon. gentlemen opposite wore in office, you will find the following result: — KEVKNCK. 1871. 1879. Public Works $ 1,509,915 $ 1,8(){,149 Customs 14,425,192 12,9(KJ,«.9 Excise 5,59."),9IW 5,390 763 Post Office 1,139,973 1,872,418 Total $22,569,983 $21,326,689 EXPENDITURE.'?. 1-74. 1879. Public Works $2,380,679 $2,680,979 Cu.sloras 658,299 719,721 Excise 206,935 211,074 Post office 1,387,290 1,784.423 Total $1,642,183 $5,398,177 1 That is, while the revenue decreased $1,242,- 994, or 5^ per cent., the cost ot collection increased $753,994, or 16|^ per cent. [Hear, hear. ] That is the answer I give to the hon. gentleman when he undertakes to compare the expenditure from 1874 to 1879 with that from 1879 to 1882. [Cheers.] Tnen, sir, I take some details. I take certain expendi- tures in relation with the management of THE GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS. I have no doubt that when the Hon. Minister of Railways comes to deal with this subject he will do so very fully, but I will be par- doned lor stating one or two facts in connec- tion with it. I find that the mileage of the Intercolonial open in 1879 was 720 miles and in 1882 840 miles, an increase of 120 miles. I find that the train mileage run was 2,1)1,426 in 1879 and 3,195,566 in 1882, or an increase ot 1,084,140. I find that the passengers carried numbered 640,101 in 1879 and 779,994 in 1882, an in- crease of 139,893; that the tons of freight carried in 1879 amounted to 510,861 and in 1882 to 838,950, an increase of 328,095 tons. One would naturally imagine that under these circumstances, with a greater mileage to work, with a greater carriage of passengers and freight, and consequent larger expendi- ture, the increased expense ought to be very great. Yet what are the facts ? The revenue in 1879 was $1,294,099, and in 1882 it was $2,079 262— an increase in 1882 of $785,163 over 1879. [Hear, hear.] Every one who knows anything of railways knows that the increase in expenditure and revenue always boar some relation to each other. Yet, in this case, wo find that although labor was undoubtedly higher in 1882 than in 1879, and the revenue was so much greater, there was substantially no increase in the cost of working the road. In 1879 the cost was $2,010,183, and 1882 $2,069,657, an increase of only $59,474 in expenditure for the production of that enormously in- creased revenue and business. [Cheers.] I find further that the deficit in 1879 in the working of the railroad was $726,084, while in 1882 its working showed a surplus of $9,605. The cost per mile of running a train on the Intercolonial was, in 1879, 95.50 cents, in 1882, 64 74 cents, a decrease of 30.76 cents. I ask whether under these circumstances we may not fairly say that* in relation to this, 6 our greatest enterprise, upon which the largest expenditure may be made without any special overeight or attention of the public or Parliament, that it id an evidence of the careful administration which has charac- terizad the conduct of the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. [Cheers.] OOnT OP COLLKCTINO CUST0.^f8. Take the matter of customs as another il- lustration and what do we find. Tliehon. member for West Middlesex, in the debate on the tarilTin 1879, stated this among other objections : "The Fiuanof! Minister, in bringing down the Budget, Hald it would l»o necessary to em- ploy a numl)er of experts to examine tlie goods import, (I Into lliiHC0untry,80 tliat their value migiit, bo appraised and llie country saved from Ix-lug defrauded. This meant a pc-ltive increase in thecoileetion of Customs hereafter. It iiieant iiis lion, friend would l\ave to <ismissa number of Custom House oflioers and I ppoint otliers who hud had aptcullar training In order todotliis business. It meant more than tiiat— an inerease of tlio number of Custom House ortlcers of the present grade. When a bale of gijods came to the Custom House consisting of cottons, t-ilks, velveltens, etc.. In f)rdor to calculate the Customs' (hies they would be comiielied to measure every article. Then the invoice would have to be looked Into in order to lc\ y iho ad f^alorem. Tlius ihcre would be a large increase in the lai)ors of the Custom House oflioers. A large lncrea.se would be necessitated in the Cu.stom House stair, nnd for thwt reason lie objected to the tarilfas being expensive." What has been the result ? The cost of col- lection in 1874, when hon. gentlemen op- positito tooli office, was 4 55 per cent. ; in 1878 it hud increased to 5.5G, an increase of l.Ol per cent. In 1882 the cost ot collect- ing the revenue was 3.32 per cent., or a de- crease from that of 1878 of 2 24 per cent. (Hear, hear). But per-contages, of course, are some- times misleading. They may mean a good deal, or nothing. I will, therefore, take the actual figures. In 1874 the receipts were $14,325,192, and the cost of collecting those receipts $658,299. In 1879 the receipts were $12,900,659, and the cost of collecting $719,- 711, or a decrease in the revenue of $1,424,- 533, and an increase in the cost of collect, ing that decreased revenue of $61,412— that Is, 10 per cent, of a decrease in the receipts, and 10^ per cent, of an increase in the cost of collection. (Hear, hear). In 1882 the re- ceipts wore $21,581,570, and the cost of coU lectiug $723 913, showing an increased re- venue ovur 1879 of $8,680,911, and an increased cost of collecting of $4,202 — or 67 per cent, increased re- venue at an increased cost of collecting of under J ot 1 per cent, [hear, hear]. I think wo may fairly ofl-set taat agaiaat the statement made by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the difference between the two parties in the management of our public affairs. THE POST OFFICE E.XPENDITDRE. I will take another department in relation to which hon. gentlemen opposite are dis- posed to charge inconsistency against the Conservative party. When hon. gentlemen were in office they were charged with having unnecessarily increased the post office expenditure. They have since charged us with inconsistency because it has also been increased by this government. But what are the facts? During Mr. Mackenzie's term ot office, the revenue from post offices in 1874 was §1, 476,207, and in 1879 $1,534,363, an increase in the latter year of $58,156, a fraction under 4 per cent. On the other hand, the expen- diture increased from $1,605,480, in 1874, to $2,167,266 in 1879, an increase of $471,786, or about 28 per cent, [hear, hear]. That is to say, \^»iile the revenue increase was under 4 per cent, the cost of collectings it had increased 28 per cent. What has been the fact since? In 1882 the revenue was $2,022,996, or an increased revenue over 1879 of $488,633, 31 J per cent. In 1882 the ex- penditure $2,458,35(5, or an increase of $292,- 090 over the expenditure of 1879, giving a percentage of increase of 13 J per cent. ; thus while the revenue increased 31^, the cost of collecting it only increased 13 J per cent. [Hear hoar ] When we look at this matter in another light, we find this to be the re- sult : The average cost oer post office in 1874 was $326, in 1879 $386,59, and in 1882 $398, That is to say an in- crease ol $60 per post office between 1874 and 1879, and of only $12 between 1879 and 1882 . Then, if you take the mileage travel- led you will find that the increase is more than accounted for. The mileage of travel in 1874— and that is a very good indication of the expenditure of the post office, because it is one of the methods by which you can show how postal facilities have been in- creased to the people ot this country — you will find that the mileage travelled in that year was 13,929,180, and the cost 11 centi per mil"^. In 1879 it was 16,156,034, or 13jr cents per mile, being an increase of 2J cents per mile. In 1882 the mileage had increased to 18,091,996, or 13J cents per mile, so that there was no perceptible inciease in the mileage cost of working the Post Office betwaen 1879 and 1882. But if you looked at what has been done, the kind of mileage that has been covered, yuu will i I eee that tL re might reasonably have been a considerable increase. In Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, in 1874, the Post Of- flce mileage cover&d was only 79,567 ; in 1879 it was 149 843, while in 1882 it had increas- ed to 738,206, Bo that with all that enormous development of the postal facilities in the Northwest, the cost per mile of working the Post Office has not increased during the time the hon. gentlemen on this side have had charge of the Department, while during the time the hon. gentleman opposite had charge ot it the mileage cost increased 2J cents per mile. [Cheers.] Then another way of deal- ing witu the matter is to look at the cost per letter. I And that in 1874 the cost per letter was four cents ; in 1879 the hon. gentlemen opposite managed etill to increase it to a fraction over 4 cents ; while in 1882 the cost per letter had been decreased to a fraction under 3 4-10 cents per letter ; so that in every way in which we look at the administration of Uie Post Office Department we find that we were right in charging extravagance against the hon, gentlemen for the increase between 1874 aud 1879, and that this Government is not fairly open to the same charge for the increases since they came into cfllce [cheers]. Now, sir, in