•f r/cGr-C>'CL/L--v. n -4v^ \j / OFTHB Hon. John Haggart Minister of Railways and Canals, Delivered In the House of Commons. May 7th, 1895, In Reply to Sir Richard Cartwright. A MASTERLY EXPOSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY. On rising Mr. Haggart was received with rousing cheers, He said : Mr Speaker, before criticising the policy of the gallant knight from Oxford as laid down in the amendment which he moved, and before dealing with the statement of policy indicat- ed by that hon. gentleman, I wish to correct a few of the criticisms in which he indulged in his reply to the magnificent statement nijide by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, I think the gallant knight was not very g69d-natured in the criticism he offered. He said that without desiring to be discourteous the Finance Minister had performed a perfunctory operation, following a brief prepared by his department. Any ^hon, member who heard the candid and ^lear statement of the Minister of Finance fjiinust consider the remark of the gallant i;l:hight entirely uncalled for. The Minister of Finance has not had the educational opportunities enjoyed by the gallant knight from Oxford — he has not had the advantage of a legal educacion. SIR Richard's autobiography 1 now refer to a biography published in a book called "Both Sides of the Question" in l>hich it is stated that the gallant knight from 1 Oxford received in early life his education M a lawyer. Afterwards he turned his face Jbo a calling more natural to him, and became ^;;% financier. This work further stated that became an adept in finance. The gallant knight undertook the management years ago of the Commercial Bank, and no doubt ^eie are many widows in different parts •^ Um country who will lemember that institution with regret, Subsequently the hon. gentleman devoted his entire attention to the financial condition of the country and became, as that work stated, an adept in finance. Hon. members will also find in that work a description dfMr. Davies), and as it will be explained to (he country from one end of it to the other before the general elections arrive, a tariff for revenue only will occupy the graveyard with the dear departed ones, unrestricted reciprocity and commercial union. (Ap- plause). But before dealing with the question, as I intend to deal with it fully in the latter part of my speech, and instituting a comparison between the policy of the Gov- ernment and the policy of the Opposition, let me deal with some of the statements of the gallant knight in his criticism of the Finance Minister's speech. CANADA'S PRESENT CONDITION COMPARES WITH THAT OF 1 878. One of the statements was that he looked with alarm on the state of depression that existed from one end of the country to the other, thit the country was in a more de- pressed condition than it was in 1878. The gallant knight does not seem to have listened to at r of the opinions expressed outside; he does not seem to be aware that people all over the world, and especially on the other side of the line, have declared that Canada has wheathered the storm of depres- sion which has swept over the world better than any other country that can be mentioned. I will give the gallant knight some of the statements made to show him how this country has improved, and al- though it may, perhaps, be a little tiresome to deal with figures on this point, it is necessary I should do so in order to present to the country a comparison of the condition of the Dominion now as compared with 1878. I shall also show tjie hon. gentleman evidwiCM of prosperity o* the country. It will be remembered that the gallant knight stated that deposits in savings banks- did not afford evidence of prosperity. Let me quote from the hon. gentleman's speeches on that point. Perhaps he has obtained better light now than some years ago, when he declared that one of the tests of prosperity was the amoi'nt of deposits in savings banks. Let the hon. gentleman refer to any political economist, and he will find that strongest evidence of prosperity is to be found in the increased savings of the people as evidenced by savings bank deposits. (Hear hear). If the hon. gentleman has no faith in himself or in political economists, let him read the speech delivered by Sir William Harcourt, Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, delivered the other night in the English House of Commons, when, in referring ! to the depression which has spread J over England, and mentioning the decrease which had occured in exports, he declared that the country was sound, and that one of the best evidences was the increased deposits ip the different savings banks. Undoubted- ly that is one of the evidences of prosperity in a country, and in the Government savings banks of the Dominion we havo strtking evidence afforded by the savings of the people now amounting in deposits to the enormous sum $397,000,000. IMPORTATION OF RAW MATERIAL A T^CST OT PROSPERITY. Another test of wealth and prosperity is the amount of raw material imported into a country for the purpose of being manufactur- ed. Let me make a comparison between i88t and 1891 as regards the amount of raw , material