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