relation to our financial condi- tion, I may further refer to TEE STATE OP OCR PUBLIC DEI5T, and I think it 1*^ worth while looking at it in order that people may see what is the posi- tion which this country is occupying at the present moment. This is of great import- ance, because it will be remembered that in the debrites in this House in 1880, when the Government proposed to assume the task of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, the hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. member for West Durham, pointed out the serious evil that must result to tliid country, if there was a great increase in the public debt, tie pointed to the fact that emigrants from the other side, choosing a country to come to, finding in the United States a country where there was an annually decreasing debt, and finding in Canada, a country where tiaere was an annually increasing debt, would naturally seek the United States rather than Canada. Well, sir, under these circumstances, I think it must bo a matter of sincere congratulation to us all, tlifit we appear reasonably at any rate, to have reached a period when there would bo no further material increase to our public debt in connection with the enter- prises upon which we have now entered in 1867, the net debt was |75,728,841 ; in 1874, it was $108,341,964, or an apparent in- crease during that period of $32,616,323. But of this increase to which we are often referred as an evidence bf Conservative extravagance, there were no less than $20,- 432,340 for debts allowed to the provinces, that is to say, for the entry of Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Is'.and into Confederation, and for the assumption of thedeb'^ ot Ontario and Quebec, amount- ing, with the equivalents to the other pro- vinces, to $13,859,079. Deducting these sums, we have an actual increase to the obligations of the cotmtry, as measured by itb debt, of $12,163,983, or an annual average increase for seven years of $1,751,998. In 1879, $34,645,223 had been added to the debt, being an average annual in- crease of $6 929,045, making the net debt at that time, when hon. gentlemen opposite left office, $142,000,187. In 1882, $10,671,465 had been added, making an average increase during the time that the present Government has been in office of $3,555,055 ; as there will be no increase during the next year — that fact has been announced by the Finance Minister— but, on the contrary, as there is a fair prospect of a small decrease, we may take $2,6ii7 866 as theaverage annual increase under Conservative rule. Now, if we leave out this $20,452,340 of debts allowed to the provinces, the net increase since Confed- eration has been $57,680,667. We have to show tor that, in four items alone, these Kumn : On canals wohaveBpent$l2,67l,125 ; Canadian Pauifi j R lilwav, $26,046,339 ; In- tercolonial Uiilwav, $26,464,017; North- west, $2,920,000, making altogether, $68,101,- 481 ; or we have in these four items alone an f'xcess of $10,420,812 over the entire addi- tion t ) the debt during the period since con- federation. (Cheers.) I think that is a fact which we may fairly present to the pub- lic, and especially to the emigrating public, in whose interest the warning was given by the hon. membar for West Durham. Now, wa have this other fact by way of contrast be- tween the hon, gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen on this side. During the time th^it the Conservative party were in office down to 1874, considerably over $10,000,000 were expended on capital account in excess of the additions to the public debt. From 1874 to 1879 $6,723,083 were added to the debt more than were expended on capital account. So that while the hon. gentlemen opposite were in office they were expending money every year obtained from loans, and therefore from additions to the public debt, for the ordinary administration of the affairs of the country. Wo may well say to them 8 if. that they could hardly have gone on increas- ing the expenditure upon public works at a time when they were only able to cirry on Ihe affairs of thp country, in spite of two increases in the tariff, from one of which they estimated an increasn of $3,000,000, and from another of which they estimated an increase of $1,600,000 — by in- creasing the debt $6,723,083 more than they expended on capital account. [Cheers] What has been the result since ? I tind Irom 1880 to 1882 there has been expended on capital account $15,535,034 more than has been added to the public debt. I think we may fairly congratulate ourselves upon this fact as a reassuring one to the immigrant who is comparing the condition of this country with that of the United States before selecting his residence. [Cheers] Looking at the future I think we may fairly say, in spite of the warnicg of the hon. mem- ber lor Brant, that we will have an am ual surplus during the next five years of about $3,000,000. I do not believe we can have very much less than that, even assuming what the Montreal Gazette says is correct, that we are on the eve of some depression as compared with the inflation of the last year, in view of the development of tl e Northwest. That will give us $15,000,000 in money during the next five years to expend on cap- ital account. In 1 85 we will have $32,- 467,169 of 5 per cents, maturing, and to redeem. Redeeming them at 4 per cent., even at par, and we may be able to do a little better than that, it will be equal to a new loan of $8,000,000, without adding a single dollar to the interest-charge on the public debt of this country, and after all the interest-charge is the measure of the burden on •'he people. Those two items, amounting to $23,000,000, will be applicable to capital account, without adding to the interest- charge, which, as I have said, is the measure of the burden of the debt. Then we shall have the receipts from public lands. The hon. First Minister declared in 1880 that we would receive by 1890 $38,593,000, that being on the basis ef an annual increase of immi- gration into the country of 5,000 souls, and that he would have securities, being money secured by land, to the value of $32,712,000. I am aware that that statement was challeng- ed. The hon. member tor West Durham, in referring to it, said : "The hon. gentleman expects to receive in the lourth year $1,870,0 0; in the followinK year, $2,622,0(10; in the next year, $V'2;*>,0J0; in the next year. $4,112,190 ; in the next year, $,i - 068,000; in »he next your, $5,88 1.OOJ; iulheuext year, ${),877,u00; while the last year of this aeries of rapid progression is to yield $7,582,00 j, to be received in cash from sales of the North- west ianci.«— an aggregate of $'« 59<,u03 apart I from the suras not yet due of .$32.7 i 2,0 JO. Now, I I venture to say, if every cne cf (.he « ther j calculations bo rdallzea, If the hon. geatleman j gets into that country tiie amount of emigra- tion bo expects and at the .Ima he expects, if lie makes sales to the numbers and at the prices he expsets, these C!?ifuiatlons as to the dates and the amcunts of his r»^ceipts will under n'» clrcum-itances be rcaliz d. Under no circumstances will ho receive these sunas or anytliiug like them, at theae times or any- thing near them." Now, in this, as in almost everything else, time appears to be the great enemy of hon. gentlemen opposite and the great friend to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. What do we find ? We are only ia the second year, not the fourth. That speech was made by the hon. member iu 1880, and at the end oi 1882 we had, by the public ac- counts, acknowledged receipts from public lands of $1,744,456; that is to say, we have received in the second year within $r25;541- of the sum estimated by th) right hon. gen- tlemen lor the fourth year. rCheers.] I think we may fairly say, und'^r those ci. oumstanoes, we have reason to believe now, in view of what has actually taken place, that the estimate given us by the right hon. the Minister of the Interior in 1880, will be fully realized as time goes on, and gives the opportunity for its realiza- tion. Under those cirumstances wo will be in this position by 1890, or perhaps before that, in five years from to-day in all likeli- hood: tho Pacific Railway will be completed from ocean to ocean ; immigrants will be 'iblo to take the cars at Halifax and go to Vancouver Island, or rather to Fort Moody without changing cars or leaving British territory. [Cheers.] We will not only ha\e the railway built, but we will have tho work accomplished without any increase beisg made to our public debt. [Hear, hear ] We will have completed the improvements now contemplated on our canals, and I hope we will be able to dredge and improve the channels of our rivers. We will be able to light and to greatly improve the great waterways of the Northwest, and I sincerely trust that this is a work which will be undertaken by the present Administration. We will be able, 1 hope, and I trust the policy of the Govern. mt!nt will yet be to do so, to remove the ton- nage dues from all vessels from the time tbey enter the Gulf till they reach Lake Superior, it they can go as far, so as to have free navigation over our magnificent water system from one end to tho other ; and we will be able to accomplish all that without adding a single dollar to the public debt, but, on the contrary, I believe, while mak- !ng annnal payments ia reduction of thai debt, as they are doing to-day in the United B'.ates. [Loud cheers]. I think, uader these circumstances, we may tairiy claim that the policy of thisGoremment, not only in regard to what is called the National Policy, but their policy in regard to the material development of the country, is in every respect one which merits the approbation of the people and justifies the verdict which was given in June last. [Cheers] THE NATIONAL POLICY. 