coming into Canada. Of wool alone in 1881, the import was 6,930,00 pounds ; in 1 89 1 it was 10,503,000 pounds ; of cottons 8,011,759 pounds; in 1891, 40,263,333 pounds; of raw sugar, in i88r, 19,876,87a pounds; in 1891, 252,644,000 pounds. The same remark applies to hides, rubber, jute, veneers, hemp, raw silk, broom corn, there being an enormous increase in each of these articles. Now let me answer some of the criticisms in regard to the census which the hon. gentleman has so profusely indulged in this afternoon. LARGE INCREASE OF INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. The number of industrial establishments in the country in 1881 was 49,923, and ia i4i9i they had increased to 75,768. Thj capital invested 18S1 was $i65,joa»62£^ aii^ that has increased in 1891 to an invested capital of $353,836,817, The number oi employees in 1881 was 454,935, whereas the number of employees in 1891 was 367,- 865. The wages paid in 1881 amounted to $59,439,002, and the wages paid in 1891 amounted to $99,762,441. The cost of raw material — this is a true test. Sir, of the growth of the manufactures of this country, it is as true a test as possibly can be applied to the increase in a country's wealth — the cost of raw materials increased from $179,918,593 in 1881 to $255,983,219 in 1891. The value of products in 1881 was $309,607,068, and that had increased in 1891 to $475,455,7oS- Here is a table which gives correttly all these figures : — 1881. 1891. Knraber of e«tab- munts Canit&l inveited . No. «9,023 • 165,308,623 No. 75,768 387,865 1 353,836,81T Nurabcr of em- ployeeg WaireR onid 254,935 69,«t9,003 179.918.593 809,676,068 99,783,441 Cost of raw ma- terial 255,083,819 VMuo of pro- ducts 475,455,705 ► That ought to be a sufficient answer to the argument of the hon. gentleman. THE METHOD OF TAKING THE CENSUS DEFENDED. But the hon. gentleman went further and he criticised the the mode in which the census was taken. Well, the census of Canada is taken precisely in the same niianner as it is taken in most An,a;lo-Saxon coun- tries in the world. If you go to the United States census you will find included there hundreds and hundreds of industries which have only one person employed in each, and 1 may say, that is the case in a greal majority of them. 'I'he hon. gentleman could easily have found the increase of manufactures — even in his inter- pretation of tlie word "manufacturers" from our census, if be had taken the trouble to do so. K.CANADA'S TRADE, FOPEtGN AND INTER- PROVINCIAI>. Let US also judge by the total trade of the |ltt)untry how it has increased from 187810 1894. Notwithstanding the decreases in value of the present time, compared with the year 1878, our total trade has grown from $153,000,000 in the latter year to $240,500,- 000 in the year which has closed. (Loud cheers). Look at the interprovincial trada of Canada. Look at the immense trade which has sprung up in the different pro- vinces of the couiitry, a trade which has increased, as estimated, from $2,000,000 in 1867, to $125,000,000 '" 1894. What an enormous increase is that. But the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Carlwright) was n5t content with criticising the census, and al- though he did not refer as much as usual to it in his speech yet he adopted his old tactics of depreciating and decrying the country in which he lives. SIR Richard's erroneous assertions. Worse still, he was not correct in his statements. He said that the farming pro- perty in the province of Ontario had decreas- ed in value to the extent of $200,000,000 ; but, Mr. Speaker, what do you say to a statement of that kind when I tell you that there as been no decline whatever in that resjiect. On the contrary. Sir, there as been a gain of $95,000,000 in ten years. Land has decreased but there has been an increase in buildings implements, and live stock. Let me refer the hon. gentleman to an authority which he will not deny ; the au- thority of Mr, Blue, an officer of the Ontario Government and Sir Oliver Mowat's statis- tician. Sir Richard Carlwright — He is much like your own statistician. Mr. H.Tggart — Oh, then, we are to take the statemect of the member for South, Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) with regard to everything that is going on in this country. According to him our statistician is at fault and so is the statistican of the Government of Ontario who has taken every means to find out the real facts and who has a staff at his comm.''nd for the purpose of inquiring into them. Should we not better depend on such statistics than on those furnished by the hon. gentleman ? Where are we to go for our st.itislics if not to duly accredited officials ? What means has the hon. gentleman at his command for finding out what the real statistical condition of the country is ? Are we to take his " ipse dixit," as to what the condition of the countiy is, and are we to reject the statement of the statistician ? I am taking evidence such as is furnished in this country, evidence that cannot be con- troverted and it shows that instead of a decline in the farming operations and agricul- tural wealth of the country, it has increased from $883,000,000 in i88a to $979,000,000 in 189a. (Loud Ministerial applause). If any other evidence is wanted of the progress of the country, of the commercial develop- ment of the country, and of the increased wealth of the country, the railway statistics show it. Canada's prosperity as evidenced bv railway statistics. Let me make a comparison between the years 1878 and 1894 in this respect. There were 6,143 miles of railway in operation in the country in 1878, and there are 15,627 miles at the present day. The train mileage run in 1878 was 19,669,447, and in 1894 it amounted to 43,670,029. The number of passengers carried in 1878 was 6,443,924, and in 1894 the number carried amounted to 14,462,498, The tons of freight carried in 1878 was 7,883,47a, and in 1894 they amounted to 20,721,116. The earnings of the roads in 1878 amounted to $20,520,078, and the earnings of the roads in 1894 were $49,552,528. The working expenses in 1878 were $16,100,102, and in 1894 ^^^y ^^'^^ $35.2 18,433. The following table shows the facts : TSABB. Miles in operation. Train mileage No. of pi'.ssensers. Tons of Areight Earnings. Working expenses Proportion of expenses to receipts, 1785 4.82Ci 6,143i 16,(527 17,680.108 19,069,447 43,070,029 5,190,110 6,443,934 14,463,498 5.070,836 T,888,4T2 80,721,116 tl9.«0,539 80,520,078 49.552,528 81^,775,532 18,100,108 85,218,483 81 1878 fS 1884 n The hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) paid a well deserved compliment to the Finance Minister as to the credit of the country, but he could not help that. Canada's unequalled credit. The credit of Canada stands first and fore- most of all countries in the world, except perhaps the mother land. Financial men who are the best judges of our resources and of the financial condition of the country, put our securities as high and higher than most of the other countries in the world. (Cheers. ) We are higher than all the sister colonies and we stand higher than those friends of the hon. gentlemen in the republic to the south of us. Only to the mother country her- self does Canada rank second. Our 3 per cent securities are selling, if I am informed rightly, at between 99 and 100 in the London market, The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) criticised the borrowing of th« Finance Minister in the old countiy, and he told the Finance Minister that when he did commence borrowing he should have borrow* i ed sufficient when he was at it. It was a' mistake, said the hon. member for South Oxford, that the Finance Minister only borrowed $10,700,000. Well, I remember a time in this House when the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) did not take that course or make that criticism. SIR RICHARD CRITICIZES THE GOVERNMENT FOR NOT BORROWING MORE MONEY. , I remember when he blamed the Govern*^ ment for borrowing too much money, and^^ when not having means to apply it, of keejKM ing it in hands. But now the hon. gentlemai|^| finds fault with the Finance Minister for jM different thing altogether and he blames hifa« 'for not borrowing enough. The hon. mem-' ber (Sir Richard Cartwright) must know that the borrowing powers of the Finance Minister are limited. If he had looked at the Supjjly Bill, 57-58 Vic, he would find that the borrowing powers for general pur- poses amounted to $13,588,280. 74. Now the loan made by the Finance Minister was for ^^2,250 000 or $10,950,000 leaving a balance of $2,638,280,74, which the Finance Minister retained for the purpose of guarding against possible contingencies, and which he retain- ed in order to provide for what the hon. gentleman warned him that he did not pro- vide for, namely, for the redemption of some of the loans which we have had from the savings banks throughout the country. SIR Richard's favourite maxim. It is one of the favourite maxmis of the hon. gentleman for South Oxford, to revile and run down the credit of the country. He stated that there was no provision for redeeming any portion of the $40,000,006 which we have borrowed from the people of this country. That sum is for the pur- pose of providing for the payment of debt. Besides that, there is the sum of $4,938,352 in specie and guaranteed sterling debentures, over and above what the law requires for the redemption of our currency . This amount is retained by the Government for the pur- pose of providing for a possible run on our savings banks, besides $2,000,000 odd, which has been unissued. So that there is ample provision for the redemption of any amount that is likely to fall due ; and the unexampled credit of the country would enable us, even if we had not this provision, to borrow at any time a sufficient sum for the purpose of redeeming any amount that we would likely be called on to pay. (Loud cheers.) RAILWAY SUBSIDIES UNDER CONTRACT. The hon. gentleman also criticised the tatement of my hon. friend in reference to the liabilities of the country. He alleged that the statement I made in the House the other day, with reference to our liabilities on account of railway subsidies, did not cor- respond with the statement of the Finance Minister. My statement was that those liabilities amounted to nearly $9,000,000, while the statement of my hon. friend was that we were