IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 5^ / // / Bi 12.2 2.0 m U IIIIII.6 V] Vl -> :>> ^ '■'is '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 •N? .•\ V \\ '<6 S^ «^ 6^ <^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Inttituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy available for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically unique, which may altar any of tha images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n n n n n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^a Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ La titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartas g6ographiquas en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ RaliA avac d'autras documonts Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liura sarrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion la long de Ui 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 ajouties lors d'une restaurntion apparaissent dans la texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 fiimAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmantaires; L'Institut a microfilm6 la mailleur exemplaira qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibllographique, qui peuvent modifier una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la m6thode normala de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dassous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^as n Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^as et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes ^ n/ D This item is filn^ad at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes 71 Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ inigala de I'imprassion Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material suppiimantaira Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y ■ ' ": J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy film«d h«r« has b««n raproduoad thanka to tha o*naroaity of : Legislature du Quebec Quebec L'axamplaira fllmA fut raproduit grica k la giniroait* da: Legislature du Quebec Quebec Tha imagaa appaaring hara »n tha boat quality poaaibla conaidaring tha condition and iagibiiity of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Original eopiaa In printad papar covara ara filmad baginning with tha front eovar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- •ion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha firat paga wKh a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Laa imagaa auh/antaa ont 4t4 raproduitaa avac la plua grand ioin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattatA da l'axamplaira filmi, at an conf ormM avac laa condltlona du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura 9n patk signifia "A SUIVRE", la aymboia ▼ signifia "FIN". Mapa, plataa, charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraiy inciudad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar iaft hand comar, laft to right and ^op to bottom, aa many framaa aa raquirad. Tha foilowinci ciiagrama illuatrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa, planchaa. tablaaux, ate. pauvant Atra filmto A daa taux da reduction diff Grants. Loraqua la documant aat trop grand pour Atra raproduit an un aaul ciichA, 11 aat filmA A partir da I'angia supAriaur gaucha, da gaucha i droita, at da haut it baa, an pranant la nombra d'i*nagaa nicaaaaira. Las diagrammaa suivanta iiiuatrant la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 A DEBATE IN THE SENATE ^ ■ON THE — PoBLic Expenditure OF THE DOMINION, 3s< ,-»V;h*' i ,,■ '.j'rA.iM i ,'. DEBATE IN THE SENATE — ON THE- N ^ PUBLIC EXPENDITUEE OF THE DOMINION. ,'^>^--X Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON, pursuant to notice, rose to call attention to the public expenditure of the Dominion, especially that portion of it which is largely within the control of the Administration, and enquire of the Government how it is proposed to restore the equilibrium be- tween income and expenditure. He said : It is with a great deal of reluctance that I bring the subject of the finances of the country before the H'ou5>e, because I am aware that it is not an attractire one to many hon. gentlemen ; but as I huit Session and the Session before felt called upon to refer to what I considered the extravagance and wasteful ex^..,aditure of the Oovemment, especially the more con- trollable portion of the expenditure, I feel it now my duty to submit to the House what I believe has been done by the Oovemment since last Session, whether in the way of retrenchment or otherwise. It was my opinion (and is still,) that very great . xtravagance prevailed thi-oughout the Administration ; that it had its centre at Ottawa, in the Departments hero, that the extravagance here has been most reckless and wasteful, s^^d that the ex- ample set here has been followed in the administration of the affairs of the country to its remotest bounds. I complained last Session that it was stated, in the Speech from the Throne, that there hald been such retrenchment effected as would aid in bringing about an equilibrium be- tween revenue and expenditure. I stated, at the time, I was afraid that that was not the case. I think I was able to show, and will be able to show to-day, that such was not the case, but that, on the contrary, the expenditiu'e was in- creased, and the revenue and expenditure are as far from meeting to-day as they were this day last year. I intend to-day o make my remai'ks as brief as I can. I do not propose to extend my comnarison of expenditures generally beyond those for the year 1877 with 1876, though I may occasionally extend them further. I established last Session that the present Government is responsible for the increase in controllable expenditures between 1873 and 1876, to the extent of $1,800,000. That, as I always admitted, is necessarily an estimate, — nothing more than an esti- mate can be made as to the expenditure for which each Government is responsible; but 1 believe that in forming that esti- mate I was liberal and generous to the present Govemroet, libei-al beyond what the strict facts demand, and in proof of that view there is the fact that the expenditure of 1876 over 1875 — two com- plete years of the present Admin* stratiou — was $717,060. One mUion eight hun- dred thousand dollara for three years would give an annual increase of $600,- 000. And, as I have stated, the ascer- tained increase in one year was $717,060. Hon. years 1 Mr. BROWN — Between what Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— The ex- penditure of 1876 over that of 1875. I think this is veiy strong circumstantial proof of the liberality of my estimate. It is quite true the amount charged in 1877 against the consolidated i-evenue fund is leis than the amount charged in the pre- ceding year, and it would he veiy remark- able if it were not so. I shall proceed al- most immediately to show wherein the difference arises. I fear it will not be found there has been what may fairly be considered retrenchment, and I fear it will not be found that there has been am earnest attempt to econemize the expendi- ture, although it has been deci-eased^ necessarily deoi-eased. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Hear, Lear. Uon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Idonot think the Government desei-ve much credit ior it, anu it certainly falls veiy far short of what the country had a right to ex{ieot from them.consideringtheir promisesin the •last. Indeed, so far from there being any real retrenchment, I believe there has been an actual increase in the controllable expenditure. I have a statement here, tuken from the Public Accounts, showing the increase or decrease of expenditure on every item charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for 1876 and 1877. I Nhall describe the financial years in this way : when I Fay 1877, I mean the financial year 1876-7, and when I say 1876, I mean 1875-6. As I have said, this statement will show the increase and decrease under every head of expenditure, except the items charged on account of the public debt, such as intereht, sinking fund and management of debt. There is !in increase in the expenditure of 1877 over that tf 1876, under the following heads : — Mai-ine Hospitals, Pensions, Su{)erannuations, Miscellanrous, Indian Giunts, Customh, Veights and Measures, Inspection of Staples and Adulteration of Food, Culling '^mber, Post Office, Public Works, Charges on Revenue. I may say, in pausing, that the amount for Charge* on Revenue against Public Works is very much more than is stated in the Public Accounts — more than twice as much, as I shall explain further on. There are de- creases in Civil OoTemment, Police, Peni- tentiaries, Geological Survey, Arts, Cen- sus, Immigration and Quarantine, Militia and Defence, Lighthouses, Ocean and River Service, Fisheries, Steamboat In- spection, as well as Relief Manitoba, and Excise. The decreases, according to the Public Accounts, amount to $1,810,840. A large it«m, $686,118, is under the head of Public Works. I dissected this account and found that the amounts which were expended out of revenue, upon each public work, during each of the two years, and first I will give a list of public buildings on which money was expended in 1876 and 1877. It is as follows : — List of Public Buildings and Works for which expenditwes were incurred in .. , ... .,, .,, 18*76 rtWrf 18tY. .rr.-y.:- ,..•....,,...■ : ^ ■ Name. 1876. 18''7. Nahr. 1876. 1877. Hamilton P. 1,762 31,694 149.662 72,704 65.659 3,303 3,879 2,000 10,695 2,003 15,357 71,783 74,043 27,243 2,081 14,086 1,010 162 6,996 3,574 Broughtfonmrd Fort Pelly Barracks Cub. House, &c., Manitoba Barracks, Battle River.. . . Public Buildings in N.W. British Columbia. Mar. Prov. Penitentiary.. St Vinc.de Paul " Manitoba " a Columbia " Penitentiaries 660,386 33,966 40,092 8,000 •*••*•• • 14,731 21,860 4,076 60,697 78,114 3,673 267,304 *" 8,067' '*76|476' Toronto Custom House.. . . *• Exam. Warehouse Ottawa P. Kingston Military School.. " Fortifications.... 41,939 33,196 18,136 33,729 Toronto Savings' Bank, &c St. Catharine's M. Hoswital Grosse Isle, Quar. Station. Lev-is Marine Hospital. . . . " Fortifications 20,294 6,907 39,791 47,218 6,000 "3.m "ii'.m 110,229 4r,146 *'7!364* 228 660 2,123 807 26''.304 Montreal P. " Ex. Warehcfuae. St. John's P. 0. In 1877 ONLY. Gaelph Custom House. . . . . - L' i* - " Cnstom House.. Pictou Custom House Halifax Quarantine Station Yarmouth " Sydney Marine Hospital. . .Sc'riB Marine Hospital. . . 13,111 6,927 Quebec Fortifications ..... Decrease in 1877. - . , ' . , ,...:;-,. , 550,385 . . .: !• 816,494 485.079 830,415 9-i. ..,,.-•.- ■-• -- - .''■ 815.494 4\l I hold that the decreased expendi- ture on public buildings, amounting to $330,416 is no evidence of retrench- ment. The buildings on which expendi ture was incurred in 1876, and not in 1877, were finished in 1876, and I do not suppose the Qovernment would claim credit for not expending money on build- ings which were actually completed. The expenditure in the North-West especially at Battleford, is very large, and I believe, very unwise. Hon. Mr. AIKINS— Absolutely use- Hon. Mr. MAOPHERSON — Fort Pelly has been abandoned, and Battle- ford's turn for abandonment, I fear, will also come. The expendirure on buildioTi in that country is onormous, and entirely uncalled for and useless. I am not satis- fied, from what I loamed in the North- West, that we have the whole of the ex- penditure before us. I was told, not by one, but by several, that there was a sys- tematic holding back and manipulation of payments, so Ihat they should not appear in the Public Accou.its, which were closed on the 30th June last. I do not vouch for the truth of it, but from what I heard, I have no doubt in my own mind that it is tv'ue. There is an enormous ex- penditure there, and to enquire into it thoroughly would require investigation by a Royal Commission. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— It can- not be a8cei*tained before the Public Accounts Committee of the other House. Tt is utterly impossible. It is ^oo large a subject to be investigated in a Session, and where there is opposition to enquiry, and a desire to cover up, we know that very little can be accomplished by a com- mittee. You must send to where the facts and witr ses are. I shdil now state the expen ture in Harbors, Tm^ and Breakwaters, during each of the two years. It was as follows : — !>: » Harbors, Piers, Breakwaters on which Expenditttre was incurred in 1876-18Tt with list of new items for 13*7*7 onlt/ I) i"'v 't : \ ill "i Place. Kingston H Cobourg Port Hope Port Stanley. Bayfield. Kincardine Owen Sound. Port Darlinffton. Port Burwell Chantry Island Ooderich Tiironto Oshawa. Saguenajr B «t(otviile BaieSt. Paul Malbaie Eboalements, ext. of B'k'r Riviere Blanche, P. Dipper H Point duChSne Richibacto Hhippegan St John Harbor Grande Anse, & dea Ohal's Campobello Meteghan Cove Liverpool H Jordan Bay. Oak Point. Trout Cove 1876. 6,267 23,403 14,372 4,7.12 18 398 4,668 5.600 5, ?0 3,422 41,624 127,200 2,824 5,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 8,000 7,800 873 279 7,22S 10,833 6,312 64,3.33 3,000 600 5.000 8.9:)3 17,465 15,000 4.000 433.78S 1877. 8,060 3,394 21,200 10,514 5,173 36,095 86.175 17,075 1,080 1,621 9,135 65,090 264,522 Place. Brought forimrd. .... Cow Bay Ingonish Mabou Marearee Harbourville Broad Cove Margaretville. Oyster Pond. Chedabucto Michaud and Mark Points Cranberry H Chntch Point Staulnierville New liondon, P. E I.. . . Tignish. Colville Bay. Jn the following there WAS NO ExPENOrrURE IN 1876. Thunder Biy Riviere OueUe...., Mnsquodobit , Chipman's Brook. , Lingan Beech.. . . , Tracadie Decrease in 1877. 1876. 433,788 46,458 17.926 10.084 3,000 2,009 3,000 5.000 2,00') 97 2,000 2.000 2,000 603 4,557 20,000 554.413 1877. 264.622 8.656 24.851 10,228 4,750 19,871 5.990 1.213 1.000 2,750 2,000 873 346.713 207.700 5.54,413 "AM The decreiiflo*! cxiK>n(litui-e on Harbors Ac. in 1877, coniparod with 1876, amounted to $207,700. I take it, those harbors on whicli there was no expen- diture in 1877, like the buildings, wore finished and requii-ed no more expen- diture on tht'm. Ho I do not find an opportunity hero to give cretht to the Oovemment for .-♦^trenchment. The. name of some of tlie j>ierH in the St. Lawrence, might recall to tho mind of the hon. Sena- tor from Lambton the Baby jobs, but that the Foi-t FriinciH Lock should have done o it somewhat surprising. I mav remark that I made enquiries about tho6? Baby jobs and found that every succeeding Go- vernment had found it necessaiy to keep tho piers that were described as Baby jobs in repair to servo the purposes of commerce, and most of them have been added to by the Ooverament. At Ri- inouski, for instance, the mails for the whole country west of that point are landed, and a very large expenditure has been made tliere to enlarge and improve the wharf. On some harbors there has no doubt been a good deal of unnecessary ex- penditure by the present Government. Take the Ooderich Harbor upon which ^213,376, was expended in 1876 and 1877, there is no question it cost |30,000 more than it need have done, through the Government giving it to a bidder higher than the lowest. They perpetrated a piece of most unjustifiable favoritism. I do not like to apply the term "jobs" to an act of the very highest ministers in the coun- try, and yet I do not know any other word in the English language which will describe what was done by the Govern- ment in respect to that contiuct. Then there are Antigonish, Cow Bay, and other liarboi-s in the Maritime Provinces. Cow Bay mayj-ecall another picture which the hon. Senator for Lambton once drew — that is, the Maritime calves milking the Ontario oow. Hon. Mr. MILLER— If the cow had no calves, sho might have had no milk. Hon. Mr. MACTHERSON— If the present Government remain long in power, I do not think she will continue to have any. The decrease on buildings amounts to $330,415; the de<:rease on harbors, piers and breakwaters $207,700; the decrease under the head of improvements of rivers, $148,003; making a total decrease in ex- l^enditure upon buildings, piers, harbom, breakwaters and river improvements be- tween the expenditure of 1877 compared with '876 of $686,118. The saving in ocean ..nd river service was chiefly in re- pairs, maintenance and buildings. I think there was one vessel built in 1876. Of course if a steamer had to be built in 1876, and others had to be repaired, tho Govern- ■ ment can hardly claim credit for retrench- ment foi' not repeating the expenditura when unnecessary, in 1877. In police and penitentiaries there is a small saving. Harbor police at Montreal and Quebec show a saving. There has been no expen- diture under those two heads since 1876t In Dominion.Police there is a small saving. I hope it is judicious economy. I do not consider parsimony by any means to be economy, and the very first duty of a Go- vernment, is to do what may be necessaiy for the security of life and property in the country, and they should be slow to dis- band a disciplined police force without being certain that it can be safely dis- pensed with. I think there has been evi- dence this winter that perhaps such a force as the Montreal Police would have been serviceable. There is a very considerable reduction in lighthouses and coast service, amounting to $74,570. There is some reduction in construction, but it is chiefly in salaries and mainten- ance, and it is very difficult to see how it has been brought about. There must either have been great extravagance in 1876, or the service must have been in- jured in 1877. Hon. Mr. PENNY— Hear, hear. Hen. Mr. MACPHERSON— I think there was extravagance in 1876 as the figui'es will show. I hope the Govern- ment will explain the reason for increac- ing the salaries and maintenance from $394,904 in 1875 to $427,661 in the following year, and then again in 1877 reducing them to $391,673. I repeat, that the increase in 1876 cannot have been requii'ed, or the service has been in- jured by the reduction in 1877 ; but in 1876 the Government had not been miich influenced by the exposure that had been made of their extravagance. Where would we have been if the reckless extra* vagancc of the Government had not been checked by the attention of the public having been called to it. The next item %: is the Dominion Foi-oe in Manitoba and the North-We«t Mounted Poliue. On the Dominion Force there was a reduction in 1876 and also in 1877, and I suppoHO the item will disappear altogether from the Public Accounts in 1878. Whether thut is wise economy, or not, remains to be seen. I myself am exceedingly doubtful of it. I think it is scarcely safe or wise to leave that remote province without a small force for its protection. The Mount- ed Police shows a slight increase. The next item I come to is the Weights and Measures. I believe that Act is being carri- ed out in a way that is exceedingly burden- some and obnoxiouil to the people. Whether there is a return to the public in more honest weights, dec, or : ot, is a ques- tion which I will leave for the Government to answer. I only call their attention to it. It is a most vexatious measure, and is par* ticularly complained of throughout the country. This measure was put in force by the present Government. The hon. the Secretary of State generally tries to lay the entire odium or resix)nsibility of mea- sui-es that have been put in force recently, upon the late Government, and has done so in this House repeatedly with respect to this measure. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Did not Mr. Tilley take a vote for it ? Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Neither Mr. Tilley nor any other member of the late Government put this act in force. It was passed while the late Government were in power but it contained a suspensory clause, which declared that it should not go into force until a proclamation should be issued by the Oovernor-General putting it into operation. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that that proclamation was issued by the late Government 1 Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Mr. Tilley took a vote to purcnase standards. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Did Mr. Tilley buy standards 1 He took the vote, but the hon. gentleman found the vote, and wanted the patronage, and put the act into force. Hon. Mr. PENNY— As the late Go- vernment would have done. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— I do not know whether they would or not, but I know the present Government did. I think it is an unworthy thing for any one, wJiether it be an individual or a Gk>vem- ment, to throw u{)on others the responsi- bility which they thnmselves incurred, Some four years have elai>8ed and the hon. the Secretary of State finds it difficult to attach all the blame to the late Govern- ment, and LOW he attaches it to the em- ployees of the late Administiution, who have been retained by the premnt one, as if the Government were not responsible for the acts of its own employees. This Weights and Measures Act has been a very expensive one. In 1876, to put it in force the expenditure was $69,969, and no return for it. In 1876, the expendi- ture was $99,784, and no return from it. In 1877, the expenditure was $111,084, and the return was only $50,423. Now, I think Sir Francis Hincks was the Finance Minister when this Bill was passed, and he estimated the cost of it at $50,000 ; it was not expected to exceed that. The $50,000 collected last year was so much taken out of the pockets of those whose weights and measures were tested, and to them it must have been a very serious amount. The cost of the in- spection of staples and the adulteration of food is an item scarcely worth giving attention to. I do not know what has been done with respect to the checking of t>.e adulteration of food; probably the hon. the Secretary of State would tell the House what result is being obtained from that expenditure. I come next to an out- lay under the head of " Expenditures on Public Works charges on Revenue." What is meant is really the working and main- tenance of Public Works. The officials connected with milways and canals —lock- tenders and their superiors, laborers and all others — and the same with respect to telegraphs. There is a reduction this year under this head, but in a very curious form. I have separated the labor from the salaries, as I did last year. In 1875, the salaries for canal and river works, and piers below Quebec,amounted to $239,859. In 1876, they were inci-eased to $250,962. In 1877, they were reduced to $248,328. Hon. Mr. WILMOT— Is that salaries only] Hon. ^r. MACPHERSON— Yes. I will give the labor presently. The sahtrira were Induced $1,600, as compared with 1876. The labor was as follows : — In 1875, $278,059 ; in 1876, $257,142 j in 1877, $180,100. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— There is an im- provement. Hon. Mr MACPHERSON—A great i-eduotion, indeed, i, reduction of nearly 180,000. But the atrange thing is, that it is altogether in labor. There ia no reduction whatever in the aalaries. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— The galaries are low enough probably. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — The present Qovernment profess to be specially the workingman'n friends, and there is a wonderful induction in the amount paid to the workingmen, while the decrease in the salarii s is merely nominal. It seems as if the labor was reduced, but the r.uper- intendence of labor was not diminished in the least. Then there are railways and telegraphs. In 1876, the amount charged under that head, was $1,636,403, and in 1877, it was $1,923,324. That shows avery large increase, but, unfortu- nately, it does not show the whole of it. Hon. Mr. SCOTT — That is capital account. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— No ; it is a charge on Revenue. There is an extraordinary piece of book-keeping, by which an item under the head of Open Accounts, appears, namely — " Inter- colonial Railway Suspense Account, $343,691." Hon. Mr. SCOTT— That is coal cars, I think. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— No. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Public Accounts he will find that the whole amount expended on renewals last year was $543,691. Of that amount, of money paid out, there is charged to the Suspense Account, $343,691, and to the Revenue, $200,000. Now, why should a suspense account be opened for an amount that has actually been paid 1 It would, no doubt, be very convenient for the Govern- ment—Especially in the financial condition of the country — to charge items of expen- diture to suspense account instead of against revenue as they ought to be charged. But can anjrthing be more un- reasonable, or unsound, or absurd than to charge to suspense money that has been paid 1 What does a suspense account mean 1 You place in suspense accounts items that are in doubt, items that have not been paid ; items that are disputed or doubtful, but when an amount is paid' there can be no question whatever as tO' what should be clone with it. On all the canals, for instince, there are spai'e lock gates. You rnay as well put the cost of ti.ose into a suspense account. You may with equal propriety put steel rails into a suspense account and say you will not charge them against capital until they are used. You might have done the same with the Fort William lands, or the Nee- bing Hotel, though I fear if that building were kept in u suspense account until it became profitable, you would keep it there a long time. This item is clearly charge- able against the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that is, chargeable against income, and instead of being so charged it has' besti placed away in the open accounts in a mann«^r which is altogether unjustifiable. Nothing could be more delusive thar. 'he manner in which those items have been entered ; it is an incorrect representation in the Public Accounts of a very large- amount. There is another item of $68,000' for stores, the difiference between the value of stores received and issued for the use of the Intercolonial Railway.. Now that ought not to have gone into open accounts. Those stores, I take it, have been paid itbr, and when paid for they "bould be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but I have left them where they were. While in my owr "nd,. I buve no doubt that they ought to be charged against revenue it may with a certain an^ount of plausibility be urged,, that inasmuch as those stares are on hand and not used they may be an ofiset for the money. Nothing could be more un- sound and incorrect, but not to expose myself to the charge of placing anything against the Consolidated Revenue Fund that ought not to be there, and what every one will admit ought to be there, I do not propose to put the item of $68,000 to- it, but will let it remain where it is. The amount therefore which ougbt to h& charged luder the head ot railways and. telegraphs instead of being $1,928,324 is- really $2,266,915. There is also another large item which I might raise a quoitioni about, but for the reason which I gave a- moment ago I will not do so. Now I come to details of expenditure on account of Civil Gk>venuuent. I dare say hon. gentlemen will remember I separated con- tingencies from salaries last year, and I 1 1 have done so again this year. In 1876 tbeHalaries wore $670,142, and the total contingencies for that year was $171,602. In 1877 the total salarieH wore $o64,714, and total contingencies were $157,479. A satisfactory ro(hiction is going on here, and there was undoubtedly great room for it. It is gratifying to see that there has been an impression made on contingencies, but it will be for this House and the country t*- judge whether the Oovemment, or those who called at- tention to their extravagance, deserve the most credit for it. Hon. gentlemen — Hear, hear. • Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — I hope that, under the heading of " Contin- gencies," payments have not been post- poned until after the 30th of June. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— No. Hon. Mr. MACPHEIISON— It is a very easy thing to do ; purchases are made in England or at a distance, and it is a very easy thing for the Government to postpone the payments till after the close of the financial year. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— The hon. gentle- man can see that the item has been steadily going down year after year. Hon. Mr. MACPHEESON — The next statement relates to the Depart- mental Contingencies at Ottawa, and the amounts paid to extra clerks. Tn 1875, the total departmental contingencies were $212,327; including extra clerks, $38,- 821. In 1876 the departmental con- tingencies amounted to ^'71,602; extra clerks, $31,651. In 1877, departmental contingencies, $157,479 ; extra clerks, $30,237. Contingencies of the House of Commons :— 1875, $90,000 ; 1876, $130,- 000; 1877, $120,000. Total contin- gencies at Ottawa in 1876, $301,602 ; in 1877, $277,479. The reduction in the amount paid to extra clerks is very cTall — not sufficient to thin the corridors, which we were told last Session, were crowded with that class. The saving of $1,400 on th« yeai- will not affect the number of extra clerks materially. Now I come to the Administration of Jxistioe : there is no department of the Government in which the expenditure has increased as steadily as in this since the advent of the present Administration. The increase since 1873 has been $166,631 per annum. It is an enormous increase. The Supreme Court is down for $51,485> in 1877, as comimred with $36,667 in 1876. This is an enormous increase. I have stated before in this House tbut I hold the Government very largely re8|)on- sible for the increase in Ontario. T Uiink it would have been very much letter had the creation of the Supreme Court been deferred for a time. We had a very high Court of Appeal — without a superior in the world — The Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun- cil, and one which cost this country nothing; one which Lut few suitors resortetl to, be- cause they were satiafied with the decisions in this country. Now, there is a sum of $51,486 charged against the country, and the cost to suitors, on the whole i» very great. I saw that the ex-Minister of .Justice in a speech which he delivered last Autumn, characterized what I said, on the subject of the Administration of Justice in this House, as " a very ignorant attack." I will not notice that now, but I shall do so before I sit down. In Ontario there are loud complaints of law costs. Men are drawn into Chancery and may win their suits and yet be ruined in the process. Hon. Mr. PENNY— It is the same in many other countries also. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — There- is really no such opening for a pub- lic man to serve his country as there is in Ontario as a law reformer. The- changes in the system seem to have- been designed to promote appeals, and in each higher court that you go to the costs are greater than the one immediately be- low. A legal gentleman will deliver an argument in the couii; below for a mode- rate fee, and will repeat that argument with little addition in a higher court and charge two or three times the amount that he was satisfied with in the court below. My next statement relates to the Cus toms Department. That department seems to be the most extravagantly managed — if it is possible to say which is the most extravagant — of the Government. The cost qf collecting the reventie is constantly increasing. It has increased every year sin28,837 and tlie cost of collecting it was, 9721,008 ; in 1877 the revenue was, $12,546,987— an- other decline — and the cost of collecting it increased to 1721,604.. Tho pei-centage cost for collecting the revenue in 1876 was 4.46; in 1876 it was 6.62 and in 1877 it had run up to $6.76. I call the atten tion of the House to the customs and cost of collection at the port of MontreaL In 1875 the revenue amounted to $5,866,7 11 and it cost to collect it $99,823, being 1.70 per cent. In 1"76 the revenue had fallen to $4,292,057, and the cost of collec- tion had increased to $117,275, and the pensentage rate was 2.73 — an increase of more than one per cent as compared with the previous year. In 1877 the revenue was $3,869,704, and the cost of collecting it had again increased to $117,989, being & percentage of 3.05. Hon. gentlemen -will perceive an enormous increase in the cost of collecting a decreasing revenue in those three years. I am not going to maintain here that it will- be possible, 'where there is such a large falling off of revenue, to reduce the cost of collecting it in the same proportion. That would be quite impossible and unjust to a great many men, but, at the same time, there is no excuse for increasing the cost of collection as has been done, and it is a matter which, I hope, the (Government ■mUl explain to the House in some satisfactory manner. The receipts at the port of St. John were, in 1875, $1,070,460, and the cost of collection was $46,932, or 4.38 per cent. ; in 1876, the receipts at that port were $812,- .832, cost of collection, $47,674, or 6.86 per cent. ; in 1877, the revenue at that port was $854,126, cost of collection, $48,796, or 6.71 per cent Now this is a matter that reqiiires attention, and the attention of the country ought to be directed to it. It is impossible that the :public service can have called for an in- crease of expense m this department, when the revenue (n .^877 was largely below what it was in 1875. I repeat, hon. gentlemen, it is impossible that^.this increase in the cost of collection can nave been made in tho public interest. . There iti but one way to explain it, and that is, that the Gk>vemment are lowering the Customs Department in this country to take rank with the Customs Department in the United States, and we all know that the Customs Houses in New York and Boston are the most corrupt offices in the United States, cesspools seething with political corruption and dishonesty, and I fear it is coming to be as bad in our own country. This laay have been one of the places where the great crowd of supernumeraries we have heard of had been seen. In Excise, there has been a very large falling off, and a small deci-ease in the cost of collecting it. In 1876 the i-evenue from excise was $5,663,487, and in 1877 it was $4,941,898. In 1876 the cost of collecting it was $218,359, and in 1877 it was $211,167, showing a falling off in excise revenue of $621,589, and a decrease in the cost of collecting it of $7,- 202. Now I come to the Post Office Department, a department that is man- aged very expensively. I am quite aware that there is no more valuable institution in the country than the Post Office, and that it ought to be extended as far as the convenience of our people require it. In forming new settlements, postal acccemmo- dation should be extended as rapidly as possible. While that is true, it is also true that no department in the Oovem- ment affords greater scope for favoritism and partiality than the Post Office. The revenue from that Department in 1875 was $1,155,332 ; the cost of collection was $1,520,861, showing a loss of $365,- 529. In 1876, the revemie was $1,102,- 540, and the cost of collection was $1.- 622,827 ; a loss of $520,287. In 1877, . the revenue was $1,114,945, the cost of collection was $1,705,311 ; a loss of $590,366, an increasing loss each year, (showing that in 1876 it cost $1.31 to collect a dollar; in 1876 it cost $1.47 to collect a dollar, and in 1877 it cost $1.63 to collect a dollar. It is difficult to believe that that increase of expenditure is done in a spirit of economy, and without reasons that are not before me, I cannot believe that it is so. At the same time, I say again, it is a department that I would not by any means starve or stint ; on the contrary, it is a department that ought to be made ta serve our own people who go out and form new settle- ments. I next come to the Department of Agriculture. This department is be- coming more and more costly every year, for the little that it aocomplirhes. The number of immigrants brought to this country in 1875 was 16,038 ; in 1876 the 11 R| number was 10,091, and in 1877 there were only 7,743. llie cost per head in 1873 was 17.76 ; in 1876 the cost was $18.90 ; in 1876 it was $26.65, and in lE/7 it reached $2.7.01 per head. I have only taken the number of immigrants which landed at Quebec. For these we -employ agents in Europe to direct them to our shores. The cost per head of the immi- grants is based on the expenditure, less the amount loaned to the Mennonites. Ad- ding the cost of the transport of the Men- nionites, but excluding the loan, the cost per head for 1876 was $30.10. The cost per head in 1877, on the same basis, was $29.60. Our returns show an arrival of immigrants numbering 7,743 souls, but of that number the Government know that only about 4,000 wore induced to settle in this country — at least they believe that number settled in Canada. As for the others, they do not know what has become of them. No doubt they had through tickets, and went on to the United States, rendering this country no benefit whatever, except the little money tley may have spent in passing through the country. I see by an English paper, that the emigrants from Canada this year are set down at 5,000 against 7,000 sent out. The 7,000 is roughly stated, but it agrees very nearly with the 4:umber, according to the return of the Minister, who left for Canada, giving the colony a gain of just 2,000 souls. So that we paid upwards of $300,000 last year to secure those 2,000 immigrants. Now, Judging by the reports, I see the agents in Europe are really deterring emigrants from •coming to Canada. That seems to be their employment. I think this depart- ment should be called '* The Anti-Immi- gration Department, " for since the days of the great Agent Qeneral, down to the present, I believe the efforts of the agents are directed to prevent emigrants from coming to this country. Emigration is very small from Europe at the present time, and I do not see why an expensive staff of agents are kept on the other side at all. Here are $300,000 expended, of which a great part is actually thrown away and wasted. I hope the Muiister of Agri- culture will be. able to tell us that it is the intention of the Gk)vemment to reduce the European agencies. I will now submit a memorandum show- ing the balance, as I make it out to be, between the increases and decreases of ex* penditure in the yean 1876 and 1877. According to the Public Accounts, there is a decrease in 1877 in certain items of expen- diture cAarged to Consolidated Revenue Fimd, amounting to $1,810,840, and an increase in certain other items amounting to $474,802, but the latter amount is un- derstated by the amount of the " Inters colonial Bailway Renewals Suspense Ac- count," $343,591, making the sum of the actual increase $818,393, ai\d showing an apparent balance of decre&ies over in- creases of $992,447. I will now explain how thb sum is made up, and more than made up, by diminished expenditure, which cannot be considered retrenchment. There is a decrease in the expenditure for Militia and Defence of $428,729— that is, the expenditure has been reduced from $978,530, in 1876 to $650,461 in 1877. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen, if it is possible that that reduction can be a wise retrenchment, unless the intention is to disband and abolish the force, and that* this is really the beginning of the process of disbandment 1 If the Qovemment are prepared to tell us that that is their policy, it can be imder- stood, but it is utterly impossible to believe that a department like the Militia Department can bear a reduction, in one year, of nearly one half of the usual annual expenditure. It is quite possible, from what the hon. Secretary of State said the other day about Fort Francis Lock as a military work, that the expense on that work may be charged in future to the Militia Department. It certainly has quite as much to do with the Militia Department as it has to do with the Paci- fic Railway, and that ia nothing whatever. The decT^ised expenditure upon public works in 1877, compared with 1876, was $686,118, and is caused by the cessa- tion of payments on works which have been completed. Then there is on the Dominion Lands Survey in Manitoba, a decrease of $122,830. The surveys were discontinued because more lands were surveyed than were necessary. I do not think the Govamment can claim this as retrenchment. The Government cannot take credit for discontinuing payments upon new buildings or other works when they are finished, or for stopping sur. veys when more land is surveyed than is likely to be wanted for years. Then 1^ there ia a decrease of $51,947 for Domin- ion Forces in Manitoba. They have been disbanded, I believe, so that they could not be paid. Then there is on ^e Boun- dai7 Survey, a decrease of |134,105. That survey was completed, and, of course, the officisJs and men were not likely to be continued under pay after their work was done, so I cannot award the Oovemment great credit for retrenchment there. Settlers' Belief Fund in Manitoba, $83,- 405. That is an item that, happily, was not required in 1877, and its non-pay- ment cannot be spoken of as retrench- ment. The net result is an increase in the controllable expenditure of the Gov- ernment in 1877 of $513,527 aa follows :— Decreaaes in Expenditure charged to Consolidated Revenue Fund, in 1877. Increases " " 474,802 Add short-charged against "Public Works ohurges on Revenne " beins tor ' Intercolonial Rulway Renewal Suspense ace., 343,691 Apparent decrease But among the items showing a decrease are the following which, as I have explained, are cot decreases effected by retrenchment : — Militia & Defence 428,079 Public Works 686,118 Dominion Landfsnrreya) Manitoba.. 122, 320 " Forces " 61,947 Boundary survey 134, 106 Settlers' ReUef, Manitoba 83,406 Making the actual increase of strictly controllable expea- diturs in 1877 over 1876. . .. 11,810,840 818.393 1992,447 1,606,974 1613,527 I do not assert that these figures are exact. It is impossible to arrive at an exact balance, but I believe it to be an approximate estimate, and fair and liberal to the Oovemment It shows that, so £eu: from the controllable expenditure having been decreased, it hu actually been in- creased, in 1877 over 1876, by about half a million of dollars. I think the House will agree with me that the Oovemment do not deserve credit for economy ; that they have given usnone of the retrenchment and economy which they promised and which we haid a right to expect from the professioivB i^^ previous character of the hon. gentlemen. The next statement which I will submit is a comparative statement of revenue and expenditure for each financial year, since Confederation. It is as fellows : — ) ■ I -..^.