80 much for the question of expenditure, and I come now for a moment or two to touch on the question oi the National Policy, about which so much has been s.",!d. I find that the hon. member who preceded me is not very strong in his position on this ques- tion. I can rememboi very well that figura- tive speech of his in which he pointed out the great advantages which would result to the people from an in- crease in the duties on tobaccos and cigars. And one can readily understand a gentleman whose opinions as expressed originally in this House, and as we all hope he still entertains them, whose honest opin- ions are to the effect that the true policy for this country is a policy of protection to na- tive ind 3 'try, how difficult ic must be for him to take ^10 position and to play the r 'lu which was imposed on him to-night, in the absence of another hon. geiitleman who cer- tainly had no difficulty arising out of cir- •pumstaaces of that kiud to embarrass him. What has bran the position of this country with respect to general trade? There has been an extraordinary revival of trade. No one doubts that. The hon. member for Brant admits that the country has been very prosperous. It is true that he could not for- bear saying that things were chungiug ; thai we were going to everlasting smatUi ; ho remembered some fiilures, and rubbing his hands, as hon. gentlemen opposite are in the habit of doing, he declared with delight, " this is sweetness, indeed, another failure." Tii-.- hon. gentleman declared we were on the eve of another period of depressiou ; that tl)ero was a crisis coming at last, and ho soumed most cheerful when ho came to th?it part oi his speech. [Hear, heai]. There is no chance for them so long as the country is prosperous ; the people will never trurit them BO long as the c.'Uutry is proppeiou.-i ; but if times become doptcSied, and the [n'O- pie do not care much who governs the cu u- try, possibly they m:\yhavo a chaaco ; but so long as the pr.oplo feel an iutorost in, a bo[)e for the country's euccess aud pro.sperit ■, hon gentlemen opposite feel they have no chance to take seats on this side of the House. What has be**n our position with respect to general trade ? That there is an extraordinary de- velopment everyone will admit. I have a statement here, but I will not detain the House with details of exports and imports. I find bv it that our imports have increased from 181,964,427 to $119,419,500. INCBEASED IMPORTS AND THEilR EFFECT. But, sir, the argument U used by the hon. gentleman that the fact of our increased im- ports into this country is proof that the policy of protection has not succeeded. He tells us that if protection had suc- ceeded, and if wo were manufac- turing more in this country, we ought, in the nature of things, to have imported less goods ; and I am bound to say that, as a general proposition, made without enquiry, and without 1 erious thought, it seems to be a reasonable statement, and it is a statement which was made a good deal of, I know, on the public platform. Now, sir, what is the fact? We can take in this matter the position of the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when we used to discuss the question of a National Policy, or protection, on the floor of Parlia- ment, referred us to the United States. TLsy told us that the depression, whic'i was pointed out here, was due to the depression on the other side; and when prosperity was pointed to here, ''at it was due to revived prosperity on the other side. Wo are now told that detrepsion is threatened in the United Stat s, and thnt we are certain to have the same condition of things her*?. They all said during the discussions of 1878, that during 1877, there was great depression in the United States ; we were pointed to their industries standing idle, to the people who were idle, to the tramps who were going about that country uuablo to find emitloyment, and to the fact that so large a number of di Iterant kinds of industries had absolutely failed and closed their doors. Well, sir, in 1877 the imports into the United States, leas coin and bullion, amnuutod to $451,315,992. Now, sir, in 188.3, the hon. guutlemau will tell un that the United States were prosperou.s, that wo had our prosperity because of their prosper- ity, that tlieir iodusrrieH w>;re all re-ou'Tiod — an was, indeed, the ca3e — th.it tlioro was abuiidiint omployineut given, that ev».'!;r de- partment of the mauutacture.s ot tbo Uaited Stiitss had asBumod a vry mu' h belter po.-'i- tiou, and yet in si)ito of tfi.a iho iiUj)ort^ irito that couutry in 1882 had iucrcaded to $" !4, 10 ;i ■ il f 739,574, or an increase of $273,323,582, be- tween the time when many of their manufac- torien were closed and the period when ail these manufactories were openecl and worlsing. [near.hear] Let me give you some detail s with reiaaon to that increase. I will take cotton for instance. In 1877 cotton goods were im- ported into the United States to the value of |l8,923,614, and in 1882 those imports had increased to ^31,285,306. Woollen goods— a large article of American manufacture — were imported in 1877 to the value of |31,- 955,241 — in round figures, thirty-two mil- lions — and in 1882, this .had increased to $47,618,182. Silks, in 1877, were imported to the value of $21 830,159, and in 1882, this had increased to $38,328,251,80 that in these industries, which had been safferina:, and weie sutfering very seriouely in 1877, and which were prosperous in 1882, the imports from foreign countries of articles similar to those manufactured in these factories, had very largely iocreased. [Hear hear.] Now, sir an analysis of the imports into Canada — I ad- mit that they have largely increased— shows as strongly as anything can show, how great has been the development of the manufac- tuiiagindustriosof this country. Let mo point out some facts in regard to it. The total in- cr'iase in the imports in 1882 over those r ' S78 was $26,337,713. Now,theincroa8 4ni ua- teriai which goes into the maiiufacturesof the country, and the increase oi which ia in fact a pretty certain test by which wo may judge of the increased prosperity of the mauuf»'.c- tureb of Canada, was as f jUows : — Steel rails, which are raw material in the sense of going iato our railways, increased fiom $1,049,107 to $3,531,330 ; coal, which is perhaps more applicable, because it is used in driving machinery in our mills, increase^ from $3,- 054,846 to $5,118,616 ; hides and pelts, from $1,207,304 to $2,216,119 ; wool, from $1,100,210 to $1,843,857 ; raw cotton from $774,703 to $2,286,534; leaf tobacco, from $703,581, to $1,334,11 ; there area number of others, which I wi 1 give in bulk: raw furs, hemp undressed, raw silk, India rubber raw, rosewood, mahogany, ate, rags, machin- ery .used iu out mills and factories, an article which increased from $516,035 to $2,284,- 723, ana thct in spito of the fact that the manufacturers of Canada, who manufacture machinery for mirs are^ more than employed, and are Unable to fill the orders which are pressing upon them ; broom corn and pig iron, miikiug the total imports of these raw mat^ rialH for 1878, $9,929,163, against $22,091,211 i?.i 1882 or an increase in imports of raw m.-tteriul, of $12,462,')18. Then I tuko luxuries uud goods which are not made in Canada, and the increiised importation of which may be said to be simply evidence of the increased power of consumption of our people and of their increased prosperity ; and I find this — I will give simply the articles and the gen- eral result :— flowers and feathers, laces, braids, etc., cassimeres, coatings, doeskins and meltons, carpets, tea, cottons unenumer- ated, dried fruits, linens, silks, satins and velvets — we manufacture some silks but it is not yet a large industry in this country — and we find that these imports increased from $10,886,266 in 1878 to $20,- 284,686 in 1882, or an increase in these articles of luxury, or articles not made in this country, of $9,398,420. Then, sir, in other increases, I find that settlers' effects' increased from $803,506 to $1,557,246, coin and bullion, which go into the trade returns, from $803,726 to $1,503,743; and articles of public use, such as are used by ihe Government and the Governor-General, from «239,744 to $597,669, making a total of from $1,846,976 to $3,658,658, or an increase altogether, on these items, of $1,811,688. Now, sir, let me recapitulate : — The increase in raw material was $12,162,048 ; luxuries and articles not produced in this coun- try, $9,398,420 and in special classes, $1,8 11,- 682, or altogether in these three articles of goeds an increase in the imports of 1882 over 1878 of $23,372,150, within $3,000,- 000 of the entire increase in our imports of 1882 over tho.