liable for railway subsidies under contract io the extent of $2,257,000, and that the probability was that there would be contracts involving a further sum of $2,587,000, and he added that if these two sums were added together and deducted from the $9,000,000 nearly, the remainder woilld broiiably not be called for by any of the railways entitled to subsidies. That was a statement prepared by my department. I told the ofticcrs to go carefully into the matter, and the statement of my hon. friend was strictly correct. THK FIRST CLASS CONDITION OF THE INTIiRCOLONIAL, The hon. member for South Oxford also stated that there was one liability which my hon. friend the Finance Minister made no mention of ; that is, probable expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway. He stated that he had it on authority which it was not safe to disregard, that a large amount of capital might be required before many years to pl.nce the Intercolonial Railway in as good a position as it was in a few years ago. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my instructions to the general manager are that he shall at all hpzards maintain the road and its equipment in the highest possible state of efficiency. That was the first duty imposed upon him. I told him that his first duty after that was to make the expenditure and the receipts as nearly as possible balance. He was not to enter into any unnecessary improvements ; he was to look after the proper conduct of the officials ; he was to see that the utmost economy was practiced in every branch of the railway ; and I have the authority of the general manager for stating that the road and its equipment are to-day in at least as good a condition as they have ever been. I do not claim a great deal of credit for this state of things, beyond the credit of insisting on the officials of the road carrying out their instructions to the very letter. I have also his authority for stating that the road has as excellent an equip- ment as any road on the continent of America; and I can state for the information of the hon. member for South Oxford that he need have no fear that any degradation of the road and its equipment will necessitate any expen- diture on capital account for a number of years to come. (Cheers.) I have been enabled during the past year to save the sum of $65,000 principally in oil, fuel and repairs to cars, by the strictest economy j and I can gratify the hon. gentleman by stating, notwithstanding the severity of the year and the consequent extra expenditure required for running the road, that this year like last year, the Intercolonial will come out with a slight surplus. Do not misunderstand me vhen I say that ; I do not expect to anything on cipital account. There are tome expenditures which will be absolutely necessary. Some expenditures may be re- quired to enable us to meet the increased business of the road ; but these will be principally terminal expenditures, I regret to say that during last summer we suffered great losses from fires on the Intercolonial. At Halifax the elevator and a great part of the station were burned, and at Rivil-re du Loup the station was burned. These two items alone involve losses amounting to nearly $325,000. So the hon gentleman, in his criticism of my hon. friend's Budget s|}eech, might have omitted altogether his reference to the probability of large sums being required to restore the Intercolonial to the state of efficiency that existed under bis regime. THE CHIGNECTO AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAYS. The hon. gentleman stated that my hon. friend had not mentioned the claim of the Chignecto Railway as a liability of the Dominion. The statutory time for the pay- ment of the subsidy to that railway has expired ; the contract has not been perform- ed. If any arrangsment should be made by the Government in the future for the purpose of continuing the work, the House of Com- mons and the people of Canada will be fully informed of it ; and the hon. gentleman, instead ot classing it as a probable liability, should wait till the time arrives when he can properly so consider it I may say the same with reference to the Hudson Bay Railway. That question will .be dealt with on its merits, and the members ot this House will have a lull opportunity of considering any expenditure which the Government think advisable to make for the puri^gge of build- ing that road. I would like to hear the hon. leader of the Opposition state what his policy is in reference to that road. (Hear. Hear). He was at Winnipeg, and in various other parts of the North-west country, and I have no doubt he was asked what he intended to do In reference to that matter. If I remember correctly one of his speeches there on the cubject; he did not exactly promise the cons- truction of the road, but he said that he aoosidered it of the gravvst importance to flbe people of that portion of the country, wd that if be obtained power he would «rder a commission to inquire into the Mocttity of tiu^undertaking. THB LIBERAL PARTY Or 1873-78 N.OT BOVNB BY ODLIOATIONS OF THEIR PREDECESSORS. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of the extraordinary expenditures which his Go- vernment were obliged to assume from 1873 to 1878 as liabilities imposed upon them by the Government of Sir John Macdonald, asserted that they had to provide for $60,. 000,000 of liabilities, invalving, at 5 per cent, an expenditure of $3,000,000 a year. The policy of the Government of Sir John Macdonald might have been reversed ; but the hon. gentleman approved of that policy. It is true contracts were let on some of the works, but the moment the hon. gentleman and his friends came into power they cancelled every coutract. Afterwards, they changed their policy and re-let the con- tracts, and I would like to have the pleauure of showing to .the hoa gentleman in wiiat manner they re^let them. Did they let them to the lowest tenderer ? No ; they picked out their particular friends, and to them they awarded the contracts. The hoa gentleman disdains paying any attention to the statistical authorities in the country. Of Mulhall he thinks nothing; Johnson, he ridicules ; the statistiscian of the Ontario Government he treats with contempt ; and on his own authority alone, he ventures to make a most extraordinary statement "ith reference to what our people owe to foreign investors. SIR Richard's extravagant calculation. That a gentleman who left his legal prac- tice to devote himself for the rest of his days to the investigation of financial fiffairs should make the statement that we are pay- ing interest to the extent of $30,000,00 per year to foreign investors, is something one finds it djfificult to realize. I have not the statistics to prove the contrary, but I need only mention the amount that its absurdity may be patent to any one at all conversant with the subject. (Hear, hear). Let thw hon. gentleman go to the bankers and th« loan societies, and the other capitalists whose business it is to keep themselves cognizant of all these matters, and repeat to them this extraordinary statement, and he will find that whatever reputation he may be credited with as one having some knowledge of the finan- cial condition of ^he country will vanish in their estimation. The hon. gentleman states that the depreciation in securities in this country exceed ;;^ 16,000,000 sterling and he referred with approval to the opinioa of the London " Economist," IIK XICHARD DEFAMES CANADA Hf THE LONDON "ECONOMIST." But every hon. member knows that the London ^'Economist" is gifted with a peculiarly biased correspondent from this section, and we all remember the graphic production which appeared in that paper a couple of yeais ago from the pen of the. right hon. gentleman, in which he described, in the most gloomy periods, the system of taxation in this country, and how oppresively it bore on our agriculturists. After further refer- ence to the " Economist," iht hon. gentleman called our attention to the organ of the Patrons, the "J^armeti Sun." Well that has been particularly severe in its criticisms on the right hon . gentleman himself. I my- self, am of opinion that these criticisms were untrue, and I should advise the right hon. gentleman to look upon that news- paper's opinion as to the state of the country with the same suspicion as we are both dis- posed to give its comments on the hon. gen- tleman himself. Sm RICHARD REFUSED MEMBERSHIP IM A PATRON LODGE. I do not know whether the hon. gentle- man has adopted the principles of the Patrons, or whether the Patrons have adopt- ed the policy of the hon. gentleman or wjiether the Protestant Protective Associa- tion have taken up both or either of them, or they have adopted the Protestant Protective Association's. But whether they have agieed to disagree, or the reverse, the hon. gentleman was sufficiently enamoured of their society to become a candidate for Membership of the Patrons of Industry. Sir Richard Cartwright — Will the hon. gentleman give his authority ? Mr. Haggart — Does the hon. gentleman deny it? Sir Richard Cartwright — Certainly, Mr. Haggart — I will be prepared later to give ray authority. Sir Richard Cartwright — The hon. gentle- man has made the statement. Let him now produce his authority, or withdraw it. Mr. Haggart — I will accept the hon. gentleman's denial at present that he never was an applicant, but he was proposed in a Patron lodge, and refused admission. Fancy the right hon. gentleman from South Oxford •itting in a Patron lodge and striving to re- concile their policy with his, or square his policy with dieixs. (Laughter.) BKPKXCIATION Of TALUKS LESS lit CAHABA THAN IN ANY OTHER COUMTRy. He then went on to speak of the depre- ciation in values in this country. But let us compare the losses in this country with the losses on the other side. It is true that there has been a depreciation of securities of all kinds in this country, but it is slight in comparison with the depreciation in the neighboring country, and other countries of the world. It may be true, as the Economist says, that the depreciation in this country in railway investments amounts to _;;^ 16,000,000, but let me direct attention to the railway losses in the United States. &aventy-six railways, or one-third of the total railway mileage of the United States, were placed in the hands of the receiver last year. These