^ '"* IS 1 s g K ) n So ?i So 00 to V s 3 gif ©"(xT'^ 00 r* i >a o ^ i s^ sf 2 S « « fi 00 2" S" 9S f^ CO i>4 9 00 eo"©-^- oo'w'ef Ssofia" oifwref o>co< s i So CO r^ 9 00 €0 CO to ^ CO at !? »-* CO* t^ t» t-> to r-« a 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 g S 1 09 14 It will thus 1)6 seen there wa« a surplus every year down te and including 1876, amounting, in the aggregate, to $12, 010,- 708. In 1876 there wa« a deficit of $1,- 900,786, and in 1877 there wu another deficit of $1,460,027, to which has to be added the "Intercolonial Railway Re- newal Suspense Account," $343,691, making the deficit of that year $1,803,- 618. The item of $68,388 for Inter* coloilial Railway stores diould aUw be added, but, for reasons which I have al- ready given, I sludl not add it It gives me no pleasure to have to show that the deficit is larger than stated by the Minis- ter of Finance. The next statement shows the Oapital Expenditure since Confederation. It is as ibUows : — J ^ ■St , ^'■■\ „■/.■■(»'!/ ■';•■*-■' \ 15 i So 0) So i s 00 <«9 9 ^^< ©I' b'II af s «8 3 + t^oo + + •M e> a pm ^ Sf^ 00 00 t» >e JO 64 CO 00 -H OJOS I' §i 90> SS! 00 r« «*j: M 00 + lO M ^i + §3S + ii £«5 I e g § of 04 6 I I a j P II I'' "^ lllll 31 n l gS o I sa ggiii i§ ss ggJI^ §'§" IO(0 :f-8i*<8" ??&" e 3* I 8 I I 3 I ^. I I I 3 'i I s 1 I I ■s I I s I •> S ! i g 1 I 16 On the Pacific Railway, the total expendi- ture from Capital hiui been 97,976,578. There ia a very rtrange entry in that account. There is an item under the head of " Pacific Railway Consti-uction," of $572,144 10 "alue of rails and material transferred to thb Intercolonial Railway. I c mnot find that item in the account of the Intercolonial Railway. It is taken bodily out of the Pacific Railway account, but I have not been able to find it in the other account. Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD— Does it not appear in the Public Accounts some- where else t Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— I have not been able to find it in the Inter- colonial Railway account. If it is there, it must be in some account, forming a larger sum, but my impression is, it is nut there, so that that item should be added either to the I'^acjfic TJailway ex- penditure or to the Intei-coloi^^al Railway exjienditure. I now come to a compara- tive statement of the public debt and intei-est : — Comparative Statement Public Debt and Interest. Public Debt. Totals. Incbxasbs. Intbrbst on Dbbt. Totals. Incbbases. Total Debt 1873 129.743.4.32 uiViVsiesi ■ fw Total Interest 1873. . . Increase 1873 to 1874. Total Interest 1874 . . Increase 1874 to 1876. 5,549,374 Increase 1873 to 1874 11.420.119 l6,499i866 9,64li286 673.470 * * " ' 217.212 Total Debt 1874 Increase 1874 to 1876. 6,122,844 Total Debt 1875 161.663.401 Total Interest 1876. . . Increase 1876 to 1876. Total Interest 1876. . . Increase 1876 to 1877. Total Interest 1877. . Total Increase of In- terest in 1874-1876 1876-1877 6.340.066 ■'6,7*53ii7i Increase 1875 to 1876. 413,116 Total Debt 1876 161.204.687 V74,'676i834 Increase 1876 to 1877. 13.471,147 379.237 Total Debt 1877 7.132,408 Total Increase of Debt in 1874-1876-1876 1877 ":. 144^932,402 _ 11.683,034 It shows the public debt now stands at $174,675,884, a very formidable sum, hon. gentlemen will admit, and nearly four millions of it — $3,862,068 — is a sum that we have not received, but our debt has been increaaed by that amount which was sunk by the Minister of Finance in England, in payment of interest in advance, spread over the period of the loan for the sake of getting a nominally lower rate of interest. When I last alluded to this, I had not the Public Accounts before me, and I did not see the whole amount that had been sunk in this way, but it is as I have stated it, that the amount so sunk by the present Finance Minister is $3,862,068. Our debt has been increased by that amount, and we arie paying interest upon it while we did not get the princi- pal. Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD— And we must repay the principal ? Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Certainly we must repay the principal, although we did not receive it. A good deal may b« said on both sides of the question as to which is more expedient, negotiating a loan at par, or at a discount. I maintain, that in a country like this, which is constantly borrowing, we should pay the rate of in- terst that will give us as nearly as possible par loans. It is exceedingly important for us to maintain our credit, but the increas- ing number and amount of our loans, and alarmingly increasing debt, is calculated to injure our credit. The very first question that would be asked the Minister of Fin- ance, if he went to negotiate another loan, would be the amount of our debt. He would state the amount of debt and say that it was at such and such rates of interest ; that we had a certain amount of assets, ' '; Hon. Mr. MAp3p;|[IjM^:j^-;^y^;'and no doubt the hg^. ^^tl0waa^iB:'in7the secret and knovvsalli about ^ it v Look at the decline ift taltftte / olit't^ff ^ iftAlnly an ad vdl6r&ni'^^(^A%^ '^^..'aa|.,£ha,'/,y^lues of staples ^ecjin'e, sq ai^st QUF^^e(veB«e. Why, even if thedeprefi^ionin theeotintry were succeeded 'by 'eorlt prosif^ri^jiihe general Vttlueh itf gbo^^^ 'V^qJiiot^.i|^'/^^^ pe(jt!iB4 1^9 Myance' iii- tliesudii^a way. they 4eeiin«id, aadunle&a.'tliey do;.^;no > maitter what th© prosperity 6f %h6 dttltiiti^'in. be,;'thd n(6oes^{y reVbttite .W^ l^ed froipi' ti^e>, 80u^§. wK^qh . Tir.e ; Jjfive JifiretoforQ depeniled upon^ and which have suf^ceil. The hon. gentlemen know that, and it is dishonest in them to pass through this last Ses-uon of this Parlia- munt, and not tell the country rvhat they intend to propose, if they should have bn opportunity of doing so. The percentage of deficit f jr each of tue two years was, in 1876, on the total revenue, nearly g^ per cent. ; and on taxation, 10 J ixsr cent. In 1877 it was al)out 8J on revenue, a^d lOJ on taxation. I do not attach very great importance to the differeixce betwftfen revenue and taxation, l)eoause all has to come out of the jieople, but' as a nifttter of fact, the statement is as I have placed it before the House. Is it not unpardon- able that the Government fihoiild ktiiep the country in ignorance of what they intend to do in the matter, when every hon. gentleman mi'i^t see that some hew scheme of increased taxation 'is absolutely necessary unles^some real retrenchment m inaugurated ? In England, the revenue is something like £80,000,000. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down with a deficit of more than 10 per cent;, what would the cOuntly say to him? Would the cottntry allow Parlia- ment to rise without incre^irig the taxa- tion ? They might eject the Chancellor of the Excheqiter and his .colleagues from office, but Parliament would impose taxa- tion or redu<» expenditure, and the ci^edit of the country would be niaitttairied. The cretUt of the Dominion is being destroyed by'thfe systetti purstted by the Govern- tftent.' Here they arte' going oh accumu- lating these deficits. Why, the deficit is nearly oijie-thiril of t]b,e, interest , of our public debt. Will hon. gentlemen con- Aider what that' meansi ' '-'tj.A. .,.<.i:r .'J.;. ■:.'..' •<.i.- ■' ■■•■..- ■" ' ■- ; Hoi».,5Jr, , WlLMOi^Itis compound Htwi. Mr. MACPHERSOir -i Kncy "the''(Jftse of a ftiriner wlio lias a mortgajge dn his'farrii.' The first thing he must' do is to sajp^rt Hs ftiinily! That dohK etvip- po86 hfe'theSn finds th6 balance of .,lii4 ui- iiiom* 6he-thii'd- less thah the interest flhe haiS td j)ay on the mortgage. /V^liat'is bis position? tfhleas he' cari' raisp tjiree Wades of ^jras^ ^el^ h4 raised' two before, or rletrenfth;'TOih is^for^'hini ;;a^^^^ it 'is jiikt the Isame Vith cbitntries-as'^ii is witli fadlndudl^; *K#y6ubi; Ithls "country -vnll WdeSrir itself, liTlf it 'will' bi''at, ji'yery great cost. '^Ti^'diistonia revehiie,'for tie 18 year up to iho tenth of February, ahows a gniall increase, but I am not at uU sure that it vill not show a decrease on the y hon. ge4tlemen t^say whetbei' I ^min tho-habit-of -mak- . jUig ignorant, ^ta ten^ents \n' this . Chamber. Mj stat^iueuts .ha^vO; Loea^wquestiioued sowtipesj bul;, they Mve., never been refijiteq or disproved. , ,,;^,..i -i^.r!, '^:,-,,. Hon. Gentlemen— -He^i*,'liekr. ' "* Hon. Mr' MAq^HBilRTOi -^ Hon. gentlemen on the other side had said, they ' only wwnted' a little^ time to - Miswer my statements, my charges of extralfagence against tli^ Opvej'nnien^ ]^it t)|e tijoae' has never come — ^perhaps.it wiM qoipe^tftidayt— "but neither liero noj: els(8(whe^:ei,:.W4th ^U 'the ingenuity;, that has. ^a.-ppssibl^ Jbo hekr' from the Depa^'fcmpnts. hfl^ion^ o£,«iy fitafteme'nts . \^en , reifjtvtpd, ,. J , wade. : , no %n6rant state.oi,ents ift tl^s Hipusei v*^ li^spect to tKe 'A,(lmjiJtuptrf,tion, , pf Jjistice. 1 inerely stat^^ha,l\.iliji afljiojint ^£ ,iihe iiicieasM eii^n^itfjf e ,chftrgea|5§,ufH>n tjte •jpuiblxc was. apd whepityas, }jfli%dl i»l80 ^{(taled, and I j-epeat .^t^ Agtvin n$>:^,: i ihati •. 80 far as Ontai^o was,£ouc^:.7ied iih^i ^:li»9ges ktiere coufd^ot liaise |)eeajnaade, tf.tho ex- ' Minister of Justice had been opposed to them, and I repeat here, that the changes that have been made in the laws and pn }edure of Ontario arr all in the inter- er^vB of the lawyers. But, hon. gentlemer, I should rather fall into "•■ ignorant statement than make a disingenuous statement, and I believe I can show that the Minister of Justice did so at Teeswater, iu the county of Bruce, before his consti- tuents. If a gentleman makes an incorrect statement ignorantly, it is, at all events, done without evil intent, but when a man makv(8 a disingenuous statement it is quivo another thing. I shall quote from the authorized edition of those speeches — precious production it is. On page 136, under the head of "econcmies effected"' Mr. Blake said : — " N^ow I will give you the reanlts of that " reorganization. 'J'he statf had been increased " in 1873, and in November of that year, at " the resignation of ^he late Governmenf, "the annual rate of charge for salak'js, in- " eluding bonuses and an officer charged on " contingencies, was over |13,500. Changes " subsequently took olace, and the rate of " charKe when I took office in May, 1875, wrs " over 915, 75i). I w.is, as I have said, unab7e "to make a reduction in salaries during the " first year ; but the re-organization which, " with the assistance of mv colleagues, I was " enabled to effect was such, that in June last, "when I left office, the rate of charge for " salaries was only $10,750, (loud chters) a " reduction* of over $5,000, or about one- third " of the ritte when I took ofiBce, and of $2,800, " or about one-fifth of the rate when the lata " Government resigned. (Renewed cheers.) ," Thif great reduction in the annual charge '' upon you for salaries has been eflected, you '" #iH bekr in mind, uot«rithBtandini{ tho enor- '^ mens idevease in the work, to which I have ''.aU«ady ealled your attention. Combining ''thp,ch^gea for salaries and contingencies, '' the total charge for the contingencit s of 187i% " and the rate of salaries for November of that " year, wiculd be over $23,000. When I took "officathey/rojAdvbe over $26,600; and f(r ** iSMthey wef-tfriei'duced to less than $21,000 ; " when f lef*Offltxi tttfey had fallen to $13,537, ',' iibouC one'ihalftior A saving of $13,000 on the "r%te\)rha&.I,pait)9in,,«u),4 five-twelfths, or a "saying of $0,5Op^PP t^.rate when the late '^ (jrbVerhnienV resigned ; and this, mark you, *'dttce''itgiaib, itfthifatjfe of "a^' enormously in- Voreoaeu ,Toluma>:of nndrk.'^ (Loud cheers.) "J^WfTfj^VtlAo aotjpropo&e at.^this moment to ''enter into an e^qmiry ^fw Jjp hpw the large ''su]li8l.n4Te. named Same to be expended by " i^iir (tdVc^tdiriM'in 1873, iil the execution of >nts,rt|i ^y rat«,) will not .contend " that their , .^p^ficUtures ,w^j;e . y^roogful or '* wast^nil ;. they will argue foir their propriety "fahd hteessit/i^^thi^^'Wir tSl y'bu thaf t% '^ ooulid aiot conduct the bniriaew of thf6-^Htkte 19 t ) !' ' f / ^ m " more economioally than (hey did. Auaming " for the moment, withont At M admitting ^he " ^oouraoy of this view, I leave you to oontraat " t;ie figure! I have Kive.i, I4id to determine " wbetner th^^y furnivh any ground for charging " ui with extravaaan'^e or incapacity in the " management of theee departmental matters, " whioti, it ba« been rightly laid, are peculiarly " undor our own eye and control, and in reapect " of which, therefore, we have a apeoial " reepontibility. Nay, nir, I go further — I re- " tort the chnrge up )n our advenariea ; I say " theae figures put them, and not ua, on the " defensive ; that they lead to inferences the " ver^ opposite of those which have hoen urged " against us ; and that we nuy fairly ask you " to decide that we have been able to waU: in " a more excellent way than followed by cur "loud-mouthed accusers. (Hear, hear, and " cheers.) In 1873, the telegraph account was "14,371.88; in 1876, 91,164.69; and in 1877, " ».330." It will be seen from this extract from his speech that the MiniHter of Justice combined salaries and contingencies for one financial year, and the rate of salaries for one month, in another financial year so that it is exceedingly difficult — in fact impossible — to compare that particular statement with the Public Accounts ; but Mr. Blake said combining salaries anc* contingencies when he took office they would be over $26,600, and for 1876 they were reduced to loss than $2 1,000. When he left office they had fallen to $13,537. Now hon. gentlemen the Pub- lic Accoimts show that the salaries and contingencies of the Department of Justice amounted to in 1875 $32,696 1876 27,979 1877 21,484 This makes a difference between the Pub- blic Accounts and Mr. Blake of $6,096 in 1875 6,979 in 1876 7,947 in 1877 Now hon. gentlemen I presume that the then Minister of Justice excluded his own salary from the expenses of his office. Why he should have done so is to me incomprehensible. I at first thought it possible from an expression which he had used in another part of his address — that he had not drawn his salary, but on look- ing at the Public Accounts I found his salary drawn like that of other Ministers, properly drawn. The statement was un- questionably delusi'i'e to his hearers. He stated that the expenses of his department were seven thousand dollars less than they roally were during each of the yearn 1876, 1876 and 1877. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— If the hon. gentle- man will look at the estimates he will find that departmental expenditures do not include the Ministers' salaries. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — The hon. gentleman says they are not in the estimaten, but they are in the ex- penditure. The Public Accounts are the place to find the expenditures, and not the estimates. The Public Accounts are my authority, and the Minister of Justice was speaking of expenditure, he was not speaking of estimates, and his hearers, the honest men of Bruce, would suppose he wa^ making a full disclosure of the ex- penses of his office while he did not do BO. In 1877, Mr. Blake took credit for reducing the expenses of his office, but he has divided the department, separating the Penitentiaries bi-anch, but this sub- division did not reduce the gross expendi- ture. The salaries of the Penitentiaries branch in 1877, we-e $2,577; and con- tingencies, $1,683 ; making together, $4,260. I am inclined to think that the expenses of the office were very little in- creased by that sub-division, and that the item of $4,260, ought to be added to the $21,784, making the expenditure, $26,044 for that year. In 1872-3, the expenses of the Department of Justice — the salaries and contingencies, including the salary of the Minister — were $26,837, and in that year the Mounted Police Force was mainly organized, and organized through that department, without any additioaal charge to the public, so that even if the whole of this sum of $4,260, connected with the Penitentiaries branch, which I think ought to be added to the expenses of the Department of Justice, should not be strictly so charged, the organization of the Mounted Police in 1872-73 is a fair set off against it. When the hon. gentleman was making those comparisons, comparing the expenses of his department with the expenses of the same department during the time it was under the administra- tion of Sir John A. Macdonald, and glori- fying himself at the expense of his prede- cessor, I think he might have gone a little further and compared their own salaries. He should have told the people that while he was drawing $7,000 a year — I think he had then taken the office of President of the Council, which he had himself declared 20 to be a sinecnrfl — Sir John Afaodonald had difichargml th« dutieo of MiQister of Juntice and of Priino Minister, for lj5,0()0 a year down to the last year of hia Ad- miniBtration. > ' ' . ^ Hon. Mr. PENNY— Who made tho change. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— That is not the question. Mr. Blake benefited by the change. I see by thH Public Accounts of 1877, that the contingencies of that department were only 82,760, an enor- mous reduction, and if they can be kept at that Mr. Blako deserveHgreut credit for it. But, strange to say, I see in the esti- mates for 1878-79, the contingencies are put down at ^•'^tSOO, and that in the Penitentiaries branch they are put down at $1,750. If those items are addeil together the reduction will not be as great as pro- mised. I think, however, hon. gentlemen, that those who called attention to the enor- mous and wasteful exjwnditure of the Go- vernment deserve more credit than the Ministers for whatever retrenchment has been effected. In the year 1872-73, Sir John Macdonald'a last complete year, the expenses of the Department of Jus- tice amounted to $26,837 ; in 1875, the first complete year of the administmtion of this Government, they increased to $32,696 ; in 1876 they were $27,979, and in 1877 they were $21,484. I ask hon. gentle- men if the duties of this office can now be jMrformed for $21,484, how are they to justify the increase by the present Go- vernment of the expenditure to $32,696 in 1876 1 But that is not all. The Min- ister of Justice called attention particu- larly to the Telegraph Account. He says " in 1873 the telegraphic account was $4,371,88 for that department; in 1876 it was $1,164.69 and in 1877 it was $330." That is an enormous reduction, but I will ask hon. gentlemen if they would not suppose from the passage I have I'ead, that the amount charged for telegraphing in the Depai'tment of Justice in 1872-73, was the largest that was ever known in that department ; it was held up as something altogether scandalous, and we are told of Mr. Blake's i-eduction. Now will it not surprise hon. gentlemen when I tell them that in 1874-75, the first complete year •£ the present Government, when the Department of Justice was ad- ministered for a pai-t of the year by Mr. Foumier, and a part of it by Mr. Blako, tha^hn ttlegrapbingcost $5,399.44, l)eing upwards of one thousand dollars more than it was in 1872-73. Hon. Mr. PENNY — What months was the inci-ejise in 1 There was a great deal of telegraphing in a certain month. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — There are no details given in the Public Ac- counts, just the amounts for the year, but there is this to be borne in mind, that tho Minister of Justice in Sir John Mac- donald's Administration was also Prime Minister, but he was not so in Mr. Mac- kenzie's Administration. It is well known that there is much more telegraph- ing in the Premier's department than in any other in the Ministry. I have, there- fore, added together the expenses for tele- graphing 'or the Departments of Justice and Public Works, for 1872-3, when Sir John A. Macdonald was Premier and Minister of Justice, and Mr. Langevin was Minister of Public Works, and they amount to $6,851.54, while in 1874-5 tho telegraphing in the same" departments, Mr. Mackenzie being Premier and Min- ister of Public Works, was $9,551.44. Now, I ask, hon. gent'emen, in the face of such facts as these, was it a proper thing for Mr. Blake to address the lionest men of Bruce as he did, with respect to the telegraphing; of the public departments of tho country ? Was it not calculated to mislead his hearers 1 I have calculated the number of messages per day, that must have been received in the Depart- ment of Justice in 1874-5. Tho amount paid was $3,399, being, at a quarter of a dollar per message, about 21,600, messages. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— A large portion of that was in consequence of the Mounted Police, the management of whi( h was in the Department of Justice. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — Were they telegraphing to the Mount^ .' Police on the prairies ? Hon. Mr. SCOTT — Yes, and there were long distances which special messen- gers hatl to take them, and it is one of the expensive items in connection with that department Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — Just think of a minister sitting at the receipt of 70 messages per day, every day of the week, and every week of the year! 21 r l'\ f I Hon. Mr. SCOTf— Are you oalcuUfc- iitgHt 25 ctintii per uieHHagol Hon. Mr. MACPHEllSON — YeH, tLure nro hoiiio of them run, no doubt, more, but I tttko that average. Hon. Mr. SCOTT — MeHHages to liritiHh Cohimbia aometimes coot i^lS to 920 each. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — I sup- IMwe the gnvit majority of them wei-e at 23 centa each. Hon. Mr. BROWN— Yon cannot make 25cts. a inoRHage an aveiugo becauHO that is the lowt'8t price. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— A man receiving twenty or even fifty messages a day is to be pitied. It is MufHci«^nt of itself to impair a man's liealth. Imagine 70 telegraph meHsungors rushing into his office every day ] It is enough not only to impair his health hut to distract his mind and to unfit him for business. Then there wa8|i6,277.24forthe telegraphing of the Customs Department. Hon. Mr. aIkINS— Twenty dollars a day for every working day of the year. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Exactly, and at the same rate as I calculated the others, it is 80 me3sages a day. Fancy poor Mr. Rurpeethe victim of 80 messages a day 1 Hon. Mr. SCOTT— What year was that ? • Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — In 1874--5, the first complete year of tkis Administration. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— There was a change of tariil' in that year, I suppose. Hon. Mr. AIKINS— Not in telegraph messages. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Yes, the minister takes possession of the telegraph offices during the delivery of his budget speech. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— It only covers one day, and the hon. gentleman would not be I'eceiving any replies during that time; he would simply be despatch- ing them. It ia a fearful thing to contem- plate, a pool' man receiving and despatch- ing seventy to eighty messages a day. I fear hon. gentlamen, the torture of -" sitting at i-eceipt of custom " is greater than people in general imagined. The whole amount of telegraphing for the depart- ments in the last year of Sir John Mac- douald's AdminiHtimtion was $24,876, but what do you think of the total amount duiing the first complete year of economy and retrenchment being 838,507.62 t Hon. Mr. SCOTT— That was in 1874- 75 1 Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Yes ; the increase is considerably more than fifty |)er cent. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— Give us the yean Hubseipient tu that ? Hou. -Mr. MACPHERSON— They show a very great reduction. The econumists had called the attention of the country and of the Oovernmont them- selves to their extravagance, and they then began to retrench. It is quite impossible that all this money could have been pro- jHjrly exi)ended in telegraphing. Just se« what it amounts to. It is within a frac- tion of two |)er cent on the capital of the Montreal Telegraph Com> pany, which is 82,000,000, so that the Government in 1874-5 paid to that com- pany a stmi equal to two per cent upon its whole capital. It was monstrous, and it was after the elections when the hon. gentlemen 7ame back with an enormous majority at their backs, a majority which should have enabled them — and would have enabled them — to carry on the Government of the country prudently, economically, and honestly. It was when they came back with that majority, they considered themselves safe in the saddle, and expecting that the revenue would be increased by the legislation proposed by the Finance Minister, by three millions of dollars, they thought they could do what the liked, they ran riot with the public money. The hon. Secretary of State has asked me what the, amount for telegraph- ing was the following years. It was $19, 429.78 for 1875-6 ; 815,149.41 for 1876-7. Hon. Mr. SCOTT — It was coming down. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — Yes, coming down enormously, showing how culpable the expenditure of 1874-75 had been. I think hon. gentlemen, it would have been a proper thing for the Minister of Justice to have told all the facts to his constituents. Saying what he did was calculated to mislead them. Then with 22 reapcct to tho inanamment oi hii depart- ment he out down tne oontingendea oon- ■ideimbljr. Whether they can be kopt at the figtire h^ put them at remains to Im iieen. The eMtimatea however nointclearly to their advanoinj again, certainly to the amount of $0,000. ^e aalariea are aliio reduced : whether they have Iteen roay proper salaries to effi- cient men, but they do not want to see the departments and corridors crowded with supernumeraries and inefficient nen. • i 8PEE0H OF THE HON. MR. MoLELAN. »»>^ Ho Mid : — The hon. Banator who bw juHt addreMed tha Houm, but who, I re- ^t to (lep, iatiot now in hia place, in along, OHnioHt, and ablf>, yet not convincing Hpeech, closed by adviaing us to keep our diacuaaiona within our own province. With a {Hitronizing air, and in p itornal tonea, he cautioned ua to keep within our own aphrre. It may be that the cuatoma of legialution and the forma and uaagea of Parliament have, to a certain extent, limited our direct action on Home pointfl, but no man can deny «a the right thorotighly to diaeuaa a queation ao deeply affecting the intereata and the proaperity of thia Dominion aa that which ia now before ua. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. McLELAN — The hon. gentleman ajrake of thia body in terma which almoat called a bluah to the faceH of the modeat gentlemen about me. He spoke of UB an being the most aristocratic body in the world. How far wt may follow him in that, or how much of it w(> may regard as mere compliment I will not aay, but I do say there ia no other body of men, equal in numbers to thia, in the Dominion, who have a deeper in- terest in the prosperity of thia country, or who are more closely identified with its progress than the gentlemen whom I see about me. And, when the Public Accounts of thia Dominion exhibit a succession of deficits, I do not think we are stepping beyond our Province when we inquire of the Government what means they propose to meet that deficit, to make the income and expenditure har- monize. But the hon. gentleman com- plains that it is inconvenient for the Government to answer the question. It may be so, but however inconvenient it may be to them, I claim that this House has a right to ask that question, and it is the duty of the Government to give us an answer. The hon. Secretary of State told us that he had no proposition to make —that he was waiting in patience and hope. The hon. Senator from Toronto says the clouds are breaking, and he is looking for the sunrise, and that is all the Govern- ment and the Senator who ia said to lead and control the Government ai-e doing to meet the deplorable state of affairs that prevails in this Dominion. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear. he aaya, " I heaitl a HPoech in wliich ao many chargps brought Hon. Mr. McLRLAN — Tli»> hon. gentleman complained that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macpfiorson) had mnde a groat many charges ngainat the Government. " Why," he aaya, '* have never " there wei-o " against a Government." The hon. gentleman surely forgets that we are writing a now jMge in the history of this country. He forgeta that we have now in power a Government compoHever governed this country liefore — h« forgAs that we never had a Government so open, so amenable to charges, or about which it is impossible to ninke a speech without it lieiiig fillfnl with charges of dereliction of duty, of maladtniniHtra- tion and corruption. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON— Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. Mt^LELAN— Therofoi-e, the hon. gentleman sh( uld not have been sur- prised at the number of charges brought against his Government. He Hays, if the hon. Senator ( Mr. Macpherson) had any charges, he should call for a commit- tee and have them investigateil, and Le blamed the hon. gentleman for having said that it is impossible to get a fuir verdict from a committee in the other House. In this he only followed the example set him by the Premier else- where, in stf'.ting that it was impossible to get a fair verdict from a committee of the Senate. He followed the example set elsewhere in saying that, and I do not see any great harm in it. Two committees are now investigating the course puraued by the Government in certain Public Works connected with the North- West. When they have reported there may be time and op[tortunity as there is necessity for further inquiry. The hon. Senator from Toronto professes surprise at the ac- tion of my hon. ^'•'end beside me. He says " Nothing in the administration of public affaii-B pleases him." Is it a matter of wonder that my hon. friend is dis- pleased 1 Is it not true that the great mass of the people are in the same frame of mind and that those who are entirely sa- tisfied form the exception t The hon. Senator (Mr. Brown,) has told us that he justified everything that is done by the Government, and therefore, I assume that 24 he is entirely pleased and satisfied, and I also asHuiue tlmt the thirteen gentlemen sitting on theTreasury benches, themselves, now that Mr. Blake is out of the Govern- ment, ai*e all in ])erfect harmony and satis- fied with their administration of public afiaii's, but outside of those gentlemen, you can almost count upon your fingers the men who share their satisfaction. Hon. Gentlemiin— Oh, Oh ! Hon. Mr. McLfiLAN — You can count Oliver, Brown and Davidson, at Kaminis- tic|iua, as satisfied with the manner in which public allaii-s are administered ; you can count Maiy Brown, Mi-s. Davidson and Alice Leys, all the sliareholders of the Neebing Hotel Co., and perhajjs you can add a few othei-s as satisfied and ilelighted. The hon. gentlenum himself, having access to the public documents of the country and Ordere-in-Council, being l)ehind the scenes, could pi-obably add the names of a few more contented favorites, but outside of those, the gi-eat mass of the peo|)le of this country are dissatisfied, and are making that dissatisfaction known. Why, we have the whole industries of this country jjrostrated, the energies of the people paralyzed, and we have here this repeated deficit of nearly $2,000,000, and yet have no sign of word or deed by the gentlemen who are administering the public affaii-s of this country, other than to say they are " ho[ung for better times " — " watching for the breaking of the clouds." Is it any wonder my hon. friend expresses his dissatisfaction, or that tlie great mass of the people of this coun- t-yjoin in that dissatisfaction, and are ^^ aiting for the time when they can give it fonu and force at the polls 1 The hon. Senator looking across at my hon. friend and shaking his finger, says, " You '■should have been satisfied with the " explar .tions given by the Finance Min- " i-^iter ! You should be satisfied with his " answei-s to your pamphlet." It will be lK)rne in mmf\ that the hon. Senator con- demned, iu the strongest possible lan- guage, the deliveiy of an argument or the statement of a . fact without, at the same time, giving all the at- tendant and explanatory circumstances, and it will be seen how severely he cen- sures the course taken by the Finance Minister in Jiis summer campaign, and also the coui-se taken by the Senator from H^.milton, in thia debate. When the hon. Senator (Mr. Brown) was denouncing this mode of debat«, I felt that he was crushing out the member for Hamilt'^" but when I subsequently heard him com- x.. .ling the pic-nic speeches of Mr. Cartwright, I saw that the hon. gentleman was in the position of the man who found his friend drunk and in the gutter, and, unable to lift liim out of it, endorsed his action by lying down beside him. The hon. Senator, with all his great powere, unable to raise his friend, lies down beside him, endoraes his action, and commends his speeches to my hon. friend. The hon. Senator from Hamilton was good enough to amuse the House last evening with a specimen taken from those speeches. Referring to the charge mode and sustained against this Government of having largely increased the public expen- diture, he says, " See what the late " Government did in seven yeaiu They '* j)ositively increased the public exi)endi- " turo from thirteen millions in 'G7, when -' they took office, up to twenty-three mil- " lions when they went out in '73." This is one of many equally dishonest state- ments made by the Minister of Finance, and repeated with such unction in this debate. The hon. Senator from Toronto (Mr. Brown) was right in condemning, in scathing terms, a mode of argument and discussion unworthy of the position held by the men who indulge in it. The evident intention is to misrejirosent and mislead the jjublic mind by withholtfing the exj)lanatory circumstances which caused and justified the increase. When we started in 1867, wo had but four pro- virces, or, as the hon. Seci-etary of State puts it, you were burdened with only two of the smaller provinces. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— I explained the other day that I was speaking sarcastically when I used the word " burdened, " be- cause I have always favoured tlio confede- ration of these provinces. I think it is not quite fair after my explanations, made at the time, to put a wrong construction on my words. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— The Dominion at that time consisted of but four Provin- ces but in ] 873, when the late Govern- ment went out of office it contained seven pi-ovinces, and a (territory larger than the whole of the United States and 25 ( i tlierefore, tliis addition of province after province natumliy increased tlie public ex- • i)enditui-e. In 1 873, just before the change of Government, last of all Prince Edward Island came in, and the expenditure of that Province was added to that of the l^omin- ion Here is the simple and natural explana- tion for much of the increase, which it would have been easy, honest and just for them to have given. But there are other circumstances connected with that. The lion. Senator from Hamilton and the Finance Minister, should have told their audiences that although there was this increase in the public exi)euditure, tlie i"evenue dunng that period more than kept pace with it. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear t Hon.': Mr. McLELAN— They should liave stated that while the exiienses had gone uj) 19,830,008, the annual receipts had increased $10,500,000, leaving a sur- plus from year to year, amounting in the aiggj-egate to $12,000,000. They should have accompanied their sttitement with this explanation, which would have shown a justification lor the increase. The hon. Senator who addressed the House this afterroon, admits that there was a deficit againiit U3 Just ;, ear, of nearly $2,000,000 ; and this year it amounts to nearly as much, but says no reasonable man should complain of this deficit, under all the cii'cumstances, because there is now, as he claims, a reduction in the ex- l^enditure. Hon. Mr, HOPE — He made no such admission as that. Hon. Mr. McLELAN — He said no i^easonable man could take exception to tlie deficit when there has been a reduc- tion in the exjienditure. Hon, members >vill renember that all through his si)eech, « jcially the latter part of it, he treated the deficit as a mere bagatelle, in compari- son with our resources and the under- takings we have on hand. Now, what we daim in connection with this, is that al- though there luay be an apparent reduc- tion in some expenditui-es of the past year over the previous year, it is not on those services which are the time test of econ- omy, and which would indicate a sincere desire to meet the changed circumstances. Any gentleman will at once see that the expenditure made by the late Government was justifiable, when yearaftei' year the I revenue was inci-ensing, when taxation was diminished from 12 to 10 per cent, and when a surplus of over $12,000,000 was rolled up during the period they were in office, but with the change of Govern- ment comes a change of circumstances, that makes their exi^nditures wholly un- justifiable ; a failing revenue, diminislied trade, increased taxation, and an annual deficit of neariy $2,000,000. Tlie hon. gentleman claims credit because the pre- sent Government have only increased the debt of the Dominion, as he gives it, $24, 000,000 during the three years they have been in power, and expended nearly $21,000,000 of that upon public works. Take his own statement, and it shows over three -millions of borrowed money used to meet deficits in the working ex- penses of Government. Contrast this with the result under the late Government. Not only was every dollar of borrowed capital exj)ended on the great public works of the conntiy ; the Intercolonial and Canals ; but from yearly revenue large sums were expended on public buildings and :m2)rovements that might pro|)erly have Deen charged to capital, and after all this, a liandsnme surplus wasleft every yea,i which went to reduce the public indebted- ness. After the change of Government, when Mr. Cartwright went t© London to borrow money, he gathered up these sur- plus sums and presented them with jiar- donable pride to the British public in his celebrated prospectus, as the evidence of our pros})erous condition. In the one case, you had money left from ordinary revenue to expend on public works, thus prevent- ing the necessity of boiTOwing and in- creasing the public debt to that extent ; in the other, you have this Administration taking money, borrowed and cliarged to capital account for public works, and using it to meet their ordinary expenses to l,he extent of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000, as admitted by the hon. Senator from Toronto (Mr. Brown ) The hon. Sena- tor charged my hon. friend Mr, Macpherson, with having in his pamph- lets made gi-ave misstatements of facts, '* such as he had never heard or read be- fore. " The hon. Senator should prove the misstatement before he makes the assertion — " misstatement of facts." The hon. gentleman's coui-se of reading must be very limited indeed, so limited as not even to reach that celebrated paper pub- 26 lished ia his own office, and under his own direction. The hon. Senator told ray hon. friend, that he had done wrong in not taking the expenditure of 1873-4 as the basis of his comparisons and calcula- tions. He asks, " Will any ieasonable man object to doing that V I tell him, whether I am reasonable or otherwise, I io object. The hon. gentlemen will see, when they look at the months previous to the change of Govern|jieut and the months succeeding, that the present Administra- tion were in offica ■• -j-thirds of the time, and controUpd the expenditure during the eight months of the year. Any gentleman who is familiar with the administration of public affairs in this country knows, that the Grovernment can increase, dimin- ish, or withhold expenditure just as they may direct ; but^it is not that which is my strongest objection to taking the ex- penditure of 1873-4 as the basis of com- parison. It is that the present Govern- ment pi-epared th« Public Accounts of that year, and it is their statement we have to deal with, not the Accounts as they should have been prepared, to do justice to the late Administration. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— If the accounts had been prepared or over- looked by the late Government and made just to them and their successors, then I do not know any objection there would be to taking them as the basis of comparison. Hon. Mr. POWER— I would ask the hon. geutleman if the Public Accounts are pre|);ired by the Government or by the officei-s of the Department under them 1 I was not aware that the Gov- ernment prepared the Public Accounts. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— We do not find that this Government bui-den them- selves with much beyond mere account keeping. At all events, they are responsible for the accounts, and they direct their officers as to what manner they shall be prepared. It is true the otncers attend to the mechanical part of the work, but no account is submitted to Parliament that has not been made to meet the approval of the members of Government, and it is therefore, as I stated, that the accounts for 1873-4 are the work of the present Administration, and their great anxiety to take them as tl.e basis of comparison only too plainly shows that they have been specisdly pre- paretl for this end. Hon. gentlemen un- derstand how easily the Government, having in hand the preparation of the year's accounts, can transfer a charge from one heading to another, or charge against revenue an expenditure belong- ing to capital. Not only has this been done in the accounts of 1873-4, but there are in them large exceptional- charges which must be deducted before anything approaching a just comparison can be made. Now, th» accounts for 1873-4 show an expenditure, charged against ordinary revenue, of $23,316,316, and to make up this sum they include an item voted from capital aocor md in yeai-s previous, and in the ; since, charged against capital, being jr new rolling stock and snow eheds on the Inter- colonial, amounting to $545,625. Add to this the cost of the elections ordered by the present Government in the winter cf 1874, C106,178. Then there is the sum which they returned their good friends of the Great Western Railway, $69,330. There was also an exceptional expenditure in that year, for military stores, of $144,- 906, and the work on the Dawson Route was also completed that year, the expeii- diture being $407,868. There are other exceptional charges in that year, but which, to make the comparison just, may be left to balance exceptional charges in the following years. Deducting these sums I have named, the. accounts of 1874 for comparison will stand thus: Gross amount De.luct lutercolonial Rolling Stock. .'.*.'.*..'..*.'.'.'. ..'.'.*.'.. !!.!!.'.'!!!!.!! $545,e2.'