-ie of 1878. I think I may fairly say, therefore, that as to raw material the increase is an evidence of the increased indus*^rial prosperity of the country, as to luxuries and articles not manufactured in the country, evidence of increased prosperity and of the increased power of purchasing by the people of this country, and as to these other articles, especially such articles as settlers' ettects, evidence of the increased number of people coming into Canada and the increased wealth of those peftple -when we come to analyze thid increase there is nothing in it which justifies the statement of the hon. gentleman opposite that the increased importation indicates a decrease in the manufacturing power of the country. THE SUOAR DUTIKS. Now, sir, coming to some details with regard to our trade, and to the direct eflect of the N,*tioiial Policy upon it, 1 shall refer to a f.jw articles. Take first my favorite subject of Kugar — ix sweot subject, and ^ le which I like to dwell upon. I notice that the hon. member for Brant, although the hon. the Finance Minister gave hiui the figures, mado 11 I no reference to this subject in his reply, but it is worth while giving the figures iu rela- tion to that article. The imports from the British ^nd Spanish West Indies iu 1874 when we hi»1 refineries in Canada — before the unfortunate policy of hon. gentlemen opposite in not meeting the concealed bounty given by the Americana to their sugar refineries, had destroyed the refineriet' in Canada, the imports from these islands to Canada were 40,000 000 pounds, while in 1878 our imports had decreased to 7,000,000 pounds. In 1878 our imports from Great Britain were 53,238,162 pounds, or 49 per cent, of our entire imports of sugar. In 1882 our imports had decreased to 3,239,080 pounds, or 3 per cent, of our entire imports. From the United States we imported in 1878 45,195,334 pounds, or 41 percent, of our en- tire imports. I i 1832 we imported from the United States 7,695,441 pounds, or 6 per cent, (•four imports. From the liritidh West India Lilands, in 1878, we imported 4 per cent, of our entire import itions, and in 1882 26 per cent From the Spanish WcSt India Islands, in 1878, we impurttd 6 per cent., and in 1882, 36 From Brazil wo imported nothing in 1878, the import trade from South America having entirely disappeared, while last year 29 per cent, of our entire imports came from Cra- bU. Under theso circumstances, I think we may fairly say that, so far as the effect ot thib policy on the West India aod the South American trade is concerned, it has been eminently successful, and that is one way, at any rate, iu which it has hud auefl'ect on the prosperity and development of the trade in Canada Then, sir, let us take the change in the character of the imports of our sugar. In 1878 we imported over 95,000,000 pounds of reflue<l sugar ; last year wo imported only about 6,000,000 pounds. Of partly refined we im. ported in 1878, 14,801,108 pounds ; last year we imported 65,393,936 pounds. Oi raw sugar we imported ia 1878 a little over 1,000,000 pounds ; last year we imported 73,- 635,927 pounds. Then, sir, as to the num- ber of sea-going vessels employed in this trade, for that is another way in which the influence of this policy upon the trade of the country is shown, iu 1878 the number of vessels engaged trom the British West Indies was 238, with a tonnage of 22,137. In 1882 the number had increased to 273 vessels with a tonnage of 37,697. Fiom the S^janihih West Indies in 1878, 57 vessels were engaged with a tonnage of 6,571. In 1882 the num- ber had increased to 137 vessels with a ton- nage of 23,470. From Brazil we had three ships in 1878, with a tonnage of 1,518, while last year we had thirty-seven vessels with a tonnage of 17,696. So it will be seen that iu these respects there has been a very important development of our shipping in- terest as a direct result of the National Policy. I am aware that it is said that we have lost very seriously in revenue by the adoption of this policy, and that result used to be predicted by the late hon. Finance Ministtr, Sir Richard Cart- wright, when he was a member of the House. Now, we will take the year 1878 as a basis, because the year 1879 was not a fair year. Every one knew that the policy was going to be changed ; it had been announced as part of the policy of the Conservative party that they would encourage sugar re- fining in Canada, and therefore there was a large importation of refined sugar just before the adoption of the tariff. Taking the year 1878 we find that the duties on sugar amounted to $2,595,074. In 1882 they were $2,528,384, or a loss to the revenue in con- sequence of this policy, between the years 1878 and 1882, of $66,690. How have we been compensated for that loss ? We have it in the price of the sugar to the consumer. We used to be told that the effect of the policy would be to increase the price, but we have not heard much of that lately. The figures given by the hon. the Finance Minister to-night show that we have actually saved 67 cents per hundred pounds, and I will give the figures to show how that is made up. The average price in New Yotk last year, taking certain periods of every month was $9.35 per hundred pounds, less the drawback $3 15, making tlie net cost for export $6 20. The railway charges and freight to Canada have generally been assumed at 30 cents; the old tariff gave 25 per cent, and one cent per pound, miking $2 55. To this we add fifty cents as chargt; s and commissions. And that has been arrived at by taking the price iu Now York during the time we had no re- fineries, and taking the price in Canada for the same year, and the same periods in each month, and we find that the difference be- tween the price which we should hpparently pay, ad ng the duty and these other charges, and the price we actually paid, amountud to 50 cents per one hundred pounds. Adding that, and wo find that the average under the old tariff would have been $d . 55 per hun- dred pounds, while the actual price during that period was $8 88, or a saving to the people of this country in this item of 67 cents per hundred pounds. In 1878 the imports above 13 Dutch standard, amounted to 95,154,570 lbs., so that the sav- 12 Ing of 67c per 100 lbs. was au actual saving to the people of this country of $637,535, while the acfual loss to the revenue was only f 66,690. [Cheerf'] In addition to that, wo had the advantage of the employment of labor in tl e rt fineries, of a market for coal, of the employment for our shipping, of the employment of coopers, of the consumption of raw material in connection with cooper- age, and of the other incidents in connection with that industry. At the present time wf have five sugar refineries operating in Canada, and 1 am very glad to know that the refineries of Halifax are competing with those of Montreal for the trade of 1'^^ Far West. That is a fact which every one should be pleased to hear, because it proves that Halifax is peculiarly well situated by its nearness to the coal supply and to the countries which produce the raw eugar for the proaecation of an industry of this kind. [Cheerp], TUE EFFECT ON THE TEA TRADE. Take next the item of tea. 1 find that with regard to it the same prosperity and progress is going on. Under the discrimi- nating duty in 18734, before the Six Francis Hincks Act was repealed by the Tarift" Act of 1874, we imported 15 85 per cent of our teas from the United States. The direct im- ports from China and Japan were 50.8 per cent., an increase in the two years under the duty of 20 per cent., that is, from 30 . 3 per cent. In 1878 the imports from the Uaited States had increased to 55 per cent., and those from China and Japan had decreased to 18 per cent, under the influence of the tariff of hon. gentlemen opposite. [Hear, hear]. Then, sir, we have these other results of the discriminating duties imposed in 1879. The imports of green and Japan tea wore as fol- lows : — 1878. 188.'. per per lbs. cent. lbs. cent. Great B.italn..... 1,254,151 19 l,7;^',flTO 17 UnltedWtates i,Ul,b1i 02 8,46s2 9 32 Cblnii i:o,4S0 3 801, .\S7 8 Japan l,10l.!).'3 10 4,W3.;8« 43 The imports of black tea wore as follows : 1878. 1882. per per lbs. cent. lbs. cent Oroatr f'\ln...,A4:fi,').?8 G2 4,1-97,005 7S Uulteii ales l.OlitS.oDJ 80 4it,2U 7 China 356,1)62 8 840,HS4 14 Japan 4i) . . 71,588 1 I think, sir, that these statements are ^■ufti- cient to show that the ]>oliey adopted by this Governmeat gave the tea trade, that is the distrihutlLig trade in tt-a, to the mer- cb»Qt8 of Canada instead c-f to those of the United States, and encouraged a direct trad* with the countries of production. [Hoai hear.] COTTON MASUFACTDBES. Then, I take another article, upon which 1 think wo may fairly say the Naiioral Policy has had a direct influence, that is the article of cotton. The following statement of the different classes ot cotton imports frora Great Britain will hhow the chaogo which has taken place : — 1878. 