aggregated a capital of $1,758,000,000. Twenty-three railways were sold under fore- closure, representing a capital of $79,924,000. I could refer the hon. gentleman to the . sister colonies, to England itself, to Belgium, to France, to Spain, Italy, and a host ot other countries to show that the depreciation in Canada has been much less severely felt ; and that I maintain is due to the fiscal policy of this Government. (Applause.) The hon. gentleman is very fond of making comparisons, EXPENDITURE OF 1878 AND 1895-96 COM- PARED. The expenditure of the hon. gentleman in 1878 was in the neighborhood of $24,000,- 000. The estimated expenditure for 1895- 96 is $36,834,000, or a difTerence of a little more than $12,000,000. That is the dif- ference in the expenditure between 1878 and 1895. I wish to find out from the hon. gentleman, after I have explained each item of this expenditure, how he is going to economize. The debt charges, interest and • sinking fund, amount to $4,600,000, every dollar of which the Opposition are just as much responsible for as the Government. THE LIBERALS RESlfONSIBLE FOR THE FOUR PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. The items which constitute public debt are the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, $44,000,000 or $45,000,000, the amount of indebtedness of the different provinces assumed, the expenditure upon the canals, and the expenditure upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. Did not the hon. gentleman build most of the canals himself ? Did not his party, when in power, consent to the building of the Intercolonial ? As to the indebtedness of the dififerest provinces, was it not a compact with them, and was that not agreed to, universally, in this Home ? The total amount of that debt hon. gentlemen are responsible for. Will the hon. gentleman, or any of his friends, rise and criticise the figures of my hon. friend, the Finance Minister. Will they criticise the expenditure of $45,000,000 on the Inter- colonial ? Was not the hon. gentleman and was not his party bound to that expenditure ? Were not the Hon. George Brown and the other leaders paities to the compact with the Provinces under which that road was to be uilt ? Was not the assumption of the debt of the provinces one of the terms of confed- eration ? Was not the expenditure upon the canals — a large portion of it made between 1875 and 1878 — agreed to by hon.gentle Men opposite ? And does the hon. gentk.nan object to the expenditure we made for the purpose of obtaining the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Sir Richard Cartwright — Very decidedly, 1 do. Mr. Haggart — Then the hon. gentleman, I will venture to say, is the only man of that way of thinking on either side of this House. His party are as proud of that work as we are on this side of the House; and they know that it could not have been made for a less expenditure of money, or of land. The friends of the hon- gentleman tried to get contractors to build it for even more, and could find nobody to accept their terms. Therefore, I say that the debt of the counHy, which is represented by these four items, these gentlemen are as much responsible for as any member of the Government . UNCONTROLLABLE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURR, The additions to the debt since 1878-79 increased the expenditure on account of interest and sinking fund by $4,600,000. If the hon. gentleman and his party come into power, must they not pay that amount ? Then there are increases in the subsidies to provinces — $800,000, and $30,000 added the other day increased subsidy to Manitoba. These two items, on account of debt and provincial subsidies, hon. gentlemen of)posite will certainly have to pay if they g'jt into power. Then there are the increases in the naming departments of Government — Railways, Canals and Post Office. IMCOMB AND EXPENDITURE ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND POST OFFICE. These increases amount to about $4,000,- 00a The hon. gentleman knows that this is a matter of book-keeping. Take, for instance, the Intercolonial. The total earnings are turned into the treasury of the country, and the total expenditures are covered by the Estimates passed by this House. With this item of $4,000,000, added to the others, we have a total of $9,400,000. The expenditure in 1878 was $34,455,000. Add the increases I have given, and you have the smallest sum which gentlemen opposite, if they were in power, could expend in the administration of [)ublic affairs. DETAILS OF THE EARNINGS DEPARTMENT Of THE GOVERNMENT. Let me give the details of these increases in the earnings department. The Post Office expenditure in 1878 was $1,720,000 ; the rtceipls were $1,200,000; leaving a deficit of $520,000. The Post Office expenditure in 1894 was $3,517,000 ; and the receipts $2,800,000 ; leaving a dcfif^it of $690,000 — not nearly as much, in proportion to the receipts, as in 1878. The expenditure on the Intercolonial in 1S78 was $1,816,000 ; and the receipts were $1,300,000 ; a deficit of $516,000 In 1894 the expenditure was $2,981,000 ; earnings $2,987,000 ; a surplus of $6,000. Take the details of the further additional