Protection or free trade? [microform] : review of the platform of both political parties

[No. 5.] PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE? 4 Review of the Platform of Both Political Parties. In order that the attitude of both Conservatives and Reformers, on the . trade question may be fully understood, recent utterances of the leaders of the Reform party, and also of Sir John Macdonald, are given below. All those who believe in the National Policy will do well to contrast both platforms. ee ee What Sir John Says. (Extract from his speech at Conservative Convention, Toronto, Dee. 17th, 1884.) ** i therefore say that the Nationa! Policy has not in one single particular been a failure. And I nail my colors to the mast on that point. I am a National Policy man. Those who do not agree with me on that subject, though they may support me on others, will fail me on the point which is more essential and more important to the future prosperity of Canada than any subject that can be sub- mitted to the Legislature of a nation.” What Sir Richard Says. (Extract from speech in House of Commons February 24th, 1882. Wide Hansard.) “ But as far as this Tariff is concerned the fact of the matter is simply this, that with respect to most of the manufac- turers, the Tariff has either directly injured them, or it has left them exactly where they were. What interest have these manufacturers in seeing that wages are raised, and under this tariff wages must be ratsed all over or else the condition of the workingmen must be sensibly deteriorated.” (Batract from speech in House of Commons, daring Session of 1886.) ‘¢Nomore stupid act of folly was ever committed than in insisting on imitating the protective policy of the United States. There never was a country less suited for that experiment than this Dominion of Canada. Now, sir, I say that there have been two very potent causes of mis- chief in bringing about the present state of affairs here, One of these I believe to have been the protective system, and not so much in its direct as in its indirect results. They tend to create a permanent and most corrupt lobby and to foster a great many sinister influences; they tend directly to make manufacturers careless of their own business, and much more disposed to rely on the political influence which they can bring to bear on the Ministers of the day than in the exercise of their own brains and their own energy in advancing their manufactures.” What Hon. Mr. Mackenzie Says. (Bautracts from Speech in House of Commons, March 7th, 1882. Wide Hansard.) “ With respect to our policy, as contrasted with policy of hon. gentleman opposite, let me say this: During the elections of 1878—I am sure there was no lack of abundant declarations of policy on our part to indicate precisely what is the line we intended to. follow--we declined to accept anything looking in the direction of Protection. We said we had a revenue of 17} per cent., which afforded a very large protection to manufacturers. And I knew then, and I know now, that that did afford a sufficient pro- tection to nearly every legitimate interest. . . . We haveafirm belief that the Tariff that is in existence now, or any protective Tariff, must necessarily be ultimately a serious mischief to the country.” What Hon. David Mills Says. (Extract from spécch in House’ of Commons, March 12th, 1885. Vide Hansard.) “ Well, the hon. gentleman (Hon. A. W. McLelan) says that he is in favor of a reciprocity treaty, but he wants reciprocity upon fair (5] A Uhr F — ee o—rm Po a ee eee a a Le ee 8 terms, he wishes to have something to offer the people of the United States when the time comes for the negotiation of a reciprocity treaty. Well, the hon, gentleman has his opinions as to the best means of securing reciprocity, but I can tell him that when the Government adopted a high protective tariff, when they abandoned the policy of a revenue tariff, they did that which was the very worst thing that could be done in the interests of the people of this country.” What Mr. Charlton Says. (Extract from speech in House of Commons, March 10th, 1885. Vide Hansard.) “TI wish to ask this question: Did our manufacturing inter- ests, when the National Policy was introduced, require additional protection? I answer that they did not. They had attained a great development under a revenue tariff of 15 per cent., raised to 174 per cent. in the last two years (ve. of Mr. Mac- kenzie’s administration.) . What Mr. Paterson (Brant) Says. (Zatract from speech in House of Commons, March 16th, 1882. Vide Hansard.) “I stand here to-night and attack their Tariff and denounce their Tariff and fight against them and their Tariff, because, whiie it has. given exceptional advantages to a certain few industries, it has, in addition to injuring other industries, actually placed some manufacturers in a worse position than they were before.” What Mr. Davies Says. (Extract from speech in House of Commons, March 18th, 1885. Vide Hansard.) “And I think, sir, the wretched nostrum (i.e. the National Policy) offered to the people a few years ago has | n shown to be the invention of a quack: that we will soon have the people com- i> to their senses, and reverting to that policy of a revenue tariff, under which, alone I say, this country can become great, progeaneny and happy.” - 4 bs Necessity for Continuing Protection. The immense strides made towards the development of our manu- facturing industries since 1879, shows, not that our National Policy has performed its work and may be sately dispensed with, but on the contrary, that it is still needed to perform a most important service. As an American writer aptly says :—-** Whey (the duties) are like the levee, which must be high enough to resist the highest tides and the occasional inundetions.” They defend against the surpluses which foreign nations in times of stress would pour upon our shores to relieve their markets. They also keep out the products of foreign pauper labor and enable our own artizans to obtain employment, which under a revenue tariff would be lin possible. A vote for the National Policy means to demand that the products of foreign pauper labor shall be kept out of Canada; a vote against the National Policy means that these products shall come into unrestricted competition with Canadian labor. Published by the Industrial League, for gratuitous distribution.—FREpERIC NICHOLLS, Secreiary, Toronto, Canada, [3]