1882. Bleached and un- bleacheil . . $ 431,807 $ 483,738 Printed,p!iinted, ro'ored, JeaijS, Uemlu»iand d: 11- lluga 2,009,373 59?,823 Clothing and wearing apparel 174,288 45%420 Another 1,752,805 0,1191.7 Total $1568,273 $7,650,119 In spite of augmented consumption of all classes of goods, and the fact that the gross importation of cottons from Great Britain in 1882 exceedfd in value that of 1878 by $3,281,146 or 77 per cent., the importation of ordinary grey and white cottons actually de- creased in 1880 and 1881, and last year was only 12 per coot, greater than in 1878. That is, while ihe whole importation from Great Britain increased 77 per cent, the particular class of goods that we manufacture in Canada increased only 12 per cent. [Hear, hear.] Nuw, our imports from the United States in the same years were as follows ; 18^8 1882 Blenched or unbleached.. $ 539,773 $ 534,810 PriiJieil, painudor coior- fd, jeans, donims or drillings 1,031,173 495,484 Clothing or wearing ap- parel 191,411 182,324 All other 72V71 774.837 Total $2,491,458 $1,987,455 The import of cottons from the United States in 1878 was 36 per cent of the whole import. In 1882 the import from the United States was only 20 per cent, of the whole. [Hear, hear]. The increase in homo manufactured goods may be inferred from the fact that tho importation of raw cotton increased from 7,243,413 lbs. in 1878 to 18,127,322 lbs. in 1882. If anything more can be offered to show how important has been the duvt lop- mcnt (/f these great enterprises in Canada, I think it will be found in the evidences, which any one can find for himself at any one of tho places where cotton industries have been established, by contrasting their condition to-day with what it was in 1878. [Cheers]. If you go to tho Hudou cotton iHCtory or the Merchants at Montreal, or to the cotton factories iu Cornwall, in UamiltOD, 13 ect trad# [Heai 59!,823 495,484 I or in the Maritime Provinces, yon wir. iad everywhere the eame evidences of thri.'; sad prospority, the direct result of the National Policy, and indicating how successful that policy has been in building up this import- ant industry in Canada. [Cheers.] THE TRADE IN WOOLLEN Q00D8. In the woollen trade the same happy con- dition of things exists. The following state- ments will show the imports in 1878, 1881 and 1882 from the United States and Great Britain respectively ; — FROM THE UNITED STATES. 1878. 1881. 1882. Blankets $28,998 $4,174 $7,401 Cloths and tweeds.... 10,028 15,6S2 i!l,917 Flannels 68,695 12,36i) 10,027 Hosiery 12,6H0 19,170 Dressgoods 79.083 3,317 Keady-made clothing. 128,446 27,651 25,4'20 All other 147 614 54.390 7t5,562 Total $381,779 $'205,990 $161,141 FROM GHKAT BRITAIN. 1878. 1881. 1882. Blankets $172,274 $178,<i27 $238,7'19 Cloths and Tweeds.... &;il*367 3,358,616 8,828,238 Flannels ;?61,646 256.54S 452,117 Hosiery 290,662 46K,012 Dress aoods 1,481,221 265,662 Ready-made clothing 759.439 829,629 4M,:W2 Another 5,140,623 1,064,548 2,595,201 Total $7,257,623 $6,958,251 $8,262,911 That is to say, comparing 1882 with 1878, the value ot the import of woollen goods from the United States has decroasod 57 per cent., whilo the value of the imports from Great Britain has increased 14 per cent. [Hear, hear.] Yet this is the policy which we are told has had the effect of injuring our trade with Great Britain and of bentfitiug our friends on the other side of tho line. But, sir, in spite of greatly improved trade, tho imports of woollen goods all over have increased only $784,909. or about 9 percent., while the imports of raw wool have gone on steadily increasing. In 1878 we im- ported 0,2.30,084 lbs.; in 1880, 7,870,118 lbs.; in 1881, 8,040,287 lbs. ; and in 1882, 9,682,757 lbs. And this increase has been entirely in the finer grades, because we imported from Africa in 1878, 30(3,450 lbs., and in 1882, 1,361,246 lbs. ; and from Great Britain, in 1878, 265,212 lbs,, and in 1882, 2,160,630 lbs. ; while the Import of Leicester, Cots- wold, Lincolnshiri^, Southdown cuimbing wools, and other iiko corabit g wools, Kuch as are grown in Canada, was last year only 36,073 lbs. altogether. So that we ha .'o had a largely increased importation of tboae wools which we do not grow in Canada, while tho entire importation of wools that ooine Into competition with Canadian wools miB only 36,000 lbs. altogether. (Cheers.) TUB DEVELOPMENT OF THE COAL TBADK. .Now I come to another question of im- • portanee, which relates to tho development of one of the great natural resources of this country ; I refer to tho coal trade. The hon. Finance Minister, when he introduced his tariff in 1879, referring to the coal trade, made this estimate, whish ac the time was considered extravagant, but which, in tho light of what has since occurred, was an ex- ceedingly modest estimate : — " In the estimate of the Government out of 800,000 or 900,000 tons now Imported, probably there will still be 850,003 tons of anlhraclte, aud probably 15" ,000 tons of bitarainous still imported, giving to the Nova .Scotia coal the ba'auce of 400,';0i.i tons, with, of course, an ad- ditional HU Dpi y, if, as we expect, our policy is successful, in consequence of an increased de- mand tor coal to supply the growing manufao* tures of the coantrv." Now, what are the facts? The hon. Finance Minister was speaking of the imports ot 1878. In that year the quantity of anthracite coal imported was 406,971 tons and of bitumin- ous 456,090 tons, a total of 863,061 tons. Taking, however, 1878-79, tnere was in that year a still smaller quantity imported, in- dicating that our industries were gradually falling away. In 1878 79 the importation of anthracite coal was only 322,528 tons ; of bituminous, 355,34T tons, a total of 677,875 tons. In Nova Scotia the total output in 1879, according to the report of the Inspector of Mines, was 788,271 tons, so that the uativo production and the imports in that year amounted together to 1,466,146 tons ; that is to say, that the whole consumption of coal in Canada for that year amounted to that quantity. Now, what do we find ? We find that the total output ot our Nova Scotia coal mines alone in 1882 amounted to 1,366,511 tons, or to within 100,000 tons of the combined output and im- portion for 1879. [Cheers] We have there- fore an increase in tho output from Nova Scotia alone of 576 540 tons. But not only is there that large increase in the output in Nova Scotia, but we find tho importation has larj^ely increased. Wo find that the Nova Scotia miners, with all the duvilopmeut given to their industry, are unable to meet tho wants of Canada in connoqueace of our jncroased manufacturing industries and our increased prosperity. Last year wo imported from the Uuited States ; anthracite, 082,933 tons and bituminotis coal, 708,446 tonB,makinK a total of 1,391,373 tons. [Hear, hear.] Now, tho effect of the competition of our Nova Scotia 14 ■ !• > i coal upon the price of bituminous coal is Bomewhat remarkable. The aver- age price iu 1878, according to the entries in the CuBtoms was $3 88^ and the average price of bituminous coal was $3.45^ In 1882 the average price of anthracite coal was $4.24, entered at the Custom House — not the cost to the people of this country in consequence of any duty or any- thing of that kind— and of bitumin- OU8 coal $3.45J. The difference was this, that the price of anthracite coal in 1882 over that in 1879 was 35J cents and the price of bituminous in 1882, as compared with 1879, showed a decrease of 37J cents, and that in spite of the fact which I obtained from the editor of a mining j rmrnal in New York, one of the best authorities going, that last year the price of bituminous coal, free on board, was actually higher at New York than the price of anthracite coal. 1 quote this fact given by the editor of this mining j>.urnal in answer to a letter addressed to him asking for the average cost of bituminous coal at this time^ well as in 1879. Ho was not able ti) give the par- ticular figures, but stated the fact I have just mentioned. Hj says : — " The reports of the coal companies for the year iSS^ure not yet at band to give you cost at mines for au uiiihoriiy. The average price obiained f.'>.b. at New Yoilc for anthracite has boeu,$l, wlJicli Is considered a very satisfactory result Tlie coal companies aim to make the principal protit on the carriage not ou the sale of the coal. From wha' we learu during tha yai- in the bituminous raarltet the average tielliug piic.3 f.o.b., New Yorii, tias been about $1.1 J toai4 2j." is ) that while bituminous coal in the United States, free on board, has boon higher this last year then anthracite coal, the cost of the same coal in Canada, in consequence <it itij coming within the area of competition with Nova Scotia coal, hasboen 37|Jc. per ton less than that of anthracite. [Cheers.] There is another fatst in regard to this «oal trade which is worth looking at as showing the consequence of the development of that in- dustry. The average sales of the Nova Scotia coal for the ten years up to 187'J in- clusive wore 699,104 tons, while the average sales in the three years 1880, 1881, 1882 wore 1,079,951 tons, showing au increased average sale of 340,847 tons. Wo often hear refer- ence made to the subj ict of reciprocity and the loss to this country by the abrogation of thut treity. The American mirket w^s open to the coal of Nova Scotia during the period of reciprocity, at^ it is worth while to look at what the eifect of that was upon the production in that Province. Tao sales Iduriug the eleven years of reciprocity aver- aged 389,796, of which average sales the United States took 236,829 tons, leaving for the Dominion 152,967 tons. It is true that the reports of sales to the United