expenditure, steamship subsidies, increased from 1878 to 1894 by $147,000; quarantine, increased $18,000 ; agriculture, increased $165,000, WHAT EXPENDITURE WOULD LIBERALS DO AWAY WITH ? Do hon.gentlemen opposite, if they get into power, intend to do away with our experi- mental farms ? There was nothing of that j kind in 187S, Is that one of the items in which J they intend to decrease the expenditure ? * The administration of justice has increased $205,000. Does not the hon. gentleman know that most of the expenditure for judges is (ixed by the difTirent provincial . governments? They appoint the courts, and tht'v state the number of judges they re- quire ; and does the hon. gentleman pre- tend to say that they can make any reduction in the administration of justice ? Then there is an expenditure of $258,000 for the government of the North -West Territories, for which the Mackenzie Administration had ,' not to provide in 1878. The adulteration of •*? food is $19,000 ; steamboat inspection, $12,- . 1 000 ; fishery bounty and protection, $280,- o^;o. Perhaps the hon. gentleman from Queen's, P.E-I.. (Mr. Davies), when he takes the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheriea in • new Gorernment, if he does not take the position of Minister of Justice, will be able to wipe out that expenditure ■Itoi^ether. He may do away with the cruiser protection service, he may wipe out the boun- ties to fishermen in d-fferent parts of the mari- times povinces and thereby save an expendi- ture of $380,000. All these items amount altogether $10,504,000, leaving $1,896,000 to be provided for according to our t^sti- mates of the present year. Now, how is this made up ? NECESSARY EXPENDITtHtES SINCE 1 878. On Indians there is an expenditure of $450,- 000 more than there was in 18} 8. Do you intend to reduce the expenditure upon In- dians? Do you intend to shut up their sch'ols? Do you intend to make any re- duction in the expenditure in that section of the country ? I venture to say that the hon. gentlemen, if they ever get to power, will be unable to make any reduction in the expendi- ture now made for the purpose of civilizing the Indians, making more moral the abori- ginal inhabitants of the country whose land and territory we possess. It is a duty we owe to them, and every portion of the Dont- inion are willing to make a fair expenditure for this purpose. On penitentiaries we esti- mate $138,000. Perhaps the hon. gentle- men will be able to strike that ofT. I am speiking on the supposition that they attain to pow-^r, but the probability of their doing so is very snialL SIR RICHAKU NOMINATES HIMSEI.K FOR FINANCE MINISTER. 1 reniembei the hon. member for Smith Orford addressing a meeting up west when he assured his audience that if the I- heral parly goi into powu he would be the M mis- ter of Finance. I remember tlie contempt- uous mannei in whi«-h he spoke of his associates, stating that he would be a neces- sity in a Liberal Government for liie purpose of conducting financial affairs, as he was now a necessity in Parliament for the jKirpose of criticising the lies which the Tory party were hurling from this side of the House. (Laugh- ter.) He talked as if he were the only gen- tleman capable (A doing it, and that if he were not elected to the House, there would be no other member of the party capable of criticising the Budgev. We have heard the ■ letter read by the hon. member for Middlesex yesterday, in which we arc promi^ied another. rBTBB RTAN TO BE A LTWIKAL CABIKST MINISTER. We are going to open South Renfrew, they •ay, and we are going to have Mr. Peter Ryan to run in that constituency. We have the assurance of the organizer of the party, or at least of some of the electors in South Ren- frew, that Peter Ryan is to be in the next Government. It appears that Ontario is only going to have three representatives in the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Petef Ryan, and, perhaps, the third one will be the hon. gentleman who looks particularly after superannuations. (Mr. McMullen) There it $156,000 in that item. Militia and Defence, $480,000 ; Mounted Police, $166,000, which is the increase above the amount expended in 1878. That is one of the items, I believe, they intend to strike off altogether,^ do away with the mounted police up in the North- west, and then they will be able to reduce the expenditure by $100,000. Then we have a total of $1,390,000; add that to the amount above mentioned, and it still letvci a balance of $586,000. HOW THE ACCOUNT IS BALANCED. That amount is the increase from 1878 to 1894, and the Geological Survey, Immigra- ti.m, Dominion lands, Dominion Police and Legislation, will take, that up. Now, the hon, gentleman says that if they get into power tliey will make a great reduction in the bur- dens of the people. The hon. member for South Oxford, I know, does not think so ; I know he does not think that he can reduce the expenditure of this country beyond a small amount. The leader of the Opposition says it can be done, but I do not think he will he al)le 10 '.arry out his promises, if he ever gets a chance. LlliHRAL PLKPGF.S RKNDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOB rHEM TