IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4p ir Ko 1.0 I.I 1.25 I^IM 125 130 ™ m I 2.2 ■UUki IM I 2.0 U 11.6 <^ 71 '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. USEO (716) •72-4S03 fe i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques I'achnical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques 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/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 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, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pages/ D D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualitd indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du matdriel suppl^mentaire I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Fyj Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~7\ Showthrough/ r~lt Quality of print varies/ ■ I Includes supplementary material/ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The CO to the Tl U The im possibi of the filming Origini beginn the las •ion. o other first pa sion, a or illus The laa •hall ci TINUEI whichi Maps. differei •ntireiN beginn right a require methoi ilaire Bs details iques du mt modifier xiger une de filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto Library 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. qu6es L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce i la ginArositA de: Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto Library Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de t'exempiaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprim6e sent film^s en commencant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ^ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur ia dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie ^^ signifie "A SUiVRE", ie symbols V signifie "FIN". itaire 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 cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmis A des taux de reduction diff brents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est fiimi A partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant ie nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. i by errata Imed to Tient , une pelure, I fapon d e. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 w flotts^ of Commons B^bates FOURTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT SPEECH OP MR. D'ALTON MCCARTHY, M.P. ^# ON THE BUDGET OTTAWA, WEDNE8DAY, lliii 1894 Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, in re- suming the discussion on the question of the tariH', I propose in the first place to consider, but very briefly indeed, the financial position of the country. This is the proper occasion for this House to deal with the ciuestion of the finances of Canada, and while I do not at all despair of the future of om* coun- try, and while I do not at all de- sire to speali in any but the most hopeful strain of our possibilities; yet, Sir, I would but ill discharge the duty which I think I owe as a representative of the peo- ple if I did not raise my voice and draw attention to what I consider to be om" some- what unfortunate financial standing at this moment. We have, Su*, I thinlc, reached a position where the tax production has per- haps come to an end. I think it will puzzle the Minister of Finance Avho has charge of om- finances to devise any fm-ther scheme by which he can raise from the people of this country any fm'ther sum than has been extracted from them under the present ex- isting tariff. I do not think I misinterpret the language of the Finance Minister— at all events, I express ray own conviction— wlien I say tliat It appears to me tliat we are ap- proaching an era of deficits. I shall bo very nmch astonished Indeed if the end of this financial year does not find the balance en the wixmg side of the ledger, while for the year to come I do not think that matters are very much calculated to Improve. Now, Sir, we have heard over and over again what the total debt, Imown as the net debt, of this Dominion is, and e ery person who takes any interest in the position of this country Is perfectly familiar with what our per capita debt is. THE DELT OK CANADA. It is undoubtedly an enormously large debt. It has ina'eased In a ratio which, when we look back upon it, ought to be, and I think is, alarming to every well- wisher of 'his country. I do not de- sire at the moment at aU to question whether the creation of that debt has been wise or foolish ; I am dealing now simply with the haivl facts of the case. Our debt at confederation was $75,000,000; ten years afterwards It had Increased $33,000,000 ; at the end of tiio next decade that had swollen to $227,000,000, and now, as we know, it has reached to nearly $242,000,000. Our net taxes have increased from $11,000,- 000 at the time of confederation, to $17,- 00().(X)0 at the expiration of the first ton vears ; that became $27,000,000 In 1887, and It has reached t^ie flguru of $29,000,000 odd in 1893. Our per capita debt has Increased in the like ratio. But with these figures we are all famiUar, and perhaps their full meaning doarty can claim any great credit for that reduction. In- terest has been going down the world over, and we have had the advantage of it ; but it has, I thinl', practically readied Its lowest figure. Well, the hon. gentleman who open- ed this discussion has very fairly and very candidly told the House that it woiild need the exercise of the very greatest economy on the part of the Government to make bo*ll ends meet. Our public works, he says, are nearlj' all completed. But, Sir, there will always be more or less public works to be carried on in a country like this, and it will need the very greatest caution indeed, Who- ever is charged with the administration of our affairs, to see that our expenditure In connection with public works is not so large as to Injure and endanger the financial stability of the oounitry. I cannot help, therefore, in my opening observations draw- lug attention to this. It seems to me a matter of enormous consequence, that we .should now realize, after all our expendi- ture, our present position. I doubt very much if this House or this country would have incurred the enormous debt which the building of the Canadian Padflc Railway involved, proud as we are of that great en- terprise, if we had not been assured by the authorities tiiat sufficient would be realized from tlie sale of our lands in the North- wesit to recoup the people of Canada for that expenditure. I doubt very much if it would have been wise in us to incur that ex- penditure if we had not also been promised, on a calculation deliberately made— accepted, at all events, on this side of the House as reliable— that our population in Manitoba and the North-west would before this period have reached the neighbomi'hood of 600,000 or 700,000. But we know now that, unless there is an increase of the population in that country in the near future, Canada has practically v,ome to a standstill. There- fore it is that, in discharging what I believe to be my duty, and without any desire at all to depreciate our resources or to look at the blue side of things, I feel that we must now realize exacfly what our financial stand- ing is. But, Sir, the more important sub- ject of discussion Is of couree the question of the tariff. The tariff amendments which, after a year's Incubation, have at lasit been announced to the House and the countiy— which the Government frankly enougli con- fessed that they were Incompetent to devise until they had come in contact with each and eveiy section and each and every In- terest In the country that was affected by the tariff— we have now before us, end we are called upon to approve or disapprove of them. Some ciiticism has been directed. In the courae of the debate, to the genUe- men who have not agi-eed with the tariff changes, because they had not exactly sped- fiec! li That 'espact they thought those changes were unwise. I think It was the hm. Minister of Marine and Fisheries who, in the ooiuflo of his reply to my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Davles), said that really the wind had been taken out of the sails of tihoee who were opposed to the tariff, by the salutary and satisfactory T + I V T + I amendments that had been made, and that there was nothing substantial to be said against them. Well, Sir, I believe that the changes in the tariff number more than 300 ; I have not calculated them myself, but I understand that to be the case, and with re- gard to each and every one of those changes, when the resolutions are in committee, an opportunity will, of course, be afforded of criticising them In detail. At present it seems to me impossible to do more than speal^, as far as we can speak, of the scheme of those amendments, and to realize so far as we can what they mean, and in that way, to determine whether we approve or disapprove of them. TARIFF STILL FOR MANUFACTURERS. Now, Sir, whait do these tariff amendments mean ? If I have grasped their meaning at all, I would venture to say— and, in fact, it is not seriously questioned— that the tariff is still to be regarded as a tariff in the Interest t)f the manufacturing classes. That is the ijey note of the changes which have been made— that the tariff is still a protective tariff, and that those changes are in the interest, not of the great consuming masses, but of those who are recognized as the protected classes. Now, I desire to bo very accurate in this Statement, and, in order to show that I do not misinterpret the hon. gentleman who proposed the resolution with reference to these changes, I will read what he says on that subject :— Tlie prime object in view lias been to cheapen the cost of manufactures in this country, to cheapen the cost at which the goods issue from the factory itself. #♦♦«*•• * Two ways have been adopted for cheapening the cost of goods, one by lowering the duty upon raw material, and the other by transferring raw mate- rials from the dutiable to the free list. It has been found in the course of the work that we had pretty well exploited that division of the subject already, and that in this country almost all the great staples for manufacturing wore already on the free list, in contradistinction do our neighbours to thg south, where they are to-day fighting over the vexed question as to whether or not wool, a great staple for a large industry, in that country and an article of enormous consumption, shall bear a tax of 11 or 12 cents per pound or be placed on the free list. Again he says : The duties which have been placed on different articles have been regulated according to the vigour and development of the industry itself, accorciing to the condition of the competition outside, accord- ing to the advantages that home production has, for various reasons, in our home market, and by reason of the methods of business in soine cases as well. It is impossible to read this language, com,lng from the tinancial autbority of tlie Govern- ment, and to question at all that the changes have been made, deliberately and designedly made,— I will deal afterwards with whether it is tixe wisest amendment or not— In the interests of the manufacturing classes, and that the tariff may be well called a manu- facturers' tariff, whether the Grovernment Is to be designated as a manufaoturers' Qor- ernment or not. TARIFF FOR PROTECTION ADOVTED. And on the question of protection, the hon. the Mnance Minister is equally explicit He