States are stated by the Inspector of Mines to be un- reliable. They are taken from the report of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, and are said to be understated, but that does not affect the general output from Nova Scotia . In 1881 the sales were 1,035,014 tons; in 1882, 1,250,179 tons, an increase of 215,165 tons. The home sales in 1&81 were 268,628 tons; in 1882, 458,952 tons, an increase of 190,324 tons. In 1881 the coal sent to the upper provinces amounted to 268,628 tons ; in 1882 it increased to 393,031 tons, or an increased sale to the upper provinces of 114,- 403 tons. So that Quebec and Ontario furnished last year as large a market for the coal of Nova Scotia as the entire output dur- ing the years we had reciprocity, with the enormous American market open for the en- couragement of that enterprise. (Cheers.) I think that under those circumstances we may fairly say that the National Policy has had a most important influence in develop- ing this particular branch of Canadian trade. AQRieOLTURAL PHOTKCTION. Then I come to the question of agricultural protection about which we hear so much. The hon. member for Brant took a good deal ofamuriement from this subject, and I am bound to say the amusement was mutual — we enjoyed it on this side quite as much as he did. (Hear! hearl) It was the old story we have heard before on the platforms all through Ontario during the last election, and, I presume, the hon. gen- tlemen in the other provinces have heard it there as well. We know it is not a danger- ous kind of talk, that it does not hurt us very much. But what do we find with regard to the eft'jct of agricultural protection ? First, as to the question of price. I think hon. gentlemen will admit that the nearer you can find a market for what you have to sell to the place of production, the better for the producer. [Hear, hear]. I think everybody will admit that as an invariable proposition. It is quite true that in relation, for instance, to wheat and the larger exported grains, the price ij fixed in Liverpool, but it is also true that thit market price in Liverpool is fixed by the extent of the export to Liverpool. If you can succeed in consuming my large proportion of an article in this country — take wheat as an illustration in Canada— instead of sending it to the other side, you decrease to that extent the amount that goes to Liverpool, and you aflfect the 1J« market, at any rate, to the extent of that de- crease. So that, although it is quite true to say that the price, as a general proposition, is fixed in Liverpool, the price in Liverpool is really fixed by the amount the wheat-pro- ducing countries have to send to Liverpool. Now, we find that, in 1878, we imported 5,635,411 bushels of wheat, while we export ed 4,115,708, there being a net import of 1,519,703 against a net import in 1882 of 342,722. It is quite clear that, allowing nothing foi the increased power of consump- tion of the people which we find in every other department where we can gauge it, we had in Canada, at any rate, a market to the ex- tent of that difference tor the waeat grown in th« country. In the article of corn we find the net imports into Canada were 3,400,562 bushels, which decreased last year to 1,688,- 180, Peas, the net import was 9,584, de- creased n 1882 to 3,638. Oats, an article that farmers are advantaged in having a home market for, in 1878 the net imports were 2,071,513, while last year they had de- creased to 71,111, practically disappearing altogether. Of barley, the net imports in 1878 were 26,204 bushels, decreased in 1882 to 9,491. Rye decreased from 110,228 bushels to 1,447 Flour, barrels, decreased from 311,706 in 1878 to 163,335 in 1882. Oatmeal, barrels, decreased from 3,005 to 2,783. Now, these were undoubtedly results of the policy which imposes a duty on im- ports into this country, and the maintaining a Canadian market for our agricultural pro- duction. Converting flour into wheat, we have this as a general result : — Vi heat, bushels, 1,923,836; corn, 1,712,382; oats, 2,000,402; barley, 16,713; altogether, 5,- 653,333 bushels less imported from the United States than were imported in 1878. Then, at the very least, and, I believe, to a very much larger extent, in consequence of the increased power of consumption on the part of the people, we have a home market as a result of the policy that was adopted, to the extent of the figures I have given. [Cheers]. THB MALT QDKSTION. During the discussions which have recent- ly taken place, a good deal has been said in regard to malt, and we are told that the Gov- ernment of Canada has very serioutdy injured the barley interest of this country. Yet, what do we find with regard to this ? It is true the United States Government have re- cently made aomo changes, and the fact that they have made these changes shows that this small country, as it used to be called — this country with five millions competing with a country of fifty millions — has become suffi. ciently important to have its influence upon the United States, and to send the trades interested to Washington to get remedial legislation. The action of the Government of the United States was to change their tariff from 20 per cent, to 20 cents per bushel. The average cost, I believe, is about 80 cents per bushel for malt. Sir Leonahd Tillky — It is over ninety cents at present. Mr White — The duty has been increased, therefore, from 16 to 20 per cent., while the duty on barley has been reduced from 15 to 10 cts. Our duty has not in any way been changed. The imports from the United States, in 1878, were 101,940 lbs., which paid 2 cents a pound. The imports, in 1882, were 341,020 lbs., which paid less than one-half a cent per pound ; so that there has been no such change in the policy of this country as to justify that change on the other side. All that has been done on the other side is this : they found that our malt makers were competing in a way to injure their trade, and they did what hon. gentle- men here, who admire them in every other respect, seem not to admire them in this respect of their tariff policy — they went to Washington, and endeavored to get a change. What has been the progress of our exports of malt to the United States? In 1877, we exported 11,- 577,814 lbs., and they have gone up, in 1882, to 40,055,907, and 1 do not believe, in spite of the changes made by the Government of the United States, that there is going to be any material effect upon our exports of malt. [Cheers,] THB KFFKCT OP TARIFF ON BRITISH TRADB. Now, sir, I propose to deal with the question of our trade relations with England and the United States. The charge made against this policy is that it has been injurious to England. My hon. friend who preceded me, undertook to prove, from the fact that the importations from the United States and from England were more nearly alike this year than they had been last year, that the tendency was in the direction o( our having increased imports *rom the Unitei States, and decreased imports from England. Well, we have, after all, only to do with the trade returns we hav« before ns ; when the time comes to deal with the trade returns of the future, no doubt we will bo able to deal with them and "how substantially the same results as those which have been shown by this policy since it was adopted. But what was the effect of the policy of hon. gentle- 16 IV': •hi men opposite? The imports from Great Sritain in 1873 were of the value of $68,- 522,776. In 1878 they had decreased to $37,431,180, being a decreado of $31,091,596 during the period hon. gentlemen apposite wore in office,without their putting a hand for- ward to stop this terrible decrease in the im- ports from the mother land. [Hear hear,] The imports from the Uaited States in 1873 were $47,735,678, and in 1878, in spite of the general depression which obtained in Cana- da, and the reduution in our aggregate Im- ports, the imports from the United States ac- tually increased to $48,631,739, or an increase of $896,061. [Hear hoar.] Since that time what has been the re- sult? The imports from Great Britain in 1878, were $37,431,180 ; in 1882, $50,597,- 341, an increase of $13,166,161. The imports from the United States, in 1878 were $48,631,739 ; in 1882, $48,289,052, or a decrease of $142,- 687. [Hear, hear]. So that under tho policy of hon. geutfemen opposite, trade with England gradually fell off, while that with the United States hold its own and actually increased in spite of the general de- pression and general falling off in trade. Under the policy pursued by thia Admini- stration our trade with England has steadily increased, and that with the United States, according to the last returns, has somewhat decreased, so far as imports are concerned . [t is said, how<jver, that the duty upon duti- able goods is higher from Great Britain than from the United States, and it is charged on that account that this policy is inimical to trade with the mother country. On the total imports of free and dutiable goods from Great BriUun the duty was twenty and a-half per cent, last year. On the whole imports from the United States it reached 23J per cent. ; but if you take simply the dutiable goods, hon. gentlemen opposite ap- pear, without examination., to have the argument on their side I find that the duty on