> Cost of Klectioiis I 106,178 Duties returned Grer\'; Western I 69,H30 Military .Stores Dawsou IkOU*.e Leaving for comparis-in. $•23,316,316 Jl,273,907 $22,042,40» 87 This is somewhat nearar the tnie basis for a comparison between the expenditure of that ani^ succeeding years. Starting on this, you find the actual increase in 1874-5 overl8734wa8$l,670,662 ; andin 1875-6 another increase of $2,450,968 ; so tha^ when yon have reduced the expenditure of 1878-4 to something near what is the propar basis for comparison, you find there has been an alarming increase in the expenditure of succeeding years. It was rather amusing to see the pains which the hon. Secretary of State and the hon. Mr. Brown took to justify the expenditure A 1873-4, and to make the gioss sum the proper basis for com- parison, and they seemed perfectly de- lighted when they had, according to their own minds, succeeded. Proceeding on that basis, the hon. gentleman went on to make comparisons in detail, and to ten the House whenever there happened to be an increase in any item, that it was perfect- ly reasonable and just, and called for by the necessities of the country. When the hon. Secretary of State and the hon Sena- ^or from Toronto (Mr. Brown) take this ground, they seem to forget the position in which it lands them. They feeem to forget that ever since the hour when these Provinces were united under Confedera- tion, they declared on the floors of Par- liament, and on public platforms, and in their press, that the men who were then administering the afiairs of the country, were day by day practicing the grossest extravagance, extravagance amounting to corruption, and that it was their object and would be their duty when obtaining power, not to go on the same scale of ex- travagance ; that their policy was to largely curtail tLa expenditures of this country within, as they said, reasonable limits. The hon. Senator from Lunenburg i-ead to the House last night, the platform that they laid down ; they were " to reduce the annual lavish expenditure, and en- force strict economy in every branch of the public service." Those gentlemen came into power with an overwhelming majority, pledged to the teeth to reduce the expenditures of this country, not to continue them on the same basis. Yet, here to-day, we haVe the hon. Senator from Toronto (Mr. Brown,) and the hon. Sec- retary of State yesteixlay, hour after hour defending, in fact, that expend- iture, justifying it, and taking it as the basis — as the justification — of their own increased expenditure. We claim that that expenditure in the main was justified by an overflowing treasmy, while the expenditure of this Government, not only in view of the pledges they had given to the countiy, but in the changed condition of the revenue, were entirely unwarrantable. In seeking to justify their own expenditure, these gentlemen entirely overlook the i)Osition in which they stood before the country by their charges of ex- travagance against the late Government, and their past pledges and promises to reduce the amount. The hon. Secretaiy of State, as well as the hon. Senator from Toronto (Mr. Brown), claimed our sym- pathy forthe present Government, because, as they held, they were loaded down with obligations that were placed upon them by the late Administration. In one breath, you had the hon. Senator from Toronto de- ploring this, and in the next breath you had him forgetting all, and striliing down the position which ne and his Secretary of State had taken; telling us that our duty is to build up the Dominion and make of it a great and prosperous empire ; that the great pxiblic works, railways, and canals, must be carried on to completion, that our resources may be developed and the object in view attained, and therefore that the expenditures cannot be curtailed. The hon. Senator in this, ju.stifies tlie late Government for all those undertakings which the Secretary of State, and he him- self earlier in his speech, had censured so severely. It is admitted on all hands, thai; there are certain undertakings that are essential to the wants of the people ; cer- tain undertakings that are necessary un- der the terras of Confederation itself, to the union of our people and the develop- ment of our vast resources. There is the construction of the Intureolonial Railway,, and the enlargement of our canals on which there has been large expenditures, and on which large expenditures are yet required,, and should be made as soon as the circums- tances of the country warrant. No man will claim that the late Government are any more responsible for expenditures upon such works as those than the gentlemen opposite. Now apart from those, let us see what obligations were laid upon the present Government by their predecessors, and how far those obligations hampered their policy. It is true that the old 28 I I ^Government had constnicterl a large num- ber of public works, post offices, customs houses, ])iei's, and various, other works all over the Dominion, and had inaugu- rated othei-s, but they were constructed not out ot ca)>ital account, as they might very justly have l»een, Imt out of revenue and Htill leaving surpluses every year ; Honie of those works were in an unfin- uished state when the new Government came into office. In 1874 the Finance ]\Iinister brought down an estimate to continue those works, and having made out that year's appropriation, he gave an estimate of what woxild be i-equired to complete them. I ask the hon. Senator from Hamilton, and the Secre- tary of State to turn up that esti- mate submitted by their own Finance Minister, for the sums that would be re- quired to complete those works after the vote of that year, and what will they find t Hon. g» iitlemen will be surprised to see how very small it is. I am sj aaking outside of the Intercolonial Railway, the canals and other gi-eat works, entered ujion under the terms of Confedei-ation insepar- able from Union, and assented to by both pai-ties. There were required the follow- ing sums : — Customs House, Toronto $ 40,000 ExamiuiuL' wareliouse 1 15,000 St. Johu Post Office 4.3,000 Ottawa Post Office 30,000 Manitoba Penitentiary 121,000 British Columbia Penitentiary 129,000 Harbors and Pi.rs 161,000 $639,000 Making a total of $G39,000 to complete all those buildings that the late Govern- ment had undertaken to construct out of revenue, and which were in an unfinished state in 1875. The Finance Minister, in his Budget Sjjeech of 1875, set the matter at rest when he said (see page 168, Haii- mrd of 187 5.) "I think we may fairly congratulate our- *' selves that our financial condition has materi- •" al'y improved since last year. All immediate ■^' demandsmet. No pressing claims except those " fo! public works, for at least a year or two. " Have completed the Intercolonial and P. E. " Island Railways. We have a reasonable " surplus, and are, therefore, free to turn our " attention and energies to enlarging and im- ■' ' proving canals and the Pacific Kailway. " Now, hon. gentlemen will see that even the Finance Minister himself contradicts the position taken by those hon. gentle- men (Mr. Scott and Mr. Brown) when they say that this Government were loaded down by the obligations left to them by their predecessoi-s. The figures I have shown prove that those obligations were comparatively light, and the hon. Finance Minister himself said that eveiy- thing was paid, and that we were free from embaiTassment. The hon. Secretary of State, I fancy, rather surprised the House when he attempted to account for the enonnous increase in the Customs expenses, by stating that it was owing to reforms introduced intothat service. Tlio «;oimti'y will be slow to appreciate reforms that lead to such an alarming increase of cost and diminution of revenue, and think the fewer we have of them the better. The hon. gentleman claims that the cost of penitentiaries had not kept pace with the increase of inmates. This is only an inevitable result under any management, as all the main expenses of the institutions are stationary, no matter what the number of prisoners. It is true that since 1874 the number has gone up from 1,000 to 1,500, and without an increase of cost in proportion. But when we turn to the other side of the account, we see that the receipts have not been increased, and therefore we are led to the conclusion that a part of the receipts is taken to meet the daily ex- I)enditures, and in this manner the appar- ent cost has been kept down. I am strengthened in this conclusion by the evident atteftipt that is api)arent in the Public Accounts to mislead and mystify in regard to the cost of many of the ser- vices. In the matt«r of telegrams, which has been so much dwelt upon by both lioh. gentlemen, and a saving claimed, we have the gi-eatest difficulty in making a com- parison. The expenditure of each depart- ment, instead of appearing as usual in one sum in the contingencies of that depart- ment, has been reduced by charges scat- tered all through the various services. The hon Senator, (Mr. Brown) was to-day un- si>aring in his j)raise of the Finance Minis- ter, and I doubt not but whilst his words were ringing in our eare, many hon. gentle- men around me were recalling in strange contrast the sweeping denunciations hurled at Mr. Cartwright, a few yeara ago by the hon. Senator in his newsi)aper. Then, he was characterized as " a mere mixer and muddler of figures. " If hon. gentlemen will M take the Public Accounts to day as they stand they will find that charges are strangely mixed — mixed with the inten- tion of muddling, or, if not with that in- tention, certainly with that effect. It will be remembered that when the hon. Seci*etaiy of State claimed that the cost of telegraphing hail been reduced, and cited as proof the sums under the head of con- tingencies to each department, he was told that the reduction was in part due to the increased facilities for rapi(l communi- cation, and to a reduction in the raf«s for messages ; but the hon. gentleman would not admit such an explanation. He told us that the telegraphing in connection with the North- West, was enoi-mously high — 17 cents' per word — besides the cost of S2)ecial messengers to the various stations. The language and manner of the hon. gentleman, evidently conveyed to the House, that all the cost of this was included in the sum which he was comparing .nth the cost under the late Government, and creating the impression that in telegrams this Government is more economical than its predecessor. But how does the matter stand ] If hon. gentlemen will take up the accounts con- nected with the service of which the hon. gentleman was speaking, the North- West, they will find under that head en- ormous sums for telegrams scattered all through the branches of the service. I have not had time to go through more than two or three years, but I find in one account, " paid the Secretary of State for te'egraras, $548.00," and again, "paid the Department of Justice for telegi-ams, 11,040 ;" in another account, $1,589, and so on, all through. In the accounts laid before us this year, there are over $3,000 charged amongst the various ser- vices of the North-West, and which the language of the Secretary of State would lead us to think he included in the sums he compares with his predecessora. And it is only by taking part of the cost of telegi-aphing from the accounts of the De- partment of Justice and the Secretary of State, and scattering it through different headings, that the hon, Mr. Blake, at Teeswater, can boast of the small com- parative amount that appears under the proper head of contingencies of his own office, and the hon. Secretary of State can re-echo the boast here. It matters little to the country where the charges are placed, the result is the same, thd ex- penditure was made, the money is gone,, and the people foot the bills. And that is what my hon. friend (Mr. Macphersou) complains of, not becaiise a particular ser- vice is increased, and another apparently reduced, which can easily be done by transfftring a charge from one head to an- other, but that the aggregate is increased ; that the result of the year's opemtions is largely to increase the controllable ex- penditures. This attempt to hide away expenditures, and to mix accounts, is by no means confined to telegrams. Take another case, the steel rails, and perhaps the House will expect me to apo- logize for naming again " steel rails " but we have the rails, to our misfortune, and we have annually charges connected with them. Turning to the accounts of the past two years, we find under the head of " Pacific Survey " $6,700, for storage of rails in British Columbia. By what right is the rent of a small patch of gi-ound on. which the rails are piletl charged to sur- veying t Have they an engineer marching about the piles measuring and calculating how much and how rapidly they are dimi- nishing by corrosion? Then, again you have another charge connected with the steel rails, an amount of $1,000, paid for insu- rance average to one of the ships that carried the i^ails, charged to survey account^ whilst the money received from the insurance company to meet this charge is credited to steel rails, as if the Govern- ment felt the. rails were such a burthen to them, that every cent by which they could possibly reduce the apparent expenditure should be resorted to, in order to deceive the countiy, no matter where the items were charged. But the hon. Secretary of State grows very indignant when it is even hinted that any member of his Go- vernment ever attempts to mislead the public mind. My hon. friend (Mr. Mac- pherson) had occasion in his address, to point out to the House that the Member for lii ..oe when Minister of Justice, and addressing his constituents, in a comparison he made of the cost of the department under his predecessor with it under himself, had omitted the expenses as Premier. The hon.. Secretary of State professes amazement at the imputation that the intelligent men of Bruce can be misled, or that the lat.j mem- ber of his Government could stoop to mis- lead an audience. Why, hon. gentlemen,. 30 hacl tho Hpeech delivered by the Senator from Hamilton lost night been delivered beforo the men of Bntce, intelligent as they are, they would for a time at least have been misled. Had the bold fact been given in the manner it was given to us, that the late Government from 1867 to 1873 increased the public exi)en- diture nine millions, the impression would have boen created that they were guilty of great extravagance. Let me name another case in point during the l>ast season. We had, in Nova Scotia, a visit from the Premier, and I had the ]>Ieit8iu'e, and a great pleasure it was, (>f listening to him addresainj' a " of the electoi"8 of my own county. ae hon. Premier, in his efforts to show how very economical the present Government are, how much better they administer the affaira of the country than their prede- cessors made a comparison between the Intercolonial Railway and the Pacific. He told the electors of that county that he was building 228 miles of the Pacific Railway — had it under contmct — and he would have it completed for a cost per mile ot less than half what the Inter- colonial Railway had cost the country. The words used, the tone and manner of delivery were such as to leave the im- pression upon every man pi-esent, who did not know the difference in the con- struction of the two roads, that they were equally good, equally well built — should be of an equal cost — and that the late Government and the commission- ers acting under them had been guilty of the grossest extravagance in the construc- tion of the Intercolonial. Being called upon by that audience, I felt it a duty to myself and those with whom I had acted in the construction of the Intercolonial, to correct the Premier. I felt it my duty to point out the great difference in the character, and necessarily in the cost, of the two roads. That the Intercolonic ' is the best road on the continent of Amerxoa, as was confirmed by an eminent engineer a few days ago, when giving evidence un- der oath in another; room whilst the road, he (Mr. Mackenzie) was constructing was a mere log and timber affair — timber tres- tles in place of solidembankment, and log piers, abutments and culverts, in place of solid masonry ; in fact, as the same engin- eer to whom I have referred says, only a preliminary constniction for a railway. With this case under my own observation and knowing how completely for a time, until the explanation was made, the men of Colchester had been misled by tho hon. I'remier, I can readily believe that the utterance of the member for South Bruce left on the mind of his audience a falsa impression. The hon. Senator (Mr. Mac- pherson) calls our attention to the Sus- pense Account of $343,591 for railway renewals on the Interco'clal. The posi- tion taken by my hon. friend was that this sum which we are told has been ex- I)ended in renewals upon the railway and paid, should have been charged in this year's accounts, and would there- by show the true deficit to be nearly two millions of dollars. The hon. Senator who has just addressed us con- tends that this sum, although ex))ended, and although the service was paid for, should not be charged against renewals in the year's accounts. The hon. gentleman is perhaps not aware of the position taken by the membei-s of his own Government in respect to all renewals on railways. The hon. the Premier and the Finance Minister have both, in the clearest and most emphatic terms, affirmed that the relaying of the ti-ack with steel rails is a proper charge against revenue, and is so to be made. So late as the 25th of last April the Premier used these words, as reported on page 1881 of Hansard: — "The renewals on the road (Intercolonial) " were paid out of its revenue and charged to " income. The relaying of steel raib was " charged to income and taken out of the an- " nual vote." This, it will be seen, was in conformity to the principle avowed by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech of 1876, as reported on page 243 : — " With respect to the operation going on of " substituting; steel for iron rails, it is an item " I think which is properly chargeable to in- " comn, and is intended to bo. I am somewhat " particular in making this statement, because, " as the House knows, we ftel it incumbent " upon us ; we are compelled to keepb >th capital " and ordinary account, that we should be very " scrupulous as to what we allowed to go to " that capital account." Hon. gentlemen will see by these extracts that the principle and practice contended for by my hoiv friend has been admitted by the leader of the Government and his Finance Minister, but has not been car- ried out; and we are justified by their own words in adding this suspense i 81 '1 ir it 11 1 amount to the ycar'ti expenditure and to the amount of deficit. The hon. member from Toronto (Mr, Brown) coutendu that it would be unfair to the road to make the whole charge in one year. If he had said it was unjust to the officer in charge of that road, I could understand him, because it is undeniable that Mr. Brydges has been compelled to make an expendi- ture u|>on the road which his own judg- ment had pronounced uncalled for. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— The House will remember in 1874, Mr. Brydges was sent down to examine the condition of that road and report upon it — that was before the Government had purchased this 50,000 tons of steel rails for which they had no use — and what' did he re- port 1 I will quote from it : — " Havins carefully gone over the whole sys- " tem,andai8GUBa^dthe matter thorougbly'with " the engineer and roadraasters, I am of opiii- " ion that it will require not has than twenty " miles of steel rails per annum, to be used for " ro-layiuK the tracks, which will take the en- " tire quantity of iron rails out, in rather more " than ciglit years. Twenty miles, I am sure, *' will do for the next three or four years, but if " the old rails should wear badly, or the traffic " ba heavier than I at presnt anticipate, it " may be possible that alter three or four years " toe quantity may require to be somewhat in- " creased." Here we have Mr. Brydges, after care- ful examination with the officera of the road, reporting that the work shouldi^be gradually done, as ) equired, in a period of eight yeai-s ; but the Government step in and compel him to hide away a part of their dead stock, by doing in one or two years, what was declared only necessary to be done in eight. Hon. gentlemen •will therefore see, that although the posi- tion taken by my hon. fiiend (Mr. Mac pherson) that the rails having been laid, the expense incurred, and the money paid, the amount should be charged in the year's accounts, is entirely correct, and that the time deficit for the year is in- creased by this sum of $343,591, making it nearly two millions, yet, it does place the officer who has that road in charge, and who is no doubt anxious that it should be worked as cheaply as pos- sible, in an unfair position. The Govern- ment have interfered with him in his duty, and have fureed him to expend an amount that, in the opinion of himself and his en- gineer, was wholly uncalled for. Tlie hon. Senator comes to this conclusion himself when he says, that " if they had had the rails on hand — if they had not been called on to pay cash for them — they would not have put so many into the Intercolonia'." The hon. Senator with ad- mirable frankness exposes the transactior. The Government had rushed thoughtlessly —madly into the purchase of 50,000 tons of steel rails for which they had no use — they had ]>aid millions of the people's cash away for piles of ra-ls that were being eaten out by interest and corrosion, and they must at any sacrifice get them hid- den away — " Anywhere, anywhere, let them be hurled," if not out of the world, at least oti the record — and so Mr. Brydges is made the scai)e-goat and forced to bear away a quantity of them, which his own long experience and great ability, sustained by the deliberate opinion, after careful examination, of his engineer, de- clared unnecessary. But, hon. gentlemen, judging by ihe result in the working of that road, it is not alone in the matter of rails that the Government have interfered and made it a political machine. It will be remembered that Mr. Brydges in his reix)rt en the condition of that road in June, 1874, before taking charge of it, said that " taking the average of five years previous, that the roads had about paid working expenses," and that with certain reforms, reductions of salaries and sever- ance from politics ii' could be run free of expense to the country. Hon. Mr. POWER— How much of the road was open then 1 Hon. Mr. McLELAN— He took into account the opening of the road as far as Newcastle, and we have seen, it is stat- ed in this year's report that the open- ing of the whole has given a lai'ger amount of through traffic than was anticipated. But never before, in the history of the railway, has there been a worae exhibit than in this year's report, due, as must be admitted, to Government interference. The manager proposed a gi'adual renewal of rails as the wants of the road requii-ed, extending over at least eight years, but the Government interfere, bi'eak up his system, and compel him to hide away 11,000 vjns of their mad purchase. The manager proposed a reduction of salaries and the number of officials, to the extent 32 of about $17,000 ft year, untl nn soon «h ho was f)luce(l in clmrgo, proceede«l to carry tliis out. But here again there muHt have been coercion on the part of the Oovorninent, to give places to favor- ites, for the number of otficiaU apart from the new stationH, have l)een hirgely in- crejuwHl, swelling the salaries, exclusive of stations, over $40,000 above what they were in. 1874, to say nothing of the re- duction which the manager in his report proi)osed. There has therefore been a great injustice done to him, and the coun- try has suffered a large loss by this inter- ference. The hon. Senator (Mr. Brown) I fancy, startled the House by the an- nouncement, with the audacious challenge that he threw out, that " not a single in- stance of culpable neglect or of thought- less waste of public money could be brought to the charge of the pr 'ent Gov- ernment." Notwithstanding all the utter- ances from pic-nic platforms, all that has been written in the pi-ess, or that we have heard elsewhere, I am sure hon. members were hardly prepared for so iiisli a challenge — " not a single instance of thoughtless waste of public money, or culpable neg- lect !" While the words were yec on the hon. member's lips, I heard on all sides of me "steel rails." Need I ask if there was sufficient care and thought in this ex- penditure 1 An expenditure which their own officer — the ablest man in their em- ploy — had pronounced in advance, such as " no pnident man would make." An expenditure which, in interest and charges, has rolled up to over four millions of the people's money, helping to swell taxps and deficits. An expenditure marvellous in its absurdity and folly, when we consider that a single mile of road was not then located, nor did the Government scheme, as now de- clared by the Secretary of State and qther members of the Grovernment, contemplate the construction, by Govei-nment, of as much road as the 50,000 tons would lay — sufficient for 550 miles, whilst the policy of the Government is to stop with 228 miles now under contract, and the Pem- bina branch 80 miles, and to seek a com- pany to build the rest. Is there no diarge of " thoughtless waste of public money " in rushing blindly into a pur- chase which was unnecessary and un- called for, and which, imder their policy, never can be used i Does tke hon. gen- tleman want other instances of culpaWo neglect or tiiDUghtless waate of money? When the Government were about to select a termintis for the Pacific Railway away in the wilderness where there were millions of acres of land, the best of which had never cost higher to private individuals than four dollars a lot, was it not culpable neglect on their part not to secure that land when it could be bought for a more trifle I What was the result of that neglect? In 1874, after they had selected the termi* us, their engineer, Mr. Fleming, makes a j)lan of the land re- qiiired and of a wharf to be constnicted, "They built that wharf and proceeded with the construction of the road; all th«» while looking on at rings of speculators and jobbers working up the price of the very land marked off by their engineer. They stood idly by v/hilst these speculators planted a huge shanty, named the Neebing Hotel, directly in front of that wharf, to be bought out at fabulous prices. For years they looked on and then jmid 867,- 000 for th6 terminus of the road running, as Mr. Mackenzie described it, " through a wilderness never l)efore trod by the foot of white man," even now we do not know that we have the full cost given. The hon. gentleman from Toronto, Mr. Brown, makes it a serious charge against my hon. friend (Mr. Macphei-son,) that he shouhl have even hinted that there was any with- holding of the public accounts. Last Session this House asked for all the exjjenditures on this purchase, and th« papers brought down showed an amount of 151,000. The Ii .use was led, to be- lieve, that it was not ]X)8sible that there would be any further expenditure there, and hon. gentlemen thought we knew the . worst of it. But we find an expenditure of $16,000 had been kept back, and in this Session the sum has been rolled up to $67,000 for this piece of wilderness. The Government felt that the country could not stand $67,000; it was too large a dose to give at once, and was "divided" but I hope we have now reached the full meas- ure of the infiictiun. Hon. Mr. AIKINS— We hava not. They will have to get more land. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— If this land, by two years neglect went Hp from two 88 / ^ dollars to a thousand an acre, what will the addition be in another year t But the hon. Senator can see no culpable neg- lect or thoughtlcHH WHAte. The hon. Secretary of State should have checked him, and should have t*)!!! him that last night he (Mr. Scott) had confessed, on the floor of this Hou»e, to a thoughtless waste of the public money in the construe" tion of the Fort Felly Buildings. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— No, I did not. Hon. Mr. McLELAN~I know the bon. gentleman did not use just these words, but you should have told the hon. Senator (Mr. Brown) that it was a thoughtless waste, because the buildings on which the Government have expended $63,000, he tells us, were in the wrong place, and others have been erected. Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON — Fort Francis Lock? Hon. Mr. McLELAN— My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brown) has a wonder- fully short memory. He forgets the Georgian Bay Bmnch. Was there any evidence of careful thought in the giving of the contract for the construction of a railway that would cost millions of dol- lars through an unexplored country, a road that the Government did not know they really wanted, and which ^suited in a thoughtless, wasteful exj onditure of over $100,000] Hon. Mr. SCOTT — Only $40,000. You are counting the advance on the rails. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— Yes, taking the whole, it runs over .$109,000. In connection with these worthless rails was there not another "neglect of public duty?" A gentleman constructing a rail- way in that vicinity brings in a quantity of rails in the fall, dumps them down at a certain point, tells the Government that they are intended for their road, and that he wants the money on them. The Gov- ernment pay him over the cash. In the spring, when he wants rails to lay on his own road, he goes to the Government and borrows a hundred tons of those same rails, and when the matter comes to be looked into they find that 227 tons have been taken. Is there no " neglect of pub- lic duty" in this ] The hon. Senator knows also that a Committee of this House is now investigating into the construction of 8 th« Fort Francis Lock, in which there in the plainest possible evidence — in which there is an admisNion from the hon. gen- tleman himself — that it was a blunder ; " a thoughtless waste of public money." The Government adopted their famous " water-stretch " policy, and determined to run a link to Sturgeon Falls. To make the water-stretch from Sturgeon Falls, they decided that a lock was neces- sary at Fort Francis, and bofoi-e ascertain- ing that a road was possible to the F'alls, they nished into the construction of a lock involving the expenditure of nearly hlinientary to the HUpporters of the Gov- ernment the way in which he put it, giv- ing MH the inipresHion that it was only by the iron firmness of the Goverumont them- tielves that they were able to fight all these demands and keej) the treasury from being depleted by their clamorotis sup- jjoi-ters. CAMrBELL— Such as Fer- » Hon. Mr. lis — " More rails. Hon. :Mr. tleman from MtLELAN— The lion. gen- Toronto (Mr, Brown) refer- red to the deficit, and following the ex- ample of the hon. the Secretary of State, went back to 18r)8. The House nnist have been amused. What have we to do with niattei-s connected with 18581 What has this Senate or this country now to do Avith the action of old governments long liefore the Provinces were confederated { When the hon. gentleman spoke of this defi- cit and attempted to justify it by going back to that jieriod when tliere were deficits, it must have crossed tlie mind of every hon. member here that he, of all men, was not justified in taking such a course. We have merely to look at the present, cer- tainly not go back beyond tlie date of (.Confederation ; but these hon . r;entlemen liave no rigliv to go bad to that (Ute. The li-ju. gentlemen pposite are, 81 rely, ';ot the men to attempt to justify themselves by quoting the action of the late Government. Whv, their whole course when in Opposition was laying down pledges and promises that they would not act as the genilenien who were then gov- erning the country were doing, but they would reform, they would reduce the pub- lic expenditure and be more economical. But what do we now find 1 We find that whenever they are charged v/ith any mis- conduct, they, on all occasions go back to see Avhat mistakes they can find of the late Oovernment. But the Secretary of State and the hon. Senator oxceetled any- thing we have over had from them before. They went buck to ISriSand 1H60 and com- pared the deficits of that jxiriod with the pn^sent. I tell the hon. gentlemen n(;ither they nor any member of their Govern inent or party should attempt to justify their action by a comparison with their predecessors before or since Gonfederation. We all remember the cry with which they sought power. It waft not " wo will do equally well with you " but " wo will do better than you." It was "stand aside I am holier than thou." Today when four yeara of their record are examined their tone is changed ; their cry is *' don't push us aside, we are no yione than (>ther8." Of ihis, let the intelligence of the country answer at the polls. The lion. Secretary of State in speaking of the jiast uses the expression '* before we wore burdened by the smaU(!r Provinces " Hon. Mr. SCOTT— No, No. Hon. INIr. McLELAN — It may have been with him an accidental utterance, slip of the tongue. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— The hon. gentle- man was present, I believe, when I made that statement. I said I was speaking sarcastically of some gentleman who made that statement, and that I never shared in that sentiment myself; I said I was 8j>eaking sarcastically. Hon. Mr. McLELAN — I was proceed- ing to say, that I supposed the hon. gen- tleman had made a mistake, or in some way the expre."!i8ion had fallen from him unintentionally as we have had no marked evidence of his liostility to the smaller pro- vinces. But we know, hon. gentlemen, the position taken by almost every man who is now in the Government, and who ]>revious to coming into power was hostile to these smaller provinces ; we know that when the terms of admission of every province that has been added to this Confederation were under discussion, the hon. gentleman's Government opposed those terms. What did we find in 1HG9, when the motlification of the terms to Nova Scotia was under discussion 1 We found every member of this Government — eveiy one who was then in Parliament, and who is now a member of it, Mr. Cartwright except- ed, in deadly hostility to that modification. It was carried in spite of all their attempts toilofcat it, carriod too by the liolp of Mr. ( Jiii'twrij^ht, who now uiuhsi' uthor intltn'ii cuH and a nionilHtr of another Govornnicnt, Ih nioHt ontspoken in conduniing th» ttu'iiis i^ranted to the Hinallor Provincen. How rofi|)orouH exhibit U>ft \>y tlu) latoOovcni- ment. Ho went back in 1H76, aftor lio had lM>fln thrpe y<'<^>'>* nianagor, and he evidently niintni8tcrl and iindorvahied otir IKMsition. At all evontH, for nemo reaRon je did not tout ovir crtnlit by 0|Mm coni- ])etition in the market. The hon. gentle- man name>ov«. " amounting to £483, AOO aru allotted in full, " while tlioiie at £07 Hi. 6d. will receive al)OUt " A.") per cent of the amount applied for." Here wo find this young South Australian colony testing their credit and asking the money lendors " how many pounds will you give us for our bonds at four per cent 1" and they were oflbred very nearly six times the amount re(piired at .£97 8b Cd, and to i'lOO. But the Finance Min- ister of Canada, representing not a small colony, but a country more than one-half of the continent of North Amei-ioa, with a population of 4,000,000 of people and with a revenue that from the Conftfdeni- tion down to the time he assumed the management of it, had been increasing and giving annual iiurpluses, went into the London market, and instead of asking " How much will you give for our bonds " at 4 iKjr cent V he fixed the price, at a loss of from eight to nine ])ounds on every hundred pounds, below the tender sale of the Australian loan, and asked the capi- talists if they would take our bonds on those terms. As a matter of course they were readily taken, but we received nearly a million dollars lo.ss than if he had sold in the same manner and at the same rate as South Australia. Our liability or in- debtedness for this loan, and on which we j)ay interest, is .$12,106,606, whilst the actual cash received for it was : .$10,907,865 Less half yearw interest. ...243,.S.33 IJ CoinniiHsion and charges on.«il'i,l()(>,(;(i(> 191,4.30 434,763 Leaving net cash paid over, say. ..$10,563,100 The Finance Minister, in last year's Bud- get speech, told us that one percent com- mission was paid, b>it we find it to be one and and a quarter, and that not on the- cash realized but on the gross sum. or in other words, we ])aid nearly .f20,- 000 commission and charges on cash that was never received. The discounts on the several loans effected by this Government amount to a total sum of l!i3,802,06!}. The hon. Secretary of State boasts of the reduction in the average rate of the interest on our whole indebtedness, but he should bear in mind always, that ■we wro paying iiitorPHt on lurjjer iloht tliiiu tli« money n'cttivnd ; uk hIiowii \>y tho ul)ovn (liHcotint un ti o liiHt luunn — ho tlint the actuiil rate of intereHt on money re- coivod Ih gi-t>iit(>r than ho q\iotcH from tlio blue hooliH. Tho iion.gnntlenuin Iiowevi-r HhouM kiiow^ thiit the reduction in tlio nite iH net duo to any HU|M)i-ioi- manage- ment on the pai-t of liiH (lovernment. We all know that the ohl dehtH with whicli «acli Province went into Confederation in greater )»art hore si-i \^^'!l• cent interest. Shortly after Confederation, when the con- dition of the Dominion wan hIiowh to he so proHperouH, the bondu constituting these debts commanded a premium in the money markets, and until they matured they could not 1)0 exchanged for othei-s at a less rate of interest. All additional sums re- quired hy the late Government were pro- cured at reducftd rates, and such of the old notes as matured were r(fplac(Ml by others at the same leduced interest. The Auditor reported " as tlie result of three years fol- lowing (.'oufederation, that of )?4.7")1),.'J35, expended on capital works, !S2,27H,2."J4 ■wei-e paid out of income, and, although there had been an increase of the public debt for large works of two and a half millions, the credit of the country had so Improved that the interest payable on the whole had only increased $2, .32;')." The loans for the Intercolonial and North- West guarautetid by tho British (iovernmeut, also helped to make a lower average, and, in addition to all, daring the last four years a large amount of the old notes oi^ bonds bearing five, six nnu seven per cent fell duo and were redeemed by the money raised from the bonds sold at four ))er cent ; altiiough sold at a discount as I have previously shown. Of .lix per cent ))ontl and indobteil- iiesa there were taken up ■'?ll,46f),74.5 and of five per cent 2,4!).S,9"24 Making a total of .«I13,9G0,GGI) Within the same period there have been added to the public debt : — Imperial guarantee loan, 4 p. c... . i^lO.OCO.OOO Dominion loan '74 " l!),4(l(),f)()() " '75 4,8(i(i,()(;t) " '76 12,163,666 increase of Savings' Banks at four per cent 990,017 §53,550,015 Thus, by taking out nearly fourteen mil- lions bearing mostly six i)er cent. — the Hou.sc will bear in mind that they eoiild not bo taken out until they mature«l — and by adding tiftythnH> millions at four |n>i* cent the average over the whole indebt««l- iiesH IH riMluced, l)uk not no much for the actual cash received, as would a|»|)ear f the Htatements, for the reiuton that the Minister of Finance sold our notes at a discount, and wo are paying intereHt on that four milli<)nK, that was not awfi — never received. So much, hon. gentle. m(m, foi- the I toast of the Secretary of State, and tie -.uember for Tomnto (Mr. Brown), ♦hat ihey )uive improvwl the public ci'cdit, as Hhown in a rmluctiou of the rate of interest. Yet, afti'r all tho boasting and special pleading of tho hon. gentlemen, tht> hard fact remaiiiR, that last year wo had a deficit of nearly two ndllions. Hon. Mr. POWER— No, No. Hon. Mr. Msed, ii.dustiy paralyzed, tJie public ti'easury unable to meet expenditure, and a CJo\ornuieiit fold- ing their hands in utter indifi'orence" wait- ing in the hope of better times." Dick- ens, the great master of fiction, sketc)ies for our Hinusement, Wilkiiis Mieawber waiting for years " in the iiope of beler times," always waiting, always hoping, and always selling or trying to sell hi» bond, his T. O. U. at any discount in tho London market. We have all been more or less amused at Micawber's eccentricities, and whilst sympathizing with his family have laughed at his oft repeated declaration that " something was sure to turn up. " But here, to-night, we have something beyond even the fruitful imagination of a Dickens. We have men pretending to govern this country — men holding the in- terestr of four millions of people in theii- hands, who, when appealed to on behalf of those interests, coolly tell us " wait in the hoi)e of better times," to wait, for '* something better is sure to turn up." We must put aside fiction, close the volume, and let it rest as does its dead author, for truth is stranger far. To-night we stand amazed in the living presence of tho Dominion Micawber. Hon, Gentlemen — Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. McLELAN— The hon. mem- ber from Toronto (Mr. Brown) follows in nearly the same vein. He is, however, more ardent in his hopes — more confident that the good time is just at hand. He assumes a new character, and plays tho role of Colonel Sellars in Mark Twain's " Gilded x\.g<'." No matte ■ how dark tho outlook, how discouraging *^he circum- stances or delusive the scheme, the Colonel smiled in bland confidenc-:;, and assured everyone that " there were millions in it." So does the hon. Senator come beaming on us with the assurance that " we are not embarrassed ! We have plenty of money ! Every penny has been met. We liii V e had two bad harvests and sonu; bad weatlier, but the clouds are breaking, and I see tho sun use," and to his vision, at least, " there are millions in it " to meet these annual deficits. Do these hon. gi'iitlenien expect to satisfy the country by sucli language I Do they hope to niaintain the public credit by this course ? It is impossible to overrate the importance of preserving oiir credit, and unquestion- ably it must Huli'er if we j)ermit annual deficits of millions. It is, therefore, the plain and imperative duty of the Govern- ment — a duty owing alike to the country and to our present bondholders, — to take such action as will prevent their recur- roiice, ;ind preserve our credit at home and abroad. :. < SPEECH OF THE HON. MR. CAMPBELL. He snid : — I am unwilling to resunie the debate npon this question without of- fering to my lion, friend from Saug(!en my congratulations upon the effect which his speech of last Session has produced, alike iipon friends and opponents, throughout the co\mtry. That speech has attracted the attention of both Ministers of the Ci'own, and the public. lieplies have been attempted by the Premier and the Finance jMinistor in addresses to the country, and by the hon. Secretary of State in this House. His (Mr. Scott's) speech of last Session has 'been charac- terized by the Prime ^Minister, as having been 'a complete answer to my lion, frii^id, yet he himself evidontly thought other- wise, or ho woidd not have occupi'"! the House with the somewhat weary details which engaged his and our attention some two or three days, a week ago. A reply has also been atteini)ted by the hon. ^liniste/ of Agriculture, and tinally we had the atteaipt by the hon. gentl man