defines, in his own way, the different methods by which a tariff can be raised and the objects of a tariff. There Is, first, what he calls a purely revenue tariff. Sec- ondly, the tariff for revenue, which affords inddental protection. And thirdly, the tariff for protection, which gives an Incidental re- venue. And again the Government deliber- aitely adopted the latter of the three as the tariff wliich they think is beat in the in- terests of this country. Having, therefore, justified, so far as I have gone, the statement that this tariff is a tariff from the manu&c- turers' point of view and in the interqst of manufacturers, and not in the Interest of the remaining portion of the communily— bo they more or be they less than the manu- facturing classes— I think I may also add that the tariff has, in some respects, been amend- ed and amended, I am bound to say. In the interests of the commimity at large. To a very large extent, though not altogether, the plan of specific duties has been got rid of. These duties still remain here and there. They remain where they ought to be abolish- ed, I think, but in a ntmiber of cases the tariff has been amended by abolishing speci- fic and substituting therefor ad valore,n duties. Now, the ad valorem duty has this advantage, that we know, and the country will be able at once to know, what the tax is. A specific duty, as we have found from practical experience, years after the duty had been imposed, sometimes is a burden running up beyond a hundred per cent. I do not think the House ever realized— cer- tainly, speaking for myself, I never realized —that we were at any time imposing a duty of anything like the figure wMch I have men- tioned. We know, therefore, when we have an ad valorem duty of 25, or 30, or 35 per cent what that tariff is. The covmtry will be able to appreciate it ; there will be no means of hoodwinking the people as to the burden they are called upon to bear, and as to the incidence of that burden. TARIFF FROM 30 TO 35 PER CENT. Speaking of the tariff as a whole, I think I may characterize it as an ad valorem tariff of from 30 to 35 per cent. There are duties of less than that, Indeed there may occa- sionally be duties of more, and the bulk of them may perhaps be more properly spoken of as duties of 30 per cent. But I think I am not stating it unfairly— and I have no desire to state It unfairly— when I say that the tariff may be characterized as one of from 30 to 35 per cent. Now, Sir, the tariff has also sonie otht-r characteristics. It cer- tainly does not discriminate in favour of Great Britain. We 0:1 this side of the House have been in the habit of boasting of our desirt— and we boasted of it particularly in 1876, and up to 1879— to increase our trade with the mother country, and our desire to adjust our tariff so that we should not, at all events, discriminate in favomr of the United States. But, Sir, we know from last year's discussion that when that question was brought prominently — as I ventm-e to bring it prominently— to the attention of the House, the Ministerial spoliesman justified the discrimination against Great Britain which he could not deny, by saying that it was necessary to impose the duties .vhich were imposed upon imports from Britain In order to raise a revenue, and because the imports from Britain consisted vei'y largely of luxxu*ies and of articles which were used by the rich and which, therefore, formed more proper subjects of taxation. Now, 1 will specially draw the attention of the Houoe to a subject which has ah-eady been referred to, the discrimination in reference to the Importation of tea. We have been import- ing tea from another counti*y to the ex- tent of 7,000,000 pounds out of the 17,000,000 or 18,000,000 of pounds which we have been importing altogether. ENGLISH TRADU TO BE INJURED. By this tariff that trade is to be destroyed so far as Great Britain is concerned— the trade is to be forced Into another chfumel, or, if it con- tinues in its present course, it is to bear a tax of 10 per cent. We are always complaining that the embargo on our cattle is not taken off; we ai-e always agitathig and corresponding and demanding to know why it is that the British Government have scheduled om- cat- tle. We feel that there is no justification for it. But, Sir, at the moment when we are pressing England to remove that em- bargo and to give to our exporters of cattie tiie enormous benefit to be gained flirough that removal, we are proposing a tariff which Is to cut off a portion of the trade which has existed between 1:3 and the mother country. And, Sir, on the otlver hand, the tariff does not favour any idea of reciprocity with the United States. The United States has not offered us much, it is true ; they have not proposed a great deal in the Wilson Bill or in the Bill which is now before the Senate. But, whatever proposition has been made, we put a counter proposition which does not meet it and which prevents the possibility of any reciprocal relation between us and the other side. UNITED STATES OFFER AS TO AGRICUl. URAL IMPLEMENTS. They offered us free trade in agrlcmturai implements. That would be a great boon to the people of this country, and particu- larly those of the Noarth-west. At first, in the Wilson Bill, agiicultural Implements were put on the free Mst, In the Sen- ate—we do not know how it will emerge from the conference of the two Houses —at the instance of the agricultm*al iiii plement manufactm-ers, it was declared that so far as Canada is concerned (for that is practically what it means) if there is to be free trade, there must be free trade either way ; that is reciprocity. We answer with a 20 pel cent tariff. They proposed to put wheat and flour on the free list. We answer that by leaving our tariff on these articles as it was, but we suggest that we are will- ing to exchange barley for com. I am not at this moment doing more than just point- ing out what I venture to think are the characteristics of the tariff. Summarizhig them briefly, am I wrong in saying that, in the first place, it is a manufacturers' tariff ; in the second place, it is a highly protective tariff ; in the third place, it is as far as it goes a discriminating tariff ' against the mother coimtry, aad, in che foiu-th place, it holds out no hoi^ of enlarged trade be- tween us and the Unltec States. These, I think, may be said to be he characteristics of the tariff. But the gr' at question after all. Sir, is whether the foundation principle upon which this tariff is built, namely, pro- tection, or what is called the National Policy, is to he perpetuated, or is to be changed. Now, Sir, I think we have heard the last word on the subject of the tariff from the present occupants of the Treasury benches. That we have not heard the last word from the counti-y goes, I think, without saying. It is unfortunate, very unfortunate I think, that this question of the changes of the tariff could not have been postponed until after the next election when It would have been known what the people had determined to do. Every one will admit that noth'ug can be worse for business and industry than the constant changing of and tinkering with om- tariff, our fiscal policy. It is inevitable now, however. But we know that, after a year's deliberation, after eveiy care' has been taken by the Ministi'y to ascertain the feelings of their supporters and what the country are prepared to accept, we have this tariff which I tJalnk we may know and re- alize as the last word from the Min- istry and from the gentiemen who en- dorse them. Now, I desire to say that, so far as that matter is concerned, I take issue with the Government on this question of the tariff and upon the policy that under- lies the changes that have been proposetl. Wo have had fifteen years' experience of the protective policy. We have had the benefit of tho knowledge of the condition of affairs which the census has given us, and we ought now to be prepared, if we are ever to be prepared, to determine whether this scheme of protectlci for Canada is in the best interests of the country or whether the policy of free trade— or freer trade to . iH ^K " IH ^K " say at least of it— would not be wiser in the interests of this Dominion. And, as there is no mistake about the Government's posi- tion and policy— for the Finance Minister himself speaks of it in these words : ^ Tliat, so far as tiiis Government la concerned, its policy is historical, it is definite, it is undoubted. So, I think. Sir it is well that there should be no mistake as to the vi^w which those who are opposed to this policy take ; so tliat the people of the country, who are now alive to the great importance of the fiscal problem and have taken an enormous inter- est in the question diu-ing the last few months, when the proper time comes— as me it m^'ist before many months longer — may be prepared to say which is the policy that they prefer to accept PROTECTION INOUKASKS PRICES. There Is one thing thajt all this discussion has evolved. We have now a frank admission, not from all the hou. gentlemen who spoke, it Is true, but we have a frank admission from the financial authority of the Government that a protective policy, at all events, in Its first stages, enhances and increases prices ; and there is nowhere— and I have r^xJ the speech over and over again with the great»jst possible care— any statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance that within the fifteen years past prices have come down. There is a guarded expression that prices tend to decrease, that that has been the ex- perience of other countries ; but the hon. the Finance Minister has not ventured to say, and I think the hon. gentleman could not honestly have said, that that lias been our experience since the introduction of the National Policy in 1879. I do not mean to say that the prices are not less now than they -wei'e in 1878, hat is not the question ; what I mean to say is that with regard to the fall of prices all the world over— thart; is what we have to look at— prices have not como down under the system whlcn has prevailed for the last fifteen years. Now, If prices have not come down, what advantages have ac- crued to this country from the adoption of this National Policy ? We are told there has been a buoyant revenue ; not tha^ the Finance Minister puts that down in terms to the fiscal policy that has prevailed, but in- ferentially he places to the credit of this policy that there has been a buoyant reve- nue. Undoubtedly the people have paid large sums In taxes troia year to year, and the taxes hav9 been steadily Increasing. Up to Oils time the people have been able to pay, and I only trust that my prediction, uttered In the earlier part of my observations, may not be true, and that the time has not arrived when the people will cease to be able to pay. But. Sir, is that a reason of the National Policy ? PROSPEROUS ENGLAND. , Why, how has it been elsewhere ? I have been astonished to read in the Government organs from time to time, I have been aa- trmished to hear statements made, as to the decadence of England under free tra<'e. It has become a popular argument on tht Con- servative side in politics, so strong is their desire to uphold the policy, to represent the old mother land itself as unwise in adhering to free trade and as actually in a state of decadence. Now, if that be so it is a serloua reason for us to pause before we moke the change from the present 30 or 35 per cent system to a