dutiable goods alone from Great Britain in 1882 was 24j per cent., while from the United States it was only 21 J per cent., a difference appearing agamst Great Britain of very nearly 3 per cent. For purposes of com- parison it is absolutely tiecossary, however, to take from the imports of the United States that class of goods which form no part of our imports from England. I refer to breadstuffs and coal from both countries. We imported a very small quantity of coal from Great Britain last year, bo small a quantity that the importation has almost disappeared ; but among the brsadstuffs imported from the United States 1 include barley, beans, corn, pease, wheat, cornmeal, oatmeal, wheat flour, and besides these there is anthracite coal, bituminous coal and coke, ana I find the value of these articles placed at $12,219,932, paying $978,370 duty. Deducting these from the aggregate dutiable imports from the United States, leaves $20,721,1 29 of imports corresponding with those from Great Britain, paying $6,095,542, or an average of 29 per cent. So if wo exclude from the importations from the United States the importations of bread- stuffs and coal, and exclude from the im- ports from G reat Britain coal, we find that on goods imported from the United States, which may bo said to be manufactured goods, the average duty is 29 per cent., as against 24j per cent on those from Great Britain. Under these circumstances we may fairly hold that, so far ae trade with Eugland under tho different tariffs is concerned, we need not fear scrutiny (hear, hear). TUB BALANCE OF TRADE. Next I come to the vexed question of the balance of trade. On this subject, as on others, the hon. member for Brant had his amusement. So far as this subject is con- cerned, the position which we take on this side of the House is this : that the tendency of the policy of this Government must bo to bring nearer together imports and exports, and ultimately make our exports exceed the imports. [Hear, hear.] We find that has been the result in tho United States by a similar policy and by a similar process of western development. In former years the balance of trade, as it is ' called, was against them ; in late years it has been enormously in their favor, and the same causes which have produced those results there must produce the same results here. It is true, in the meantime, in a time of prosperity such as we have had, our imports may be larger than our exports,and I have no hesitation in saying that if that should con- tinue it would be a matter of grave appre- sion as to what the effect might be, Whether the theory of the balance of trade be abso- lurely correct or not, I. am not going to dis- cuss here, but there is this to be said about it, that the country is most prosperous and most wealthy — leaving out, of course, the accumulated wealth of coun- tries like England, for I am speak- ing now of the newer countries whose wealth consists in what is produced by them- selves — which exports more than It imports, and is able to pay, and more than pay, for its Imports from its exports. (Hear I hear.) I lie for poi ap Mo 17 wheat flour, racite coal, hnd I find placed at duty. aggregate ted States, responding n, paying r cent. So ktions from 8 of bread - )m the im- e find that ted States, nufactured er cent., as rom Great es we may h England :erned, we ion of the dct, as on at had his jct is con- take on is this : 9 policy be to id exports, jxceed the that has bates by a similar ent. In e, as it is ' 3ars it has 1 the same se results lults here, a time of ir imports I have no ould con- ve appre- Whether I be abso- ng to dis- iid about rous and course, coun- i speak- )s whose by them- imports, ay, for its rl hear.) I have no hesitation in saying that if, I be- lieve, the same process was going to go on for years, namely, larger imports than ex- ports, I think it would bo a matter of serious apprehension, and 1 am glad a newspaper in Montreal, with which I have some remote connection, but for which, unfortunately, I do not write a great deal, and I did not write that particular article which the hon. gentle- man did that journal the honor to quote, although I agree with it and do not repu- diate in any way — I am glad to find a news- paper conservative, not in the party sense alone, but in the interests of the country, did utter words of warning when there was a tendency to over-importation on the part of merchants. (Hearl hear!) I believe the effect of those words of warning, not from that paper alone, for I should be sorry to arrogate to one newspaper so great an influence, was to cause many merchants to countermand orders given to buyers. If we maintain our imports we are doing well, because the country in prosperous, and ander ordinary circumstances we would largely increase them. [Hear, bear.] But with respect to the balance of trade, what is our position ? In 1878 our total imports were $93,081, 78T ; our exports were $79,333,667, leaving a trade balance against uq of $13,758;] 10. In 1882 our imports were $119,419,500; our exports were $102,137,- 203, leaving a balance of trade against us of $17,282,297. But, sir, if you take out of our imports in both years the imports of raw ma- terial, — I do not mean to say for a moment, recollect, though this changes the general question, it simply modifies it — which come into this country, and upon which labor is ex- pended in this country, and which go therefore to build up wealth in the country itself, you will find that the position in which we stand to-day is in- finitely better than the popltion in which we stood in 1878 . [Hear, hear. 1 J find, for in- stance, that the Imports of raw material, of precisely the same classon, which I have al- ready had the honor to submit to the House, in 1878 were $9 929,153, and deducting this, the balance in trade against us was $3,828,- 927. The raw material imported last year w^s $22,091,211, which deducted from our imports leaves a balance in our favor of $4,308,614, against $3,828,947 against us in 1878. [Cheers] Now, I think, that wo may fairly say that, taking the argument which the hon. gentlempn himself u.ses, in whi^'h he points out the fact of the importation of lux urifs which came in, and were consumed, and which added practically nothing to the wealth of the ci.uutry, and dealing with it, and pointiug to the fact that, in this particular case, this large importation was an importation of articles which form the basis of the indufitries of the country, and which, when they went to the cousumer, pro- bably were worth three times what they are hero; and comparing this with what would have been the effect if we had not had that larifl, if we had not had this protection, if we had not had this importation ot raw ma- terial, and if our impoitation of raw material had remained as it was before, and gone on with this period of inflation which brought on the better times to which hon. gentlemen opposite refer, we may pertinently ask, what would have been the position of this country to-day ? Our imports would certainly have increased, and t<*o importation of that class of consumable goods, which oome in, which are consumed at once and disappiar and add nothing to the wealth of the country, would have been far greater ; and instead of $17,000,000 the balance against us would pro^jttbly have been three or four times that amount. Instead of that, by the policy which has been adopted, although the balance is against us — and I believe it will not long remain against us — it has more than been met by the fact that our imports in excess of our exports are more than balanced by the raw material that forms the basis of the in- dustries of this country. MANITOBA AND THE NORTHWEST. Then, sir, I tako the effHct of the National Policy on our relations with Manitoba and the Northwest. The hon. gentleman was good enough to say that the people of that country wore ground down by this tariff, that they were suffering ter- ribly from tho eftocts of it ; but does the hon. gentleman know this, or has he troubled himself to enquire into it — that tho imports into that country in 1878 paid an average duty of 19 per cent., while the imports into that country last year, paid an average duty of 19 J percent, [hear, hoar], so that this en- ormous tariff, which he tells us is grinding down tho people of that country, has added one-half per cent, to the duty upon the ex- ports going into that country. The imports into Manitoba and the Northwest in 1878, were $1,283 414, paving a duty of $242,608, and last year, $5,657,506, paying a duty of $1,106 356 ; tho average duty, as I have said, was only one-half per cent, more than it was in 1878. Now,8ir, if you look at tho imports in- to that country as evidence of its growth, you will find that in 1878 they were $1,171,107 for Manitoba, and $112,307 for the Northweit Territories, while in 1882, the imports were 18 $5,223,856 for Manitoba, and $433,650 for the Northwest Territories, If you will look at the character of these imports, you will find this— that in 1878, they imported of reftned Bugar from the Uaited States to the extent of 828,012 lbs., while last year they only im- ported, in epite of their greater population, and the larger consuming power of the people, from the United States 39,627 pounds, or in round figures, 40,000 lbs., so that there