whom we know to be almost the parent of the jNIin- istry, the hon. Senator from Lambton. Hon. :Mr. VIDAL— Not Lambton. Hon. INIr. CAMPBELL— I hope the hon. gentleman will allow me to speak of Mr. Brown as the Senator from Lambton, because he desires to be so designated, and we know, and admire, and speak of my liQn. friend (Mr. Vidal) as the Sena- tor from Sarnia. I thii k my hon. friend from Saugeen is entitled to this congratu- lation, because on friend and foe the eflect of his speech is acknowlcdg» d. We see evidence of it in the pains wliicli INIinister^j take t(3 reply to it, and by the tlemand which hivs sprimg up for the perusal of the sp(!cch itself. I was a witness, with my hon. friend, of the demand for copies' in the North-W(!st last sununer. Tim first thing we heard in "VVinni|)(!g was a demand for numbors of that si)eech. Tho very Hrst thing I heard in this House, after having hr ' opi)ortunitio;') of speak iiig with hon. g .1< men from all parts of tho Dominion — and hon. gentlemen around me hoard it as well— were con- gratulations upon the usof\ilness of tho speech ; upon the admirable manner in which the tables were collated, and tho otfect it was producing throughout the country. Tlio Ministry ])rofcss to be sur- ]U'ised at the course ^)ursued by my hon. friend from Saugeen. They profess ta lind in it something contraiy to tho course which he has usually pursued, and to find in him a ])artizan of the late Government, and on party grounds an op[)onent of theirs. As to his having been a partizan of the late Administration, all I can say is, Avium we were in office, T always found him one of your too candid friend-, altog(>tlier too nmch so to be comfortable, and he was as often opposing as support-, ing the Government. I think tho course he pursued towards the late Administm- tion he has ]nu'sued towards this. He has weighed nu'iisuresupontheirmeritsand endeavored to deal with them witliout any reference to partizjui feeling. Of course, as 40 the hon. Senator for Lambton said, every member of this House is influenced by party feeling more or less, but I think the tables my hon. friend from Saugeen has collated and used, and the care he has taken, show almost conclusively that he endeavored to be fair. I think I can say he has been fair, and that, if he erred at all, it has been in leaning too much to the side he opposed. The hon. gentle- man's motives are plain on the face of the facts he has detailed to the House. He is idtiutitied with the pros^jerity of the Dominion. He has a large stake in the country, as many of us have, he, liapjiily for himself, larger than most of us, and it was but natuml that ho sliou'.d have emiuiied what should be done in the serious state of public aftairs in 187G. The hou. gentleman then found the sur|)lus of eight years amounting to $12,000,000, which had grown ui> under the late Government, and which indicated the immense pros- perity that the country had enjoyed, had been converted into the alarming deficit of $1,000,000. Surely that was enough to alarm any one Laving a large stake in the country. It alarmed all of us, and why should the hon. Senator be accused of being led too far by party feeling, because he saw in that dedcit evi- dence of the disastrous course which was being jjursued by the Government, and that he should deem it his duty to draw at- tention to it? Nothinjf could be more natural, or could more cuui])letely warrant the motto which I see he has put on the publication of his si)eech : " The situation " of this country is alarming enough to " arouse the attention of every man who " pretends to concern for the country's wel- " fare." It is true the situation was alarm- ing enough to arouse every thinking man's attention. My hon. friend not only saw that deficit but was afraid, unless the at- tention of the country were called to it, another deficit would follow it, and his apprehensions were unhapi'ijy too well founded. The dedcit last year amount- ed, as acknowledged by the Finance ^Nlin- ister, to $1 ,500,000, and this is short-stated, because there should have been added to that, the amount placed to the debit of the Suspense Account, !ii!343,000. It was attempted to misguide the House upon that point, or at all events to lead the House to understand there was nothing in the entry which ought to be rectified or which did not accui-ately represent the state of atlairs. Now the object of all such entries is to represent to the public mind the true position of public afifairs. The entry in question had not that efiect. The $343,000 figured as an aaset, when in truth it had been expended on the In- tercolonial Railway, and should have been charged for the maintenance of that work to Revenue. It makes the country appear as $343,000 more wealthy than it really is. If it had been entered as it should have been it would have increased the de- ficit by that amount. He who runs may read that a sum of that kind should have been charged to the service for which it was expended, and should not figure in a Suspense Account. You may as well put anything else in the Suspense Account — the supplies purchased for these build- ings, or for the canals, for instance. There is no reason why those items should not just as fairly, honestly, and correctly, figure in the Suspense Account as this .$343,000, which represents certain rails used in renewals on the Intercolonial Railway, and, therefore, stands just as oil, nuts, locomotives, wear and tear, or any other expense connected with the running of that railway. When that item appears to the debit of the Suspense Account, and figures as an asset, it ia (juite clear the Public Accounts do not fell the truth with reference to it. No merchant would nuike such an entry in his accounts, otherwise they would bo totally misleading. Happily my hon. friend from Saugeen discovered and point- ed it out, and the country will not be so misled again. Undoubtedly, if that $343,- 000 had been entered, as it ought to have been, the deficit would have been 'in- creased by that amount. There is an- otlier item, Sales of I'ublic Works, $110,- 000, which should also be added to the deficit. It is impossible to trace out whether those public works originally figured in Capital Account or not, but I do not think anyone familiar with accounts would say that the item ought to appear as Revenue. Evidently it is anexceptional item, and should not figure as Revenue, and therefore it ought to be added w'th the item in the Suspense Account, to thu Sl,r)OO,O0O, which would make the deficit iJi)l,D(tO,000, or nearly the same deficit as in the jtreceding yeai'. No wonder my . 41 i t 9 \ i \ lion, friend's apprehensions were again Aroused (and it in fortunate for the coun- •trx that they were aroused) and he was led to direct public, attention again to these facts. The circumstances under which my hon. friend made' his speech last year, and his speech this year, and to which these i-eplies have been attempt- ed on behalf of the Government and the hon. Senator from Lambton, will now be understood. The statements which he made last Session were of a very serious character. He said there was an increase of the annual controllable expenditure of 1876 over 1873 of $3,677,000, and in 1876 over 1875 of $717,000. I draw attention particularly to the excess of expenditure of 1876 over 1875, be- cause as to the expenditure of 1875, I think there can be no Jiretence there was any responsibility by the late Government. They had been out of power for nearly two years, and they cannot be held res- ponsible for the expenditure of 1875. The fact that there was such an excess in the controllable expenditure of 1876 over that of 1873 cannot be denied. The figures Are given by my hon. friend in detail, as can be seen by reference to my lion, friend's speech in the official report of the debates of the Senate, and the fagt that the increase amounted to 83,677,000, has not been denied by the hon. Secretary of State, or the hon. Senator from Lambton. or by anyone outside of the House. But what is said by the hon. Secretary of State is that a comparison between the expenditvires of 1873 and 1875-6 is not fair, because the present Government were so tied down by the Estimates and Bill of Supply of 1873-4, and the legislation of that year, that they had not the opportunity of exercising that economy which they otherwise would have exhibited. These hon. gentlemen say the legislation of 1873-4 fastened on them certain charges which they A^ere obliged to pay, and certain works were commenced which must of necessity be finished, and they were driven to spend for these two reasons money which they otherwise would not have expended. I think it is into the merits of this defence we must enquire if we want to come to an accurate judgment as to the allegations of my hon. friend from Saugei;n. The hon. Sec- letary oi State in the first place lays great weight upon the estimates of Mr. Tilley of 1873-4. He says these were the estimates of the late Government, that they showed what public works were con- templated ; they were the estimates which the present Government found, and that they wei-e unable to restrict the expen- diture because they found these es- timates, and the supply based upon them, passed. He says "Look at our ex- penditures ! They did not i-each those " estimates by more than $300,000, and * so the late Government were more extra- " vagant than we have been. " That is the position of the hon. Secretary of State. As to the comparison, it seems to me you can- not compare estimates with expenditure. The estimates represent the calculations of the Finance Minister of the day. Whether he makes full or close estimates depends not only on his political leanings, but also on his mental temperament, whether it be of a sanguine or a cautious cast. For instance, we know a gentleman who would be almost sure to think there would be money for every purpose, and who would ' be disposed to make a very liberal estim- ate — I speak of him with the greatest respect; — Sir A. T. Gait. On the other hand, a gentleman who would be likely, from the nature of his mind, to make a veiy close estimate, was Sir John Eose. The estimates are only the impression on the mind of the Finance Minister at the time as to what the revenue and ex- penditure are likely to be, and they do not find the Ministry to the expenditure of the sums they are found to contain. Nobody knows that better than the hon. gentlemen from the Maritime Provinces, but the representatives of all the Provin- ces know that it does not follow because an item appears in the estimates that it is t« be expended. How many times did the item of $500,000 appear in the esti- mates for the Bale Verte Canal 1 Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, bear. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— That is Capital Account. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL — How fre- quently did items appear for the St. Peter's Canal and a variety of works which were not going to be constructed? There was no absolute pledge they were to be cor- structed, but the Minister of Finance thought they were to be proceeded with if the revenue continued to increase. If, on the other hand, the revenue showed a 42 ■i falling oflf they would not cro on. It depended entirely on the state of the revenue as it came in whether a large portion of the expendi- ture would take place or not. So with other works. Items were placed in the Estimates from time to time, but it did not follow that the works were to be proceeded with. It has been the same with this Government, and I will read the result, even this last year, of a com- parison between the estimates and ex- penditure. The hon. gentlemen would be very loath indeed to be charged with their estimates instead of their expendi- tures. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— I made no refer- ence to items charged to Capital Account. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL — I will not make any reference to Capital Account. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— The hon. gentle- man referred to the Baie Veiie Canal. Hon, Mr. CAMPBELL— I did so for the purpose of showing that the fact of an item appearing in the Estimates did not necessarily imply that it would be ex- pended. Now, let us loolc at the Esti- mates of last Session. Tliere is a large balance brought forward from 1875-G, which had figured in their Estimates and in their Supply Bill, but they would con- sider it the most unfair thing in the world to be charged witli spending money which remained unexpended. Lust year the unexpended balance was 8773,000. So, neither in the experience of the late Ad- ministration, nor in their own pi-actice, have the l^Istiniates indicated, in that ac- curate nmuuer which the hon. gentleman woidd have us Ijelieve, the actual expendi- ture, for which the Government must ultimately be resi)onsible. I take it that if any Government were framing Esti- mates, if they found the revenue buoyant and redundant for a series of years, that would be a satisfactory exjilanation to Parliament why the Estimates were liberal ; and if, on the' other hand, tlie revenue were falling off, that would be ample explanation to the House of Com- mons why certain works, not commenced, should not be undertaken. Up to the very year in which those Estimates of Mr. Tilley's were fnimed, the country had happily been in the receipt of a large income, constantly swelling year by year since Confederation. It was no wonder the estimates wei-e full and ample. But does it follow, when these hon. gentlemen found the revenue was not going to keep to the full volume, Mr. Tilley expected that they were to be tied down like chil- dren to Mr. Tilley's Bill of Supply? I quite admit the principle laid down by the Minister of Finance in his first Bud- get speech. It is one to which I, at all events, take no exception. That was, in the first place, that certain legislation had been passed, which increi ;ed the burden upon the country, and thoy could not be charged with extravagance because they spent the money which the Legislatuie made it necessary they should expend. Mr. Cartn-iight said, in his tirs6 Budget speech : " The Legislation of last Session added over "■ .$1,500,000 to the fixe.i charged of 'this couii- " try, in full view of the fact we were pledged " to one of the most gigantic schemes this " country ever undertook." That is, the Pacific Railway. It will be seen that the Finance Minister, who is a higher authority (1 say it without any disrespect) *han tlie hon. Secretary of State or tlit hon. Senator for Lambton, gauged the increased expenditni'e attrib- utal)le to the legislation of 1873 at $1,- 500,000. Now, with reference to the works commenced before the change of Government, I think the present Admin- istration should not be charged with ex- travagance because they finished them. Mr. Cartwright continued : — " I must again repeat tliat it would be in the " last degree unjust to my hon. friend, the " Minister of Public Works, to hoM him le- " sponsible for this state of things, or to ask " him to stop works alnady commenced, and " to put a reduced sum in the Estimates; but " when the works now engaged in are com- " pleted, which I expect will be the case in " eighteen months, a considerable saving will " Vje effected in the annual expeiuliture, though " for this a considerable period of time is " necessarily required." I think the Govcrnmont are entitled to ask at the hands of this House, in consid- ering this question, that they shall not be held responsible for what was forced on them by the legislation of 1873, or cliarged with extravagance for completing the works conunonced by their predecessors. The Finance Minister had every facility for making an estimate of the charge which that legislation imposed on the country,and he placed itat.$l,.'500,000. We have now to ascertain how far the Gov- ,1- I 4: / ' r 48 emment wei'e fastened down by the works commenced by their predecessors. This is a more difficult estimate to make, and I think we can only rrive at it ajjproxim- ately. But we can get at certain works which the present Government commenc- ed and expended large amounts upon, which were not begun in 1873. In the speech of my hon. friend from Saugeen last Session, will be found a list of these works. They are various in their locali- ties and somewhat different in their cir- cumstances. The amount in 1874 was S327,552;in 1875, $203,.54G, and in 1876, .f556,596 — total amount exDend- ed in those three years on workf ed to Consolidated Fund,which were .^^ com- menced in 1873, $1,087,694 ; so that the excuse that they were tied down by their predecessors is clearly to this extent not borne out by the facts. Can anyone say they were obliged to begin these works and go on with them ? Is there any rea- son why they sliould not have practiced the economy they thought desirable in these works? They were entirely in their own hands, and they might or might not have begun and gone on with them iis they chose. Yet, in the face of a falling rev- enue, in the face of the deficit of the pre- ceding year and the alarming decrease in the revenue of the succeeding year, thoy commenced many of these works, and when charged with it they excuse them- selves by saying, "We could not practice " the economy we desired, because of the " manner in which wo were hampered by " works commenced by our prcde- " cesHors, and by the legislation of " 1873," As I have said, the ex- cuse is just so fiir as the works com- menced by their jiredecessors, and the ex- penditure resulting from the legislation of 1873 are concerned, but it does not apply to the exjjenditnre on works to which I have referred, amounting in the aggregate, since the change of Government up to the end of 1876, to $1,087,000. Upon these works and all departmental and other controllable expenditure, they c juld have practiced the economy which the diminishing resources of the country so eminently demanded. Now, I have kept entirely away from expenditures on Capital Account, except when led into it by a re- ference to the T3aie Verte Canal to show the Estimates were not of that binding, obligatoiy character they were represented to be. The expenditures on ca])itHl have apparently all been on railways, canals, and public buildings in Ottawa. I judge so from a return [)ut into our hands the other day, in which the items chargeable to capital are those I have stated — canals, railways and public buildings at Ottawa. I have kept clear of those and confined myself wholly to controllable expenditure, and I tliink it has been established beyond the p(jwers which have been brought by the Government to assail it, that the Government expended in the neighbour- hood of .$3,677,000 more in 1876 than in 1873; that. of this sum $1,500,000 was fai^'ly chargeable to the legislation of 1873, and that another but comparatively a small sum estimated by my hon. friend from Saugeen, at $377,000, should be de- ducted as representing any other expen- diture to which they may have been com- mitted chargeable against revenue by their predecessors, that they therefore had the opportunity of economising to nearly half the whole amount if they had seen tit ; that the Estimates of 1873, like all other Estimates, were not of the obliga- tory character that hon. gentlemen op- posite have contended, and that beyond all doubt, they had undertaken and spent large sums on a number of works not commenced in 1873, which there was no- thing in the world to make ■' compulsory on tliem to begin. The premises and de- duction of my hon. friend from Saugeen, seem to me to have been thoroughly sus- tained, and after allowing full credit for the charges imposed by the legislation of 1873, and for the necessity of completing works which had then been undertaken, an excessive and controllable expenditure, to theamountof something like $1 ,800,000, had been made by these gentlemen in 1876 over 1873. The s|:eech which my hon. friend from Saugeen made, this Ses- sion, was not one calling for the warmth of feeling shown by the hon. Senator for Lambton, or the wonderfully long returns which seem to have been prepared for the purj)ose, and which the hon. Secretary of State kept us occupied with for a couple of days. His (Mr. Macpherson's) speech was a fair review of the claims which the Government had established for economy, in the matters which he had the year before brought under our notice. He very fairly took the gross amount of their alleged saving, as as- 44 «erted by themselves, of $1,810,000, and asked how fai* is this really an economy ? He applied himself, I think, in a spirit of Serfect fairness, to ascertain whether what e urged on the Government last year, had had any effect, and whether he could find fair reivsou to congratulate them on theii* course. The amount of decreases he admitted to be $1,810,000, and the amount of increases $474,000, Then he finds the item of|343,000 in the Suspense Account, which is really short-charged. Instead of being an asset it should be charged to the Intercolonial Railway. The increases and this item make $818,- 000, and this, deducted from the apparent decreased e^cpenditure, leaves an apparent decrease of $992,000. It is with refer- •ence to this amount that my hon. friend enquires what are the savings ^-^is it real economy, or does it represent works com- pleted? It is in the answer to these questions we find whether there is economy or not, or whether these gentle- men have considered the position in which the country is placed, with a deficit two yeai-s in succession. Militia and Defence shows a decrease of $428,000. You look through the items and find the decrease resulting from diminishing use- fulness of the force from the abandonment oi camps and training. The staff i-emains very much as it was, and the deci-ease is upon what was previously paid to the men. Appai'ently, also, there was a do- crease in not keeping uj) the supply cf military stores. Either the supply pur- chase the year before was enough for two yeai-s, or the Government have dispensed with stores for this year. Then, in Public Works there is v decrease of $686,000. Are they entitled to credit for this 1 You find the savings result from the fact that a number of works have been completed. The following is a list of these works ; — Harbors, Piers, Breakwaters on which Expenditure ivas incurred in 18Y6-1877 ivith list of new items for 1877 only Place. Kingston H Cobourg Port Hope Port Stanley Bayfield Kincardine Owen Sound. Port Darlington Port Burwell Chantry Island Goderich Toronto Oshawa Saguenay Bagotville BaieSt. Paul Malbaie Eboulements, ext. of B'k'r Riviere Blanche, P Dipper H Point du Ch§ne Bichibucto Shippegan St. John Harbor Grande Anse, B. desChal's Campobello Meteghau Cove Liverpool H Jordan Bay Oak Point. Trout Cove 1876. 