freer trade system. But what are the facts in regard to thfl,t ? Why, Sir, from 1879 to 1893, the debt of Clreat Britain decreased no less than 13 per cent, decreased from seven hundred and forty-foiir mUIion— I will not trouble ,ae House with the odd figures— to six hundred and sixty-eight mil- lions. During the same period the debt of Canada increased 69 per cent. But that, after al!, one may say, was a matter of adminis- tration. Let me take something tSiat is more definite and certain. In the 'Finan- cial Abstract,' which is furnished yearly by the English officials, we have very good means of determining how England prospers or how England goes back, because her sta- tistics are more accurate, perhaps, than those of any other country. Let us take the return with reference to the income tax be- tween the years 1881 and 1891, or 1892, and I take 1892 because It is the last year for which they have returns. I find there has been an increase during that period, of pro- perty upon which the income tex Is paid, of from five hundred and four millions to five hundred and ninety-seven millions, or 18 per cent. So this country that is going to the dogs under free trade, with all the adverse conditions, and they have not been few, w have not been matters of small moment— with all the adverse conditions that have existed during that period, we find there has been an increase in the property upon which the Income tax is assessed, of 18 per cent. Well, Sir, what am I to comimre vrith tliat ? What matter is there here which offers a fair subject of comparison ? I know of no other except the returns we have wltih reference to the condition of the farmers in the province of Ontario. Since 1882, that is for the same period of 10 years, we have had a Bureau of Industries in Ontario fur- nishing returns of the value of the farms, of farm buildings, of farm implements, and those things which go to make up the wealth of the farmer. What Is the result ? Now, I do not think it will be disputed that among the wealthiest people of tiie Dominion, are the farmers of Ontario. They are those", we are told, who have prospered most ; certain their average condition Is as good as that of any other class of .the community. WeU, we find from 1882 to 1892 their increase, ac- cording to these returns, ig only 11 per cent. So, while the English free traders have been getting poor to the time of 18 per cent during those ten years, the Canadian protectionists have been getting rich to the extent of 11 per cent That Is the result on this basts. Now, let me take our trade as to which the Finance Minister has incidentally talcen credit for the National Policy. I am glad to see that comparing the Ave years before the change of policy, from 1876 to 1880, with the last five years— and I ao not thinic any person will doubt the fairness of that com- parison—there has been an increase in Cana- dian domestic trade alone of $23,549,015, or 33 per cent. It would be most extraordinary if there was not an Increase. Why, Sir, during that period the whole North-west has been added, over a million acres of land in Manitoba hawre been cultivated during that time ; and it would have been a most ex- traordinaiy result, a most curious ending, if our tmde had not increased. But I am glad to say it has increased to that extent, and taking the average for the five years I have mentioned, it was $69,692,000. It has swollen in our best years— because the two last years have been our best years— to $93,000,000, or an increase of 33 per cent. But how miich of that goes to the credit of the National Policy, how much goes to the credit of the present fiscal system ? I have analysed it, and let us see what it is. In the produce of the forest, including lum- ber—which Is curiously enough, in our statis- tical book, classed under the head of manufactures, in one sense, perhaps, cor- rectly enough— thCTe has been ac average increase of nearly six millions. PROTECTION INJURES LUMBERING. Will any hon. gentleman on this side of the House pretend to say that the lumber in- dustry has received any benefit from the protective system? Do not we all know that It has injured, and certainly has not promoted the industry with which I am dealing ; and yet the increase in that is nearly $6,000,000. Om- fisheries have In- creased by $2,413,000, that being the aver- ago Increase. The average increase in ani- mals and their products and in agricultural products has gone up nearly $10,000,000, from $33,844,000 to $43,690,000. I shall have occasion, before I have done, to deal with the question whether the agriculture of the country can be said to be prospering, and whether agricultural interests have been assisted by the protective policy; in the mean- time I pass it by, and I come to our manu- facturing exports. EXPORT OF MANUFACTURES. If the hon. the Finance .linlster had •been able to point to an ei.ormous in- crease in manufactured goods, there woiild have been some result from this National Policy; but of the total of $23,549,000, de- ducting household effects, which I do not suppose hon. gentlemen want to claim credit for as being due to the National Policy, the average increase In manufacturing exports is less than one and a half mlUion dollars— to be exact, $1,446,000. That is the result so far as the manufacturing industry of the country has gone. What has been the ti-ade of Great Britain during this period? How has her trade progressed? We know perfectly well ; we have heard it in speech after speech that every effort has been made to close the ports of almost every country against the manufactured goods of Great Britain. The United States has raised a tariff which one would have thought was almost prohibitory, and yet we are aston- ished to find that England's largest exports are to the United States. Germany, France, Russia and Canada have been raising their tariffs and endeavouring to keep out British goods. With what result? With the result that, notwithstanding all I have said, the increase dming this period has been an in- crease of 12 per cent. It has not been a retrogression, it has not been an enormous increase, but taking into account the diminu- tion in values— because I am speaking In money— the increase is substantial. It is an increase in manufactured goods of 12 per cent as compared with the paltry million and a half by which Canada has been increasing her exports. UNITED STATES MANUFACTURES. But if this policy is good and is wise, surely there is no country Where we can see its beneficial results so clearly de- monstrated as In the United States. With their enormous natural resources, with prac- tically free trade through the greatest half of the continent, with their enormous popu- lation, if the United States are able to show a large 'ncrease In their output of manufac- tured goods as compared with the mother country, there would be some groimd, as I have said, and as I repeat, to pause, in our determination with respect to any chang,: in this tariff. But what is the result ? I suppose of all the articles that are manufac- tured, the United States have greater ad- vantages in cotton goods than in almost anything else. The raw material is produced in their own coimtry, the carriage is saved; they have their own home market; and, looking at the exports of cotton goods, every- body must admit that there has been time enough to develop that industry in the United States. Looking at the exports, what do I find ? I find that the exports of cotton goods from Great Britain is in the ratio, stating it In millions, of $297,000,000, taking an average of the last five years, as com- pared with $12,000,000 from the United States. In cotton goods you cannot speak of it as a ratio; there were $98,000,000 from Great Britain— I am speaking in dollars— and not one million from the United States. On metals, machinery and telegraph wire, the exports were of the value of $215,000,- 000 from Great Britain and $22,000,000 from the United States. Taking the aggregate of the trade, the figures are as follows : In* exports of cotton goods, Great Britain, as ;^ I II compared with the United States, stands as 97 Is to 3; of woollen goods, as 99-6 to 0?4; of metals, as 91 is to 9. Those are the results of protection in the United States, and bon. members at the same time see the results of free trade in Great Britain. But if there is anything at all in which the United States ought to have been able to compete with Great Britain, it is In the Iron Industry. It is a fact most hon. members know that in recent years the United States has overtaken Great Britain in the Iron industry. Her manufacture of iron was larger. Now, if the manufacture was gi-eater in the United States than in Great Britain there can be no groiind, pretense or reason for the goods of the United States being dearer than those of Great Britain. The flgm-es are as fol- lows: In 893 the production of iron in Great Britain was 6.829,8il tons, In the United States 7,124,502 tons, and it had been much larger. It was 9,000,000 in 1892; 8,000,000 in 1891; 9,000,000 in 1890. As I said before. If this policy is what is claimed for It, If the policy of i otectlon, while at first It enhances prices ii d cost in the end tends downwards, that t. d cfht surely to have been reached In t' ;nlted States before this time. STEEL RAILS. But taking an article in which the United States deals very largely, siteel rails, let me give the House the different prices, and when the House remembers the output is larger in the United States than in Great Britain, to wbat can the difference in cost be attributed ? The price of steel rails in Great Britain last year and this year is $19.86 a ton ; the price of steel rails in the United States up to quite a recent period, though I think it Is leas now, but I give the last quotation in 1893, was $28.12, or $8.26 per ton more than in the mother country. Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). What is the price to-day? Mr. McCarthy. To-day I think the price is $24. Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). It is $20. Mr. McCarthy. I have not seen any quota- tion at that figure. The last quotation I have seen is $24, and that flgiu-e was given in a statement made by Mr. Johnson in Congi'ess. I read from an official return, prepared by the journal ' Iron and Steel.' Let us take these figures and compare them. Let us look at t!he prices of steel rails, and for comparison oaloulate the additional cost to the people of that country in this item alone. Steel i^ils have varied in pilce as follows : In 1883, they were $37.75 a ton ; in 1884, $30 a ton ; in 1885, $28 a ton ; in 1886, $34 a ton ; in 1887, $37 a ton ; in 1888, $29 a ton ; In 1889, $29 a ton ; In 1890, $31 a ton ; in 1891, $29.92 a ton ; in 1892, $30 a, ton, and in 1893, $28.12 a ton ; always some $7 or $8 or $9, and sometimes more, than the price of the same article in England. New, Sir, after all the great question is : Is the price enhanced or is it not ? It boots not to tell us that our trade is buoyant ; it does not satisfy a practical man to be told that the deposJt'i in the savings and other banks have Increased ; it does not answer any argument to be told that our trade Is grow- ing when we reaUze that the growth of that trade is not due in any sense or shape or form to the National Policy. And, If none of these benefits flow, If nothing of this kind Is to be put down to the credit aide of this particular fiscal policy, what are we to say with regard to the cost ? The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has made no bones about it, for he told us t^at goods were not only better but that thay were cheaper In Canada. He is more cautious, and if he will paa^lon me for saying so, his colleagues who knew more about what he was taUdng about did not ventm-e to say that at all. The hon. Minister of Finance said tliat the tendency was towards a de- crease in price, but nowhere in his speedi win it be found that he pretended to say that prices had decreased. That, Sir, is a simple question of fact, and I suppose that we will all have to settle it for ourselves, and the electors of tills counti-y will have to settle it for themselves. PRICES OF GOODS TOO HIGH. Speaking for myself, and from all the in- formation I have been able to get, I ven- ture the assertion here upon the floor of Parliament, that prices have not de- creased. I venture the assertion on the floor of Parliament : that substantially and practically the prices of the goods wMch are manufactured in Canada are as high as the tariff wlU permit them to be. I venttira the assertion : that there is no reason for keeping up the tariff unless for that object, because if those goods are better and cheaper in Canada than v/e can import them, the Canadian people are not fools enough to buy the imported article and to leave the home article on the shelves and counters unpurchased. Therefore, it is almost unnecessary, it seems to me, to dis- cuss with any degree of seriousness this question, or this supposed question, of the price of goods. Let me, however, use such Information as is open to me. We have had these changes proposed, and no one will pretend tliat they have been of a very radi- cal description. No one will pretend that these changes are such as ought to have alarmed the manufacturers of this oountry, when It is remembered that, with, the exception of agricultural implement makers, the tariff is still 30 or 35 per cent. But let us see what the manufacturers say. They have been interviewed by the press, and their statements have been publMied. I have no doubt ttiat if the Minister of Finance would tell us what statemenits have 8 been made to blm in secret we would have a very full and complete view of the manu- facturers with regard to It ; but Judging Just from what has been made public, let us see what they do say. manufacturers' views. I will take two or three of them, and If the House will pai'don mo, I will trouble hon. gentlemen with an extract from their state- ments. Mr. George Brush, proprietor of the Eagle Foimdry, declared : That the revision was an abomination, and that it was not a reduction but an increase in the wrong direction. He considered tlie raising of the tariff on boiler tubes of wrouglit-iron or steel an iniqui- tous proceeding. These tubes are the most impor- tant part in tne construction of a boiler, and are not made in this country at all. The result will be to throw the entire trade into the hands of American manufacturers, wlio already have suffi- cient opportuniUr to compete. Mr. John A. Pillow, of the Pillow-Hersey Company, manufacturers of bolts, nuts, bar iron, drawn wire, &c., says : " The change in the iron duties will have a bad effect, because Canadian manufacturers will be compelled to'compete with the extraordinarily low prices pre- vailing in th3 United States at present. Cut nails and railway spikes would be the principal articles affected. Prices will have to be reduced, but to what extent he was not prepared to say, because he had liot sufficient time to study the changes in detail. The change of duty will probably result in the manufacturers being compelled to use puddled bars instead of scrap iron." They say that prices will have to be re- duced. Then, Sir, it Is because the tariff has been reduced, and it Is to the extent the tariff has been reduced, says this gen- tleman, will prices have to be reduced. Mr. McBride, the manager of the Massey-Harrls agricultural Implement makers, said : We expected a reduction both of the duties on implements- and the materials entering into their manufacture, especially pig iron and steel. Pig iron is still left at 'the old rate of $4 per ton. This means that there cannot be any reduction in cost so far as grayiron and malleable iron castings enter into manufacture. As for bar iron, we notice there has been a reduction of $3 per ton, but compa- ratively little bar iron is used in tlie manufacture of our goods. The reduction on steel is confined to sheets thinner than ] 7-wire gauge. This will not make any difference in the manufacture of imple- ments, as such material is not used. The new tariff, as outlined, will ass'st in finding a market for American manufacturers, but so far as can be seen at present, it will not assist Canadian manu- facturers to reduce the cost of manufacturing to any appreciable extent. Will the reduction actually lessen the cost of farming implements in Manitoba and the Terri- tories ? That remains to be seen. Unless there are re- ductions in raw materials other than those outlined, I do not see any possibility of reduction in prices, as our priced are now fully 35 per cent lower than Americans charge for their implements in this country. It has been the policy of the Massey- Harris Company to reduce their prices year after year in proportion to their savings in the purchase of large quantities of raw materials, &c. Wo were in hopes that when the tariff was tampered with such reductions would be made on raw material as to enable us to reduce our price, and thereby give the general tanning community the benefit. Now, Sir, we have the cotton manufacturers, and Mr. A. F. Gault, the president of the Dominion Cotton Mills, says : He was disappointed at the action of the Govern- ment in regard to gray and white cottons. The new duties were down to within 5 per cent of the Cartwriglit tariff. On the wliole, he thought that Mr. Foster had taken great pains and made a fair tariff, which would satisfy the country. Cotton manufacturers would do their best and try to pull through without shutting down their miils. " Low- priced woollens are largely imported from England," said Mr. Gault, "and our woollen mills will have to close up or go into tiie manufacture of finer grades. Ihe change in the duty on undyed mat- erial will benefit a Toronto firm wliich has gone in- to that business." The cotton manufacturers will do their best, said Mr. Gault. Poor fellows I That would rather seem to say that the cotton manufacturers will have to reduce prices on account of the tariff, and if I prove that they have to reduce prices on account of the tariff I think I establish pretty fairly that their prices are up as far as the tariff will permit. Then, with reference to the sugar industry, the refiners say : Sugar refiners say that they have got decidedly the worst of the tariff changes, although they never took from the consumer the full amount of the duty. The average net pi'ice of extra granulated for 1892 in the United States was $4.48 per 100 lbs., and in Canada was $4.29 ; for 189.3, it was in the United States $4.98, and in Canada $4.93. The result of decreasing the duty from 80 cents to 64 cents will be the importation of (Jernian and other European bounty-fed sugars to compete with Canadian refined. Raising the colour standard from 14 to 16 will lead to the introduction of an- other class of cheap raw sugars, wliicli will also displace some of the Canadian product. The com- petition between Canadian refiners is keen enough already, and these tariff changes will intensify it for the benefit of the consumer. On the other h '*d the heavy duty on the machinery required for refining, all of which has to be imported, remains unchanged. The refiners are, therefore, hit all round. They say t!iat the changes must lead to further economy, cutting down of expenses and possibly reducing of wages. Neither the St, Lawrence nor the Canada Sugar Refining Com- panies has made any change in quotations. Mr. MaoMaster, speaking of wages, said : Tliere might be a reduction owing to the tariff changes. Mr. G. J. Crowdy, of the firm of James Hut- ton & Co,, hardware agents, said : Tlie duties on the high grades of steel appear to have been left unclianged. The principal charge t t 1 g o t P S t i 34 40 Oj Pi Fl ce si) oil va th wl ta qu ar he st ho jom- lariff tut- |ir to iige * t II is on the low grades. The change from specific t° ad valorem duties will benefit the importer and con%e(juently the consumer. It will enable tlic Knglish steel to compete again. I need not trouble the House any further with reference to sugar. Nor need I refer to wall-paper, for I dare say that hon. gentle- men know that the wall-paper people are hy no means pleased with the change from specific to ad valorem. Now, Sir, if these statements are true at all— and I do not think we have any right to assume that these gentlemen have not made a fair re- presentation of their business— is it open to argument that they have not been charg- the full extent of the tariff permits. PRICES IN KNGLAND AND CANADA. I have some evidence here, which I will ven- ture to give to the House, which goes to es- taiblish that very clearly. I asked two of the leading wholesale merchants in Toronto to ^ve me a statement as to the relative cost of goods made in Canada and purchased at the factory, and the cost of similar goods piu-chased or purchasable in England or Scotland, and I will give the House the figures, with the difFerence in cost : Articles. 34 to 3G-inch dyed silesia. 40-inch printed do Oxford shirtings Prints ■ do another kijid Flannellettes. Averages , . gA (st-s ! ^1 fl 8 ' <« a •SS rice and and di ■* PL, j $ cts. » cts. ' 006 04A 08;^ 00 07: 05 06i 05 08; 0<5 08 0(5 45i 32i O r. p.c. 33 45 45 35 37 33 41 Mr. BOYLE. The old tariff was 321^ per cent. Mr. McCarthy. I am not speaking of silesias only, but of cotton goods generally, on which the old tariff was specific and ad valorem. Mr. BOYLE. No, Sir. Mr. McCarthy. Well, I am only giving the figures which I got from merchants in whom I have the fullest confidence. I ob- tained them from two sources. Mr. WALLACE. The hon. gentleman is quoting the 32^^ per cent class. Mr. McCAHTHY. I am quoting these articles. I do not carry the tariff in my head. All I can say Is, that these are the statements which have been ^ven to me. Mr. BOYLE, hon. gentleman. Somebody has misled the Mr. MoOABTHT. The hon. gentleman may say so. All 1 can say is that I have had these statements from gentlemen in the city of Toronto in whom 1 place the highest trust, and who, I am satisfled.would not deliberate- ly decr>lve me. I have a similar statement from similar sources with reference to wool- len goods, which Is as follows :~ Articles. Tweeds, j-yard wide do another kind do do do do Serge, 27-inch do 54 do Ladies' box-cloth, 54-inch . . . . Tweed ulstering, 54 do . . . Wove overcoat lining, 54-inch. Average -I 9 cts. 25 50 60 65 18 1 40 80 65 70 $ cts. 19 32 42 64 09 1 05 64 60 56 p. c. 31 53 42 20 100 33 25 8 25 IT PRICES IN UNITED STATES AND CANADA. Here are some articles, of which I give the prices at the Canadian mills and the prices at the American mills, with the difference : Articles. Wool carpet , Union do Another kind Table oilcloth Low grade blankets . "^ s ^i ■^ u ^ es 0-s, s-e o « O <" $ cts. $ cts. 05 47A 26 184 91 66 2 10 1 75 25 16 (5 p.c. 2' 66 These are figures with reference to the actual cost of these goods under the late tariff. But, Sir, It always