was an increase of no less than 787,000 pounds of sugar, brought into that country, which was supplied from the refineries of Canada, some of which, I believe, came from Buch remote refineries as those of Halifax. [Hear, hear]. Then if you look further, you will find that of carriages they imported in 1878, $24,000 worth, and in 1882, only $21,- 624 ; of ready made clothing, $57,523 worth, and 1882, $31,371 ; of mowing, reaping and threshing machines in 1877, $16,847 worth, and 1882, only $71 worth ; this represents I suppose one mower. The importation of axes, hoes, rakes, .brks and shorels, in- creased only $301 since 1878, although the purchase of these articles by the people of the Northwest, during the last five years must have increased almost a hundred fold. Now that has been the result of this policy in building up our trade in the Northwest, in giving to us, the older Provinces, the markets of the North- west, and in giving us those markets without imposing any increased cost on the people of the Northwest, because it is a well-known fact, established by the fact of the relative duty which I have just cited, and in every other way you may choose to enquire into this question, that the people of the North- west can obtain from Canada these artices as cheaply, with an ordinary and moderate duty added, as they can be obtained for in any other part of the world. [Cheers.] THE COMMERCIAL OUTLOOK. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I ought to detain the House any longer, for I find that I have already spoken a good deal longer than I expected to ; but I may say, in conclu-iion, this : the hon. gentleman who has preceded me has referred to the fact that we are on the eve of a state of depression ; I venture, sir, to think that there will be no depression in Canada, in view of the fact that the merchants of Canada to-day realize the fact that there is a possibi- lity of danger arising from over importation. It is true that we have had some failures, but if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to enquire into these failures, he will find this to be the fact, that in almost every case, they nave been the result of the em- ployment of money outside of the legitimate business of those interested, prompted per- haps it may be, by the great inflition outside, and temptations to invest in consequence of the enormous boom in Manitoba and the Northwent. He will find, sir, that at all times, under all policies — and no one has ever pretended that the case would be difi'erent — that men will be tempted to take from their business what properly belongs to it, in their hurry to make themselves rich, which is, unfortu- nately, characteristic of the age in which we live ; and that these results will produce, no matter what the general prosperity may be, no matter what the policy will be, failure and disaster in individual cases. [Hear, hear ] But, Mr. Speaker, what we complained of, in relation to the policy of hon. gentle, men opposite, was this : that at a time when they saw industries being closed ; that at a time when they saw commerce paralyzed ; that at a time when the causes of these results were apparent to every man ; that at the time when merchants came from every part of this Dominion and interviewed the Finance Minister of the day and gave him data upon which he could go if he had been willing to accept their opinion, and if it were not for the unfortunate character be had, of believing that he alone understood commercial matters, and that those engaged in commerce know nothirg about them ; that at the time when this condition of things existed, they took the ground that it was not for the Government or for Parlia- ment to interfere in the slightest degree to remove those evils or mitigate those disas- ters. (Hear, hear.) What Wb said at that time was that while the Government were not responsible for all the disasters which had come upon the country, they were re- sponsible for not taking all reasonable me- thods of removing those evils so far as tbeir removal was within the power of legislativ© action. That was said by Conservative speakers in this House, and on Conser- vative platforms in the country. The hon. gentleman has stated that the prosperity which this country is en- joying was not in consequence of the National Policy, because bank stocks were lower in 1879 than they were in 1878. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that that was a fair statement to make to this House ? Does not the hon. gentleman know that this was caused by the failure of the Consolidated Bank — resulting not from any condition of things arising out of the National Policy, but resulting from a 19 )f the em- legitimate npted per- on outside, equence of and the that at —and no hat the men will ness what hurry to , unfortu- which w© roduce, no may be, be, failure ("Hear, omplained m. gentle. ;ime when that at a jaralyzed ; of these iry man ; :;ame from iterviewed and gave if he had >n, and if tractor be mderatood 3 engaged ut them ; idition of ad that it for Parlia- degree to lose disas- id at that lent were lers which r were re- lahle me« r as tbeir iegislatiya aservative 1 Conser- try. The bhat the is en- • of the tcks were 78 . Does that that is House ? Qow that 9 of the lot from \ out of ig from a rendition of things w}iich had been going en for years, as the investigation prored, and which must alwara prove disastrous to any banking iustitation which is the yictim of them. He must know that in the presence of that crisis, brought about by this failure bank, stocks did go down ; but does he pretend to gay that the National Policy had anything to do with producing that effect ? Policies of tl:i8 kind are put upon the statute book, but the mere enactment of such policies does not immediately produce the benefi- cial changes expected from them; these •re produced by subsequent events ; they are produced by the gradual, ■teady, developing effects which follow the operation of these tariffs ; and we may fairly lay, BO far as the ^' ittional Policy is concern- ed, that the Conservative party has reason to look back upon the last four years with con- lidarable pride. THI POSITION or PA.KTI1S. We know that hon. gentlemen opposite were bo confident of the feeling of the people of this country that, at the re- cent elections which took place in the Prov- ince of Ontario, they implored the people everywhere not to believe that the National Policy had anything to do with the contest ; they warned every man who ventured to speak upon that subject, that he was speak- ing of a matter which was not in issue in the election ; that the Government did n()t in- tend to interfere in any respect with the operation of the National Policy. Yet even in that Province of Ontario, which they have always claimed was a Liberal Province, under, not the gerrymandering Act of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, but under an arrangement of the constituen- cies made by their own friends, so strong was the feeling ot the people of that province that the possibility of the existence of that Government was a menace to the contionance uf this policy, that it resulted in the fact that the popular vote and almost the representa- tive vote of the people went with the Conser- vative party, in spite of the fact that hon. ge'jtloraen waroad the people not to be alarmed about the National Policy — that it was safe at any rate, and that no one wa« going to interfere with it. [Cheers]. Hop. gentlemen opposite have chosen to com- mence the new Parliament by a new attack on that policy. They have chosen to come the here, and in the first speech made on fiscal policy of the country, to revive ail the old arguments which they ought by this time to be ashamed of, in order, if they can, to create a public impression against that policy. These hon. gentlemen are not wise ; they have learned nothing by the lessons of the past . We on this side can afiord to ■mile while they denounce the National Policy. Every word they utter against it — every suggestion they make that it is not in the interests of this country, is a warning to the people of Canada that they are not to ke trusted ; and 1 venture to say that when the calm, deliberate, clear speech of the Finance Minister, delivered to-night, in which he not only explained the financial position of thie country, not only vindicated the policy of which he may well be proud of being the author, in this House, but in which he indicated by the changes he hae suggested fhat that policy is the fixed irie- vocable policy of the Conservative party — when that speech goes to the country to- morrow, when the people of Canada from one en<l to the other read and ponder over it, and when they read the speech of the hon. gen- tleman who has taken the position of finan- cial exponent for the Opposition, and find in it all the old attacks — find in it all the old well-beaten paths trodden over again in the effort to diminish the influence of the Con- servative party, they will be confirmed in the feeling they have already, and which they se strong! y manifested in June last, and will de- clare that these men who can learn nothing by the experience of the past, are not the men who should bo entrusted in any way with the administration of the affairs of • great coui^ry like thia rLond cheers J