1877. 6,267 23,403 14,372 8,060 4,732 18.398 4,668 5,500 3,394 21,200 10,514 5,000 3,422 41,624 127,200 2,824 5,000 5,173 36,095 86,175 17,075 2,000 2,000 8,000 8,000 7,500 873 279 "lioso* 7,228 10,853 6,312 64,335 3,000 1,621 9,135 65,000 600 5,000 8,9.33 17,465 15,000 4,000 4.33,788 264,522 Place. Brought forward, . . Cow Bay Ingonish Mabou «... Margaiee Harbourville Broad Cove Margaretville Oyster Poi^d, Chedabucto Michaud and Mark Points Cranberry H Church Point Saulnierville New London, P. E. I Tignish Colville Bay On the following there . WAS NO Expenditure IN 1876. Thunder Bay .... Riviere Quelle.... Musquodobit Chipman's Brook. , Liugau Beech.. . . , Tracadie Decrease in 1877. 1876. 433,788 46,458 17,926 10,084 3,000 2,00» 3,000 5,000 2,00'- 97 2,000 2,000 2,000 503 4,557 20,000 1877. 554,413 264,522 8,656 24,851 10,228 4,750 19,871 5,99» 1,213 1,000 2,750 2,000 873 346,713 207,700 5.54,413 45 This is not the retrenchment which they promised when they went into office. Who does not remember the loud promises made with reference to retrancli- ment and economy] Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, liear. Hon. Mr. CAIV^PBELL— These were ^;hicfly works which were completed and on which they could not spend money it they tried. lli« following is a list of the public buildings completed : — List of Public Buildings and Works for which expenditures were incurred it» 1S16 and 1877. Namk. 1876. 1877. Name. 187G. 1877. Hamilton P. 1,762 31,694 149,562 72,704 55,659 3,303 3,879 2,000 10,695 2,003 15,357 71,783 74,843 27,243 2,081 14.086 1,010 152 6,995 3,574 4V,9.39" 33,196 18,1.36 33,729 Brought forward Fort Pelly Barracks Cus. House, &c., Manitoba Barracks, Battle River Public Buildings in N. W.. 550,385 3.3,966 40,092 8,000 267,304 *" 5,057' Toronto Custom House.. . . " Exam. Warehouse Ottawa P. Kingston ^Military School.. " Fortifications.... 75,470 British Columbia. Mar. Prov. Penitentiary . . St. Vine, de Paul " Manitoba " B. Columbia Penitentiaries 21,860 4,076 60,597 78,114 3,673 Toronto Savings' Bank, Ac St Catharine's M. Hospital Orosse Isle, Quar. Station. Levis Marine Hospital .... " Fortifications 90,294 5,907 39,791 47,218 5,000 3,671 ■"ii"i86 110,229 4,146 7, .364* 228 550 2,123 807 Montreal P. a St. John's P. " Custom House.. Pictou Custom House Halifax Quarantine Station Yarmouth " Sydney Marine Hospital. . In 1877 ONLY, fxuelph Custom House. . . , 13,111 Souris Marine Hospital . . . Quebec Fortifications 5,927 Decrease in 1877 550,385 267,304 ' 815,494 485,079 330,415 815,494 These are the items which go to make up the |68G,118, which they say they have saved on public works. I ask is there any economy there for which the Governement is entitled to credit? Then the Dominion Land sui'veys in the preceding year were so extensive as to render it iinnecessarj' that any should be made this year. That can hardly be claimed as a saving ; this item amounts to $122,.320. Then, there is a deci'ease in the item of " Military forces in Manitoba." If that is partly caused by withdrawing the trooi:>s from Fort Osborne, Winnipeg, I think it is a very dangerous saving. We have between Winnipeg and the Rocky Mountains, 25,000 Indians of our own, besides the band of Sitting Bull and the Sioux. It is true no trouble with them has yet arisen, but we know how easily they are excited, and we never can tell the time when a millitary force may be re- quired in the North- West. The Govern- ment have assumed a responsibility which I, for one, would not like to have taken. This item amounts to |51,947. Then, there is a decrease in the item for Boun- dary Sui-veys, .$134,10.5. We know that is due to the fact that th& survey of the line between the Dominion and the United States is completed. Then, the item Set- tlers' Relief Fund, $8.3,405, shows a de- ci'ease. Happily there is no necessity for such an item this year. These items amount in the aggregate to $1,505,974 or $513,000 more than the sum which they claim credit for economizing. Where is the rentrenchment, where the economy? They led the public to believe they had saved $1,810,000. That is the represen- ^ 40 tatioii which lias gone abroad, and which the Public Accoimts aro intended to con- vey, but when you como to disHcct it you find all these sums I have mentioned, and which they i)rotend to have saved, must 1)6 deducted from it, and the result shows an increased expenditure on possible items of retrenchment, to the amount of more than half a million. The deficit this year amounts to nearly one-third of the interest on the public debt- Fancy such a deficit occuii-ing in England ! It amounts to one-eighth of the whcle taxation of the coun- try and one-tenth of our entire re- venue. The revenue of Gi-eat Britain is about £80,000,000 a year. If there were ft deficit of seven or eight millions of )>o\ind3, what an alarm it would create ! Would people there wonder if attention was called to it by a member of Parlia- ment ? Would they exi)ect instead of it being cai-efully looked into and the pro- sjiect gravely considered, and an answer given such as would satisfy the anxiety of Parliament and give confidence to the country — an answer that would go to the common sense of the community and showing there was reason to believe the deficit would be checked — that the reply would be such as was given by the hon. Secretary of State the other day, that he depends u])on the hope of the future. " Hope tells a flattering tale. Delusive vain and hollow Ah ! let not hopes preva-l Lest disappointment follow. Hon. Gentlemen — Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL — I propose now to address myself for a few moments to the answer given by the Ministei- of Agriculture to the remarks of the hon. Senator from Saugeen with resi)ect to the expense of immigration. In the first place the House will bear in mind that my hon. friend's object was to show how far that expenditure bore fruit and was useful. ]My hon. friend said the exjjenditures for jirocuring immigrants in 1877, was $209,000, and that the number of immi- grants who came by way of the St. Law- i-ence was 7,000, and that they cost the country nearly $27 each. This seemed a veiy startling statement and in very great discrepancy with the reply of the lion. Minister of Agriculture, and there must be something astounding in the Public Ac- counts if both statements can be established out of tliom. My hon. friend from Saugeen said the number of immigrants was 7,000 ; the hon. Minister of Agriculture, that they were 27,000. My lion- friend from Saugeen said the expondi. tureto procure immigrants was 8209,000 j the hon. Minister of Agriculture that it was only $110,000. My hon. friend from Saug(!Pn said the cost per capita waa nearly $27 ; the hon. Minister of Agri- culture that it was $4.08. Now, I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that the enquiry of my hon. friend from S;\ugeen was for the purpose of showing how far this expenditure bore fruit, and it is with reference to that point we nuist look at his statement. He does not include the arrivals from the United States. Is there a dollar expended there for bringing in immigrants I Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— Certainly. We have agents there. Hon. air. CAMPBELL— I will read over the items composing the $209,000 in the Public Accounts, and the House will see where the money has been ex- pended, because, if you want to test the results of the expenditure, you must see where it has been made and the number of immigi-ants we get for it. (The hon. gentleman has read over every item in the Public Accounts included in the $209,000, which Mr. Macpherson had divided by the number of immigrants coming in at Quebec, Halifax, St. John, and Portland, Maine.) I submit the im- migrants from the United States, except possibly a compamtively small number of French Canadians, come to this country of their own accord, and not as the result of the expenditures of the Immigration Dejiartment. Now, let any hon. gentle- man read over the items and see if any one of them is connected with the United States. Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— Yes, Dr. Whiteford was traveling all the year in the Unittd States. Hon. Mr. another 1 CAMPBELL— Is there Hon. Mr. PELLEFIER— Yes, Mr. Lalime. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— I knew a Mr. Whiteford, a Canadian, residing in England, and I supposed it had been his name which appeared" in the accounts. I ♦ . 47 f ^^I'i A see liis expemlituro was $2,763, and Mr. Laliino's, f 3,897. Mr. Lalitno, I HupixMo, woiiUl be traveling to get French Cana- dianB to return to Canada. Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— Not exclus- ively. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— Well, chiefly for that purpose. Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— No, he was a regular agent. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELI^Will the h m. gentleman mention any more, if he can, who were working in the United States ] Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— This is quite a new ground, and I am not prepared to answer now. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— I contend it is perfectly true, and everyone knows it, that the exertions of the Immigration Depart- ment are not directed to procuring immi- grants from the United States, save as regards expatriated French Canadians, but from Europe, and my hon. friend from Saugeen stated distinctly it was the immigrants who amved at Quebec he re ferred to in his statement, because they are the only finiit the Government can take credit for from the expenditure on immigration. My hon. friend from Sau- geen included the anivals at Halifax, St. John, and Portland, as well as the arri- vals at Quebec, in his statement. The arrivals from the United States into Man- itoba, numbering over 2,084, he has ex- cluded, and why not? What possible connection can they have with this ex- penditure? Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— I will show you presently. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— Then, the next item is most extraordinary of all — " reported with settler's goods by custom " houses, 11,759." These people come of their own free will into this country, yet the Government take credit for bring- ing them here as immigi'ants produced by the labours of the Department of Agricul- ture. I acquit the hon. Minister of Agri- culture of intentional misrepresentation, but could anything be' more misleading than to point to these an-ivala as the re- sult of the e . enditure of his department '? The hon. genci man also stated that the refunds from the provinces had not been credited by the hon. Senator from Sau- geen. He has credited them. They are in the Public Accounts, and my hon. friend deducted thorn, and the result is the net ex|>onditure of the department for procuring immigrants was !3(20'J,()(K). The hon. gentleman also charged him with not having credited the Icelandic immigrants' relund. That also was deducted, and is not included in the $209,000. Hon. Mr. PELLETIER— What year do you speak of 1 Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— I si)eak of 1877. I refer only to the speech of this Session and the replies to it, and I say it was answered in a way that was mislead- ing by the Minister of Agi-iculture. The $209,000 represents the expenditure after making these deductions, and the result of it has been to bring some 7,000 immi- gi'ants into this country, making the per capita cost $26.50 per head. I carelessly stated it a few moments ago as $27. Hon Mr. PELLETIER— I will prove that to be incorrect when you h ave done. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— I now turn- for a few moments to the hon. Senator from Lambton, who found fault with my hon friend from Saugeen for introducing financial mattei-s into this Chamber, where he said we have no machinery for inquir- ing into the Public Accounts. He went so far as to say it diminished the efficien- cy or usefulness of this House, and said my lion, friend had "railed" at or brought "railing accusations" against the Government. With reference to the charge that it was an error to introduce financial mattei-s in this House, and that its usefulness has been prejudiced thereby, I ask hon. gentlemen who heard the speech of my hon. friend from Saugeen last Session, whether they found, when they visited their homes and other parts of the country, that the reputation or use- fulness of this House was not, in the eyes of the people, increased by that sjieech, and the debate upon it 1 Hon. Gentlemen — Heai', hear. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL— I daresay these debates and investigations have been inconvenient to the Government and dis- liked by the hon. Senator (or Lambton, but that they have diminished the use- fulness of this House, I utterly deny, and I am surrounded by hon. gentlemen who know that the House has not been in- juriously affected, but quite the reverse, 48 by the dehat^B of hiHt SoHsion and thin Besaion, connected with thin clafia of mih- jectH. With regard to the liccuHation of " railing at the Govoniment," what couhl be more unfair ] Does my hon. friend from Saiigeen ever make a statement that h9 does not follow up by tigures and BtatisticH carefully prepared 1 Who of uh has gone into those figures as he has done i Which of us exjHJHes himself ho little to charges of that kind 1 I am amazed at the industry of my hon. friend who, removed as he is, I believe, thoroughly from poli- tical aspirations, and with no motives but tlie goo interest to the House, if one had the advantage of seeing hin) [tresent. He wounil up with eulo- gizing the Oovernment. He had never known mieh a (Jovenunent. THm. Mr. AIKINS -That is true. Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL -TheMinistry are the creat\u'es of his breath, and it must he satisfactory to them to l)o praised hy him, hut lieing so closely connecleil with them, he looks with natural fun«lness ami atVection on all they do. I do not think the puhlie will share in the admiration of my hon. friend from Laml>ton. He closed with a hold and striking elialltuige, de- fying any one to produce evidence of o veil any "culpahle imglect or thougiitless waste" on the |)art of the (Jovianment. I accept that challenge, and I ask was there no " culpal>le neglect (jrtiu)Ughtless waste" in the expenditure ct)nnected with the Georgian Bay Branch of the L'aciliu liail- way, iu which a gentleman, now no more, who was supposed to lia\ro peculiar claims on their gratitude, was given a contract where there hail never hreii a survey, and where it was fouml ini|io,ssil)le to go on with the work ( Finding this to ho the case, tluiy gave him slO'.t.OOO, .$40,000 for expenses he had heen put to, and .'7(3i),UOO called an advance upon rails. Hon. Mr. SCOTT— The rails are there yet. Hon. :Mr. CAMPBELL— The greater part of tlie rails which they got, they actually loaned to him aijitin, and they wei-(! used hy him in another railway in which he was interested, where they now are. They took as security honds of the South- Eastern Piailway Company, which nohody would givi; a farthing for. In- stead of insisting upon the jierforiiiance of the contract, they gave hack thesecuiities, advanced !Rf!0,000 on the contractor's rails and then lent him ii large poi'tiou of them and took as security S(jiitli-Kastern R.iil- way Company's honds, worth nothing. Was there no evidence of culpahle negli- gence or thoughtless waste iu all that i Theuagain,theypurc!iase(|sl('eli'ailsinl87'* without authority from P.uriamont.enougli to lay 555 miles of track of the Pacitic Railway hefcn-e a mile was locat(;d. The hon. Secretary of State tolu us two or three yeare ago, where those rails were going to he laid, and led us to hclieve «0 tiloy would hft in m'fu ono or two yearn a^o, yot tlio liulk of tlioin iiro pih'd up iit Kiii^'Ntoti iiikI Ksciuituaiilt, iind uthi'r pIiKM'H, corrodii^ uionuiuoiitH of tho folly mid iin'iipiifity o<' tlio < Jovoniniont, Was tluTt' no cviiiouco ot rul|ml>l(> iii'j,'llg('iu;o and tliou^'htlfss waHtu in u tniUHaotiou wliii!li involves tlu; loss of two millions of money, alwoluttily thrown away in those rails, over and ahovo what tluiy miyht havn siiico been purchased for, which money inij,'iit have lu'eu in the Public Treasury! Then they <,'avo ,ii!l';{5,()(M) worth of Hteel rails to tiie Truro ami I'ictou llailway, which they had presented to a local company. An arrangement had Iteeu mado by which tho Tniro and Pic- ton road was to be handed over as a sub- sidy to a company who had undertaken to l)uild a roiid from Now (Jlasgow to the (»ut of Cai);<), and after havinjc; made the bargain, tho (Jovernment unnecessarily and voluntarily expended |S2.'Jr),00() on tho roud they wore giving away. Was there no culpalile negligence and thought- less waste there ( Was there not thought- loss waste at Fort Francis in building a lock at a cost of, at all events, if.'JOOjOOO, which is of no use, and wliicli the hon. Secretary of Stato is diiven, in sheer despair, to excuse, l)y saying it will be useful in a mUitary jtoiut of view, "and for luml)er puri)oses I" Wo know that a slide mijrlit bo constructed for a few thousand dollars to take down all tho lumber tliat, will ever jtass down Rainy River. Wo know millions of feet of lumber liavo been taken down tho Ottawa for tens that will ever bo taken down Rainy River, and that nothing more costly than slides has been used for the purpose. Wsis there no " thoughtless waste, or cul[)able neglect" in constructing public build- ings, at an expense of .^G0,0OO, at Fort P<'lly, which they were afterwards obliged to abandon, and con- .striict other buildings at Battleford } Was there no " thoughtless waste ' in .spending $G7,000 at the Kaministiquia for an inconvenient site for the railway terminus, when they could have got one twice as good for half that amount ? Is there no " culpable neglect " in the way they have gone on with the Welland Canal works, sjiending millions on the 1 )wer end, where tho improvements can be of no nse whatever nntil the water is let in from Ijike Krio, by IocUh yet to bo constructed at the head of the canal I Tho interest on tho amount which they have thus oxp(>nded, i»eforo tht! other works upon which these depc^nd can be constructeii, will be in tho neighitorliood of !5!75(),()y(». The items which I have men- tioned amount to sonu-thing liko JiJiJiijOO, ()()(>. 1 will recapitulate ; — AiiKiimt paid for Hurvoy)4 as al'octod on relitivia^ Mr FnaU-rof hin (Juorgiaii Hay Hraiich, ooiitract 40,000 Advniiuu to liiin on railH, a la-mi \uiv- , tioii of whioli raiJH wurc loaned to liiiu a<^iiia on Hecurity of Kaaturn C'ouutiuH llailway lionds 00,000 I.o»8 |iuruliait) of Stuui rails in- „iu..uij{ intcrtHt Ac. oatimatxdat 2,000,000 Kxpeiided unnuccuHtiarily on I'iotou and Truro llailway, aftor it tiad buua agrcud to l>o given away 2.1.'),120 Fort Francis lA)ck at least SOO.OOO Fort I'clly buddings ahaiulonod. . .. (>0,0 ifiiHouH they giivp, on Vancoiivci's Island, tho very plaw of all others ouo mii^ht fairly contend wlusrc tho couHtriu;- tioii of a railway cotdd have Imhmi jiost- ])oncd to tho vory last. I think, thon, I havo OHtahlishcd tho roi-rt'ctnosH of tlm fourso purHuod by my hon. friend fioiu Saugoon. His ti;j[uroH liavo borno tho ttrnt of tho closest scrutiny and havo not Itoon successfully assailed. I (h) not believe they can be coutrovortod, and I trust that tho debatrs upon thoui will go to Hwoll tho strt'ani of conviction, which, i« I nin satifttiod, settling down on tho inindH of tho jioople of thin country, from on(> end of it to thfl other, of tho hollowncHH of the profosHions which the mrndtoi's of tluf Aect to that section of the Railway. If they my repeated efforts, the number of S'jl immigrants in 187G has increase! to that of 563 in 1877. " 1 had to refuse a number of persons, who were desirous of emigrating, but had not the means of entaMishing themselves. " One of the reasons, or one of theadvantag- ' es, Wwich deoi led a large number of jjcrsona to settle in Manitoba was the facility they had for starting early in sprinij, and makincr a rapid journey by rail to Fisher's Landing, in the State of Minnesota. " The happy results we have hitherto obtain- ed have not \wen gained without meeting with obstacles, many persons having great isHuence * with Canadians who resided in the States. The whole of the Canadian press in New England, with the exceptioH of the Trarailleiir of Wor- cester, and some discontented adventurers, who took advantage of myconlidenceon theocc ision of my first journey to Manitoba, nri