seemed to me an extffaordinary thing that gentlemen should pretend that it was necessary to keep up a 35 or 40 per cent tariff and at the same time claim that the cost of goods was less here than in the foreign market The tarilC is imposed, not for revenue p-j-poses— that is frankly admitted; it is a tariff for protec- tive piu-poses, which Incidentally gives us a revenue. Well, 31?, the height of that tariff can only be justified or maintained or de- fended on the ground that it is essential, In order to keep the home market for the Canadian manufacturer. So, Sir, I will as- sume that the price tmder the old tariff has been in the neighbourhood of what I have mentioned, and tiiat the price under the new tariff will be Just as high as the tariff per- 10 mlts. What is the reeoUt of It all? We have had the returns from the census trotted cat again. They formed a table in the Finance Minister's Budget speech of last year, and they are repeated this year. Wo have tt) talte these returns and '^ake the oest of them, and I propose to _al with them and just see what i-bev amount to. CENSUS OF 1891. In the first place, we were told that the increased number of employees in the de- cade was 112,000. We were told that the total number of those engaged in manu- factiu'ing industries was 367,000. When the further census returns came down, we were astonisheti to find that lastead of 367,000 people being occupied in manufacturing pur- suits, there were but 320,000, and the differ- ence is explained in the preface to the last volume of the census wliich has been issued, in this way. Many of those who are employed by the majaufacturers are merely temporarily eui- ployed, and although they are returned as having been more or iess engaged in these pursuits, they cannot be classed as belong- li^ to any parti aula r grade of opeiutives. But leaving that for the moment— and it is not an unreasonable explanation— let us see what this really amounts to. Is there an hon. gentleman in this Hou.ie, on either side, who accepts that number of 112,000 as the legitimate Increase in ten years ? Is there any one of us who has had occasion to ex- amine the census returns, who is not per- fectly satisfied that whatever the cause may be— and the cause is not very far to i^^V.— these returns for 1891, as compared with 1881, are enormously swollen. We know why that is the case. We knt/w Uiat the oiSolals were paid for making the returns with reference to manufacturing establish- ments in 1891. and thus encouraged to make them, whereas the same officials got nothing for these returns in 1881. And I hajypen to know— and I daa'esay It is in all our experi- ence—that many places and Industi-ips have been returned as manufaicturing establlsh- m-eojits, comMg under the head of manu- facturing industries, wliich have no pre- tension to the same, and which, if lit were only known, would cover the return with well deserved ridicule. Wherever I have gone I had only to read that return to in- voke from the people I have addressed— ."ind I have addressed a number of meetings dur- ing Parliamentary recess— ^:he most derisive laughter. There was not any place that I went to, and where I just road fmm an official return of the number of manufactur- ing establishments Mr. MONTAGUE. Has the hon. gentle- man compared It with the schedules used in other coimtries In taking the census ? Mr. McCarthy. I have. Mr. MONTAGUE. Was the oomparisoo favourable to Canada ? Mr. McCarthy. I do not know exactly what the hon. gentleman means by the com- parison. Mr. MONTAGUE. The hon. gentleman objects to the number of industries metttion- ed in the census, and the number of those who are called employees of those industiles. What I asked is whether, in the taking of the census in other countries, those same industries are not included; and whether even other industries are not Included, which are not comprised in the Canadian census ? Mr. McCarthy. I tmnk the hon. gentle- man must have misunderstood me, Mr. MONTAGUE. Not at ail. Mr. McCarthy, if the hon. genUeman will allow me, I was speaking of the census of 1881 as compared with that of 1891. I was asking, as a fact, whether there had been an Increase and whether we could rely upon the figures of the census. The ob- ject of a census is to enable us to see how we are getting on, and if the census had been taken In 1881 in the same accurate way, and If the same inducements had been held out to the officials taking that census as were held out to those who took the census of 1891, there would be no reason, so far as I know, from discrediting— however valueless for other purposes— the comparison I have instbtuted. JTr. MONTAGUE. Is there any difference between the sohedides of 1881 and 1891 ? Mr. McCarthy. There is no difference In the scheme. Surely the hon. gentleman must undarstand what I say. EMPLOYEES GREATLY EXAOGERATED. He must know perfectly well that those figures do not acciu-ately reiM*esent but vastly exaggerate the numbers in connection with manufacturing interests la the different com- munities. Why, In my own town of Barrte, there are put down 62 industrial establish- ments with 196 employees, and I declare you could not find 10, in the ordinary ac- ceptance of the term. Milliners and dress- makers are included. Mr. MONTAGUE. Include these ? Mr. MjCARTHY. Would the hon. gentle- man not mind interrupting ? He is there, no doubt, to speak. He will have the op- portunity to reply. He if the spokesman of the party, and has a good oppoi-tunity allowed him. I say that, oompered with 1881, the census returns of 1891 are practi- cally valueless. ThOit is all I say, and it Is not unnatural. You pay a man for mak- ing a return and he will be careful to omit nothing. But if he is not paid, it is quite possible he will not take the trouble of Why should you not I i < a I I I ( I { I 11 V <1 i maMng the t airy. And soue curious re- sults we have in tlie census. For Instance, in Stratford there is an increase of 61 es- tablishments and 1,515 employees, and the whole Increase in the population Is 1,262, So that although 1,500 people are engaged in the manufaoturtng industries there more than were engaged in 1881, the population has actually decreased by nearly 300. In St. Mary's, a place where I had the honour of addressing a meeting, 1 found there was an increase of 9 establishments, according to the official document, and an increase of 17 employees, but the increa&u in the popu- lation was one. So that these 17 men bad apparently driven 16 away, and one alone had taken the place of the others who had gone. In Port Hope the increase of em- ployees was 56, and the decrease in the po- pulation 543. In Ingersdl the Increase in the official document of employees was one, and the decrease tn population 127. In Strathroy there is an increase of 26 in the census, and a decrease of 511 in the popul- ation. But take London, where there has been a considerable increase of population, and take E^ngston, where there has also been an increase of population. The offi- cial document shows an increase of 1,199 in the" number of employees in Kingston, and 1,128 in London, and an increase of 214 manufacturing establishments in Kingston and 433 in London. RECEIVED WITH LATTGHTEK. There is no use in my wrangling with the hon. gentlemen. The people of Kingston know if that increase exists. I had the honour of addressing a meeting there, and when I mentioned these figures it was merely to bring a laugh and to show that the people placed no value in them. Let us see now what is the result of it all. I take the occupations of the people, and these are more likely to be accurate than are the retmns of the manufacturing industries. No doubt each man has return- ed his own ocCT\patlon. The manufactur- ers have returned— I do not know with that care-^the number of people employed by them. I see it is not stated in our census, as In the American table, "the average number of employees," but It is stated " the number of employees." Whether that is by design or acddent I am not prepared to say. But taking the number, what do we find ? We find in the agricultural, mining and fishing classes there are 790,210, or 47*6 per cent of the total number of people who have occupations in this counti*y. We find those engaged in trade and ti-anspoi'tation number 186,695, or 11 -2 per cent ; those en- gaged In domestic and personal service, 246,183, or 14-9 per cent ; those engaged lu professional avocations, 63,280, or 3*8 per cent, and those wlio are classed amongst the nou-producers, 52,986, or 3*2 per cent. We titus account for 81*7 per cent of the peo- ple of this country, none of whom are to be attributed to the manufacturing industries. There remain, however, a balance of the manufacturing industries of somewhere near 19 per cent. But, Sir, from that number wo have to take a very considerable proportion. I do not think 'that any hon. gentleman will claim that carpenters and Joiners— though they may be manufacturers ; I am not find- ing fault with the classification- are to be coimted among those whose employment in Canada is dependent upon the National Pol- icy. In considering this question of the fiscal policy these classes must be excluded, as also must the saw and planing-mill men, the ship and boat builders, the coopers, the boot makers, the marble and stone cutters, • the masons, the painters and glaziers, the plasterers, the blacksmiths, the dressmakers and people of that kind. We do not have any more blacksmiths by reason of the Na- tional Policy. If we had a revenue tariff no man would think of crossing the border to get his horse shod by an American black- smith. No man thinks of going across the line to employ people in any of the Industries that I have named. PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES. We had these people with us before the National Policy came in, and we will have them long after it becomes a thing of the past. Well, deducting these— and I do deduct them— from the 19 per cent, from the 320,000 which are put down to manufacture and mechanical industries, we / have a balance of 144,000, which is somewhere about 8 or 9 per cent. I think that is too much, but 8 or & per cent is certainly tbe outside number that can be put down pro- perly or fairly as tlvose edgaged in manufao- turing industries that are dependent in any ^ape or form upon the National Policy. This is not 8 per cent of the total popula- tion, but 8 per cent of those who have oc- cupations. Now, Sir, let us see whether these figures are borne out, because I have endeavoured to test them in other ways. I have taken the number of employees in the following industrlies— cotton mills, woollen mills, agricultural implements, rolling mills, foundries, sugar refineries, cabinet and fui> niture shops, and boot and shoe manvfac- tories. The numbei" engaged In these indus- tries In 1881 was 48,077, and the number In 1891 was 60,037, an increase of 24 per cent. The output of these industries In 1881 was $59,162,000, and in 1891 the amount was $86,000,000. These are the principal indus- tries that e must put down to the credit of the so-c^illed National Policy. So we hare an mcrease of 24 per cent in these durhig the decade. And now let me compare that with the table which the Finance Minister has given us where the total increase of the number employed Is 44 per cent, being from 269,000 to 367,000, or 112,000. I have here a table taken partly from answers 12 given in the House last session and partly supplied by Mr. Johnson, the Dominion statistician, ithe tables being ready, but not yet published : Articles. Cotton Woollen Agricultural implements Rolling mills Foundries and machine shojjs. Sugar Cabinet and furniture ...... Boots and shoes Total Employees. 1881. 1891. 3,527 8,033 6,877 7,470 3,656 3,887 699 831 7,789 12,604 723 1,927 5,857 7,180 18,949 18,0.50 48,077 60,037 Increase. Product. 1881. 4,506 = 127% 593 = 8-5% 231 = 63% 132 =18-8% 4,815= 6l| 1,204 = 166% 1,323 =22 5% 3,759,412 8,113,055 4,405,397 1,026,900 8,86.S,957 9,627,000 5,471,742 17,895,903 1891. $ 8,451,724 ■ 8,441,071 7,494,624 1,750,000 16,031,515 17,127,100 7,706,093 19,020,381 59,162,366 i 86,021,508 Increase of hands, 24 '8% ; increase of product, 45 '3%. Now, If that is not a fair citaition from these returns I do not know what can be, and the result Is that, while the increase in number of people employed in the occupations of the country generally was 44 per cent, the in- crease In these occupations affected by the National Policy was only 24 per cent. Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman one question. I know he , does not want to misrepresent the case. Did I understand him to say that he had taken from the list of the occupations affected by the National Policy that of the blacksmiths ? Mr. McOABTHY. I hme deducted the blacksmiths from the 320,000 who, according to the census are engaged in manufacturing and mechanical employments. No doubt blacksmiths are included in some of these industries affected by the National Policy. But it Is impossible to be very precise or accurate in such general statements as these. Mr. TAYLOR. I just want to say that I know of two industries in the town of Gana- noque, each employing forty men, who are blacksmiths, and who were engaged there since the National Policy came into foroe— that Is in the industry of carriage building. They are all put down as blacksmiths. Mr. McCAHTHY. No doubt there are such coses. In sue keep this 10 per cent of people employed here in Canada- for surely that is tlie prac- tical way of looking at It. The Finance Minister admits that there Is a tendency to a protective policy to increase the price of protected articles. He states that later there is a tendency to reduetton, but this, so far, I think, haa not been realized here. The hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean), who gave the House an essay on protection, also tells us very candidly that there are disadvantages, that there are dis- agreeable Incidents to this protective sys- tem. His argumei-t Is that the advantages 13 y •> oyod prac- lance y In e of later S, 80 hero. (Mr. y ou that dls- sys- ages \ outweigh the disadvantages. I want to look at It fi'om the same practical point of view. If we can afford to subsidize these manufacturers and their employees, and if the result of that is beneficial to us all, why let us continue the policy; but if, on the contrary, the advantages far outweigh the advantages, if it can be demonstrated to almost a mathematical certainty that the consuming masses of this coimtry suffer more disadvantages than advantages, then let us change the policy. I have enumerated some of those consuming masses. An hon. gen- tleman who preceded me this evening thought the consumer was a man who did nothing but consume. But, Sir, the con- suming people of this country, in the sense in which the term is used, are those who are just as actively engaged in their respective walks of life, and are boimd to work as hard, as the manufacturing classes, and what they are beginning to realize is that they have got to pay for the support of the latter and they cannot much longer afford to do it. Now, what is the result of all this policy? We are told that the out- put of these manufacturing industries is something incredible, that four hundred and seventy-five millions per annum is the actual output according to the census returns. Well, if that is the figure of all those engaged in mechanical and industrial pursuits, and if the deduction which I have mentioned is pro- per to be made, we must correspondingly rediice the output. As I have already in- dicated, for the purpose of testing my figures, I take the increase in the output of those leading industries, and the Increase of this output duilnfr that period is 45 per cent. Among those industries are cottons, wool- lens, agricultural implements, rolling mills, foundries, sugar, cabinet fumitm'e, boots and shoes. Now, the total increase In the output according to the census returns is no less than 53 per cent It is quite evident, there- fore, that the whole of that figure cannot be attributable to the National Policy, and if it cannot be attributable to the National iPolicy, to what else is it fair to attribute it? Now, last session I took a gi-eat deal of trouble to analyze the table of 1881 which we have. I divided the industries which are shown in that table into those which are dependent upon the policy of protection more or loss, because we have had these industries long before thei*e was any thought of protec- tion In this counti-y In the sense la whlcli we imderstand the term now. But, putting it down in that way, I arrive at the con- clusion that the product of those who are dependent in the sense I have spoken of, amounts to one himdred and sixty-five mil- lion dollai's out of the total of that period. OUTPUT OF MANUFACTURES. Adding to that one hundred and sixty-five millions the 45 per cent which the figm'es I have mentioned with regard to "ese lead- ing industries show, and we have a total output of two hundred and forty-one mil- lions. Now, the practical question which I desire to Impress upon the House is this: If there are two hundred and forty-one mil- lion dollars worth of goods manufactured in Canada, and if these manufactures are dependent upon the National Policy, how much of that two hundred and forty-one millions are the people of this country pay- ing more than they would tmder a system of free trade? That is the disadvantage which all admit is attributable to the National Policy. The advantages are, the increase of population, the diversification of indus- tries, and the home market for the farmer. I have stated about the figure to which I attribute any Increase of population, and I now come to the disadvantages. Well, ac- cording to these figm-es with which I have already troubled the House, and if the tariff itself does not woefully mislead us, it is not too much to say that the increase tn the prices of these goods has been, is, and will continue to be, under the changed tariff, la the neighbourhood of 35 per cent. Now, it is only fair to say that it does not apply- to all of them. For Instance, I have madfe a calculation that that Increase does not apply to sugar, because the sugar is en- hanced in price to the people of this coun- try to the extent of alx>ut 10 per cent as com- pared with the English sugar. But, speak- ing of the bulk of the manufactured goods In Canada, and I speak after giving the subject the very best consideration in my power, and after making every inquiry, the enhanced cost to the people of this country is not short of 35 per cent, and sometimes it has been u»uch more. I gave illustrations in woollen goods, and I gave illustrations in cotton goods ; and I judge the bulk from these Illustrations. TAXES PAID TO MANUFACTURERS. So that, according to the statement _. made last session, a statement whlch'I understand the hon. gentleman for Sbuth Oxford substantially corroborates thia ses- slon-and the 8tatem|ent was made, I think, by the hon. member for Prince Ed- ward Island (Mr. Davies)--it is not too much to put down that for twenty million dollars we pay into the Ti-easury, the people of this country are paying fifty or sixty million dol- lars more into the pockets of the manufac- turers. Now, I do not want to.be mis- understood as saying that the manufacturers are pocketing these enormous profits; I do not want to be imderstood that these fifty million dollars are being transferred from the pockets of the consumers to the pockets of the manufactiu-ers as pure profit 1 accept the statement made by the hon. gentleman who preceded me this evening, that our manufacturers cannot manufacture at the same cost they can in other coun- tries. My hon. friend from East Hastings '•tr. u ': % (Mr. Northrup) pictiu'ed to us to-night, evidently from flgiires furnished to him by authority, the position of the woollen manufacturer. First, there was the in- creased cost of the capital ; secondly, there was 'Caq increased cost added to the ma- ohinery of no less than 90 per cent, $100,- 000 to $160,000 ; then there was the in- creased cost of the raw material, and of having to store it ; these were the various and enormous disadvantages under which he told us the manufacturers of this coimtry labour. All the same, what boots it to the consumer why it is, if in fact and in truth the people of this country are being bled to the extent of more than two and a half dollars for every one dollar which they pay into the treasury? Now, that these are important matters no one will doubt 1 have no desire here to inju.^ any manu- , facturer. On the contrary, my anxiety and hope will be that with the start they have had, with the fifteen years during which they have enjoyed protection, they will be able to prosper when this tariff is changed, as I am confident it is going to be changed, and that before very long. But we have, and we may as well realize it, an enor- mous force to contend with here. I was astonished on reading a work the other day to find it stated by a competent authority that protection would never have been changed in England If it had not been for the Irish famine. If it had not been that the people were starving, and, therefore, could be aroused on the question of the increased cost of the means of subsistence, such was the strength of the manufactm'ing industries, and of those forces gathered around them, that the policy would not have been changed. And we have the same battle to fight here. A FORMIDABLE FIGHT AHEAD. It is a contest which is perhaps not so \ formidable as on the other side of the line, f?ut still there is this formidable element that the consuming people have to fight. Wha't has happened since this change was proposed, only a fortnight ago ? The railway trains have been borne down with deputations of manufacturers coming here to protest against these decreases proposed, light as they are, and I do not know what Is yet in store in committee ; while the 48 per cent of the population, comprising farmers, min- ers, and fishermen, have no organization, no means of appearing here before the Cabinet Ministers to plead their cause. It is true they were interviewed in the summer ; but what was the motive of those interviews ? They were asked whether they wanted pro- tection on corn, ham, pork, oats, and wheat They were not asked the question, whether they desired to pay protective prices on the partlcilar goods they consumed. They were told that they were not expected to make fret trade speeches or go Into the general question, but they were asked whether they wanted protection on their own particular industry. Naturally, each man said, I want protection. Some of them tried to say, but they were choked off, that they would rather have no protection, but free trade markets all round, but they were told that was not the subject of Investigation and discussion by and between them and the Controllers, that the question was : Do you want protection against American corn, pork and wheat ? So the bulk of the people, 50 per cent If you add the domestic classes and the professional classes, have no organi- zation which can appeal to the Ministers to change the tariff, while the voices of the manufacturers are heard in the land. FARMERS AT LAST AROUSED. I am glad to obsierve that at last the fai-mers, at all events, have been aroused, that at last they have taken to themselves, through- out the province from which I come, the duty of organizing in their own Interests, and I mistake if most of the farmers in this country are not to-day studying political economy, and with the results which will be evident at the coming elections. No other possible way was open. The Finance Min- ister was astonished. He said that for years the charge had been wrung through the country that the tariff was legalized robbery. But the hon. gentleman pointed to the result of the elections in 1881, In 1887, and in 1891, and said. How is it possible that the people would again return the Government if legal- ized robbery was being perpetrated. It was a fair argument and an argument which has to be met and which I am not afraid to answer. The answer is a plain one. Of all the people in Canada, of all the peo- ple I know, I think the Ontario farmer is probably the best party man. He is not very anxious to find out exactly his position or his rights, but he is anxious to see that his party is up and the other party down, and the man on the concession lines is as proud of his party allegiance as the Duke of Devonshire was to belong to the Whigs, or the Marquis of Salisbury is to belong to the Tories. ENDURANCE AT AN END. But endurance has ceased to be a vir- tue. They have realized at last that the interests of one class of the community were all paramount, and were commending and controlling the destinies of tu^ country, and the7 have not failed, as I firmly believe, to grasp the necessity of looking after their own Interests, and I hope In that I am not going to be mistaken. Let me read to the House the view of some farmers of the North-west who have sent me from the con- stituency of the hon. Minister of the Interior, the resolutions of a meeting held on April 6th. The letter is from Mr. D. S. Wilson, and is addressed to myself. It is as fol- lows :— 15 Brandon, Man., April 6th, 1894. Dear Sir, — A committee which was appointed to -attend to the matter by the farmers of Brandon County met yesterday and adopted the enclosed resolution, and I was instructed to forward it to you and request you to see that it was brought up in the House of Commons. A copy of the resolu- tion has been sent to the Hon. T. M. Daly. I have the honour to be, sir. Your obedient servant, (Signed) D. F. WILSON. Dalton McCarthy Esq., House of Commons, Ottawa. (Resolution.) Brandon, Man., April 6th, 1894. FARMERS MEETING. At a meeting of the Executive of the Farmers' Association of Brandon County, held in the City Hall, Brandon, on Thursday, April 6th, Mr. John Leech in the chair, the following resolution was adopted : — Moved by Samuel Honnor, seconded by W. Postlewaite, that we a committee of the Farmers' Association of the county of Brandon, who memorialized the Federal Government a year ago for alterations in the tariff to aid the development of agriculture in the Canadian North-west, express with great regret our feeling of dissatisfaction with the insufficiency of the reductions recently made. , We feel that /ith the increase of competition in our natural markets from countries that can pro- duce with greater facility than we can, agriculture must become an absolute failure in this country unless the restrictions tliat aiffect the cost of pro- duction and transport to our natural markets are greatly reduced. We therefore repeat for the earnest consideration of the representatives of the people in Parliament the spirit of our memorial of a year ago. Ist. That the abolition of the duty on lumber be complete and embrace all kinds of dressed material : a removal of duties on rough lumber alone which cannot be imported under any circumstances will be of no benefit whatever to the county. 2nd. With the duties reduced on raw materials and the Aniericain markets tlirown open we feel the Canadian maufacturers of agricultural imple- ments are in position to compete even handed at home, as they have always been abroad without further protection. Further trade restrictions in their interests is only continuing the unbearable burdens on the struggling settlers of the Nortli- west and the agriculturists of the whole of Canada which must speedily enil in complete disaster. 3rd. We regret that tlie duties on coal oil and binding twine rcmaui as before ; two articles of extensive consumption in the North-west, and we are fully convinced that the ))cnefit8 arising to the country through their production are in no way 'jommensurate to the loss entailed upon the many consumers. 4th. That as the representatives of the Govern- ment, the Hon. Messrs. Foster and Angers when in the North-west last year strongly recommended the fanners to go into mixed farming ; we do not think it consistent with their advice that there should be any duty on fence wire, which ia one of the essentials to mixed farming. We therefore protest against the insufiSciency of the modification already announced and repeat the spirit of our former memorial : that the dutiea on coal oil, binding twine, fence wire and dressed lumber be entirely abolished, and that those on farm implements be reduced to at least 10 per cent. This we feel to make agriculture even moderately profitable in this country must be done, and no- thing else can give satisfaction to the settlers of the Canadian North-west. We also feel that every- thing that can be done should be done by the Gov- ernment to reduce the extortionate railway rates to and from this country which are heavily descri- minating against the successful settlement and development of our great North-west. (Signed) D. F. WILTON, Sec'y. That, Sir, is the view of the farmers in a constituency represented here by a Minister of the Grown. Mr. DAIjY. Good Grits, too. Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman says " good Grits." I do not know whether they are good Grits or good Tories, but I suppose they have a right to express their sentiments and to protest against the changes that are proposed to be made. This subject is one which I cannot hope to cover in the time that I would be warranted in occupy- ing the attention of the House. I can omy say, that I have gone through separately, as well as in the aggregate, these various industries, and if I may be aUowed to tree- pass just for a few moments longer, let me give them in detail, and the- "ve will be able as well to realize as in the aggregate, the result of these piirticular industries. With regard to my old favourite the cotton indus- tries ; it forms a ready lllustrajtion, booause as we know the raw material is free. Of all the manufacturing industries in this country avey stand I think the best chance of manu- facturing at a low cost. TAXES ON COTTONS. What is the result of the cotton in- du.sti-ies of this country, and what is its value to us ? The output is said to be $8,451,724. If my figures are right that the enhanced cost of this output is at the rate of 35 per cent ; we have of that $8,451,- 724 to pay the sum of $2,197,447. Now, what Is the corresponding benefit, because if they cannot be Justified in detail they cannot be Justified at all. My constituents want to know what benefit they get from the cotton industries of this country. They want to know where are their large markets, and where their increased prices come in ? The Government says : I must try and tell them that they must not be narrow, they must re- member this great broad Dominion, they nmst remember that they are citizens of Canada and not merely of the North Hiding of Simcoe, and if they find that these hidus- ../" 16 tries are promoting results of a beneficial character elsewheire they ought to be satis- fled even if they cost them a little. They naturally ask : what does it cost them ? I find it costs them $2,197,447, and what is the bemeflt ? We are told : Oh, the wages that are paid. Let us see how much that is. The wages amount to $2,102,000, so that we are paying over $2,197,000 In order tluit the cotton manufacturers may pay their em- ployees $2,102,000 ; in other words we are paying tlie whole cost of the establishment. That is what it comes to, and we get nothing for it. On the same product of cotton goods, at a 17% per cent tariff there would be over $1,000,000 coming into the treasm-y, but nothing comes into the treasury now. Raw material is free, raw material is still to be made m(vre free if possible ; the duty is to be piled upon the manufactured article. The raw material goes to the benefit of the manu- Cacturers ; the increased duty enhances tlie price to the consumei's, but say hon. gentle- men : we have takes the tjix off sugar, we have taken the tax off bill stamps, we have taken the tax off tea. That Is the argument of the Government. Why, Sir. the figures I have already mentioned show that the taxes have ndrt been taken off. They have been shifted. We do not pay it on sugar, or on tea, or on bill stamps, but our tixes arc all the same, and they have been increasing. TAXATION GREATER THAN WAGES. We are paying the tax and we are payinsr an additional price as well, and I have shown that taldng the cotton industries for an ex- ample, we pay more in additional prices than the total amount paid out to the employees, according to the returns which the manu- facturers made. Let me give the House the woollen industries on the same l>asis. It is not disputed that the woollen Industries charge the full figure of 35 per cent. It is justified on the groimd stated by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) this afternoon : that they cannot possibly get on at less, and we have been told (hat the result of the change from specific to ad valorem (the tariff still being 35 per cent), that several of these woollen industries will have to close. The result <^f our protection to the AvooUen Industries is that the wapjs come to $1,941,000, and the additional cost to the people amounts to $2,194,000 ; and you take it thi lugh the whole of these differ- ent Industries ind you get no more satisfac- tion. Then, Si. , see the enormous possibility of doing Injustice. Talce even the manufac- turing Industries. On what gi-ound can the Minister of Finance justify leaving the agricultiu-al Implement manufacturer with only 20 per cent protection, with a large portion of his raw material subject to a duty of from 40 to 50 per cent, when the adjoining nmnufavjturer gets his raw mate- rial free and has a protection of 35 per cent. On what ground can you Justify giving the raw material free to one class of manufac- iarer, and putting the raw material of the farmer at a duty bearing from 20 to 35 per cent. It cannot be Justified. With every In- tention on the part of the Government to do what is fair and right, i'; is Impossible for them to do so, because the raw product to one man is the finished article of the other man. Its vei-y injustice calls upon this House for redress. NO MORALITY IN PROTECTION. There Is no morality, says the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), in the protective system. Morality is out of the question, he says, and I quite agree with him. It is an enlightened selfishness, that is the key note of such a policy. An enlightened seMshness ; well, I do not know whether those who are suffering from thla selfishness very much appreciate that kind of thing. Mr. MACLEAN (York). They voted for it. ^Ii-. McCarthy. Well, they will not do it mother time I am inclined to think. Mr. MACLEAN (York). Yes, they will. Mr. McCarthy. Perhaps so, we will see ; there Is no use prophesying but we will see. All I can say is, that as far as I can see, the man who can Justify the inequalities necessarily incident to this protective system cannot be actuated by any sense of morality, as the hon. member for East Yor^ (Mr. Mao- lean) tell us. That hon. gentleman sweeps away with a wave of his tongue all the political economy of the age. He utterly re- pudiates and laughs to scorn, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill, these ignorant, short-sighted, benighted men ; these men whose teachings are to be foimd in every college of the country, in every course, in every curriculum. NEW GOSPEL FROmTeASt'vorK. We are told by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), not in a breeze of enthusiasm, but in a cold-l)looRK. ember for I a breeze Id-blootled, prepared did not Ig about, (vhen the conditions lited that impotent, le honoiu* on. mem- own and 10 has a '. I never I'hich en- h, all the It is, tVe have pa not a mo ; but link this for East with it, 17 deserves the special attention of the House and of the country. That this hon. gentle- man should undertake, in this summary way, to dispose of all tliat we have been taught, all wo have been brought up to believe in, all we have ever recognized as correct polit- ical economy, is, to me, a marvel, to say the least of it. Mr. MACLEAN (York). You did the same, years ago. Mr. McCarthy, now, sir, in the former discussions on this subject, which took place years and years ago, there was one extract from this writer on political economy, the la/te Mr. J. Stuax-t Mil, who is not to be heard— this is the last time he is to be mentioned in this House— an extract which we were very fond of quoting. I will read it again, although, in doing so, I shall perhaps incur the censure of the hon. member for Bast York : The only case in M'hich, on mere principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensi- ble, is when they nre imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in liopes of natural- izing a foreign industry, in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the coimtry. The superior- ity of one country over another in a brancli of production often only arises from iiaving begun it sooner. Tliere may be no inlierent advantage on one part or disadvantage on tlie otlier, but only a pi'esent superiority of acquired skill and ex- perience. A country whicli has this skill and ex- perience yet to acijuire may in other respects be better adapted to the production tlian those which were earlier in tlie field : and besides, it is a remark of Mr. Rae, tliat notliing lias a greater ten 19 should be reduced ? So that when Professor Fawcett, wliose book I am reading from, makes this statement, we can all accept it : There 's no one more ready than I am to recog- nize the high authority of Mr. Mill as an economist, and I will at once admit that the arguments which headvancec ' \ favour of the imposition of protection in a young .oun+ry would be conclusive if there were a reasonable probability that the conditions under which he supposes that such a protective duty could be imposed would ever be realized. It will be observed in the passage above quoted that he is most careful to explain that protection can only be justified as a temporary expedient ; and every word which he says in support of protection rests on the supposition, that when an industry has been fairly established the protective duty will be at once voluntarily surrendered by those who are interested in the partieular' industry. It is, however, incontestably shown by what has hap- pened in the United States and other countries where protection has been long established, that it is absolutely impossible to impose a protective duty under the stipulations on which Mr. Mill so emphatically insists. Now, this was written in a ' series of lec- tures delivered at Cambridge in 1878, four- teen years ago ; and its truth is incontest- ably shown by what has happened in the United States and other covmtries highly pro- tected. PROTECTIONISTS INSATIABLE. Whatever [jrofessious may be made by those who first aslied for protection that it is only required for a limited period and tliat it is only needed to enable an industry to tide over tlie obstacles wliich rnay lieset its first estal)lisliment, it is invariably found tliat when an industry has once been called into existence, those who are interested in it, whether as employers or employed, instead of showing any willingness as time goes on to sur- render protection, cling to the securitj' and aid whicli they suppose it gives their trade witli increasing tenacity. Every word of that written fourteen years ago is verified by what has been seen on the ottier side and is being confirmed and cor- roborated by what we are seeing aroimd us to-day. Now, I have been taimted here by ithe hon.. member for East York (Mr. Mao- lean) that this country Is only fit for a pas- toral country, that I have placed the intelli- gence of Canadians at the lowest possible ebb, that I have denied their ability to com- pete as manufacturers, and that I have scorned the possibility of this becoming a manufactin'ing country. AGRICULTURE OUR GREAT INDUSTRY. Sir, I have not hesitated, after giving the matter the fullest consideration, to state pub- licly elsewhere, and I am certainly not going to fail to state here the conclu- sion to which I have arrived on that subject. Sir, I believe Canada is an agricultural country ; I believe, Sir, the great industry and the natural industi-y of this country Is agriculture ; and. If we looked at the ques- tion simply from a business point of view, and cast our eye over our great Dominion, with Its scattered population. Its enormous territory. Its abundant resovu*ces, I think It will be clear to us that what we ought to do is to promote the natural industry of the country, instead of fettering It and crippling it. I deny. Sir, that within a reasonable time we can reasonably hope to become a great manufactm-ing country. Hon. gentle- men sneer at that. But Is It not a fact ? What Is the possibility ? A market of five millions of people, or, as the hon. member for South Oxford very correctly described It the other evening, not a market of five millions, but, on account of the enormous distances that separate different portions of our people, a market of not more than three pnd a half millions, is all that we can hope fbr. Is there a man In this House who ex- pects that we shall be able to create manu- factures in this country that can go beyond our borders and hold their own with the established industi'ies of England, of the United States, and other lands ? Is there even a possibility that that can be accom- plished ? We will have manufacturing In- dustries ; we will have towns and villages dependent upon our agricultural country, and we will have those Industries which are the reasonable and proper growth of the surioundlngs to which I have referred. And, Sir, the attempt that we are makng to estab- lish manufacturing industries with the view of selling to our own people at an enhanced price. Is, to my mind, the maddest project that any country ever engaged In. I say that. Sir, with the full knowledge of responsibility in that I had something to do with estab- lishing the National Policy ; I say that, with the full knowledge of responsibility that I did, In good faith, adopt the principles of protection In the early part of my political career. But, Sir, when I consider the whole position, when I consider what the farmers have accomplished and are accomplishing without the aid of protection Ml'. MULOCK. In spite of it. Mr. McCarthy. And In spite of It, as the hon. gentleman says ; when I consider how the towns have grown to the extent that tihe country behind them can give them support, and that everything else is a mere fictitious growth which cannot long endure, and which must end In disaster— when I consider this, I hold that we ought to retrace our steps. GIVp THE FARMERS A CHANCE. We ought to give the farmers a chance, and not fetter them, hamper them, and destroy their resources as we have been doing in the vain hope of establishing sound industries by artlfldal means. I 220 givo hou. gentlemen who surround me every oi'edlt for oaudour in entertaining tlioir beliefs, and I trust they will give me credit for the same in the views I hold. I do not say wo can have no towns. Let me givo an example. What town Is growing better to-day tluin Winnipeg ? It has passetl the period of depression incident to Its boom, and It now grows just as the counti-y be- hind it grows ; and will anybody say that the progress of Winnipeg is in any way due to manufactxu'ing industries ? What ai"e our country towns throughout the whole Dominion dependent upon ? How far do they grow, and where do they stop ? They go on until they have attained sufHcient de- velopment for the country upon which they are dependent, and you cannot force them beyond tha*^. T do not mean to say that if you are successful In establishing In any par- ticular locality a number of industries, you do not promote the prosperity of that local- ity. Just as the railway works in St. Thomas have Increased the growth of St. Tliomas in ten years, just as the works es- tablished at Stratford by the Grand Trunk Railway have helped the growth of Strat- ford ; but these places grow to the point required by the country behind them, plus these special Industries, and then stop, and you cannot put them beyond that. But what "we have been doing is not with the hope— because we never had the hope, I suppose- that we should enable our cotton manufac- turers, for instance, to compete in tlie open market. True, there is a little export of cotton to China. Wo do not know at what price It Is exported. We do not know that It is sold nt the same price as to the home con- sumer. We do not know that when Americana export to our country, they sell to us cheaper than to the home consumer, and, perhaps our export of cotton gootls is made upon the same basis. The whole market of Can- ada consumes about $8,000,000 worth of cot- ton made at home, and about $3,000,000 or .$4,000,000 worth made outside. We import, if my memory serves me right, somewhere about half as much as we manufacture, and it is on that import that we pay the 28 per cent duty to which the hon. - Minister of Finance refers. The hon. Minister knows perfectly well that the kind that is imported is tho kind upon which the lowest duty is chai'ged, and that the kind upon which tiie high duty Is charged is practically prohibited by the duty, and is not imported at all. So, I do not mean to say that we cannot have manufacturing industries. If I read these words correctly, we are bound to have them as we had them in 1871 ; and as they grew from 1871 to 1881, possibly under exceptional conditions with regard to the United States, so we will have them without a protective tarlflP, and we woiild then have them with- out burdening the mass of consumers of this country in the way they have been bur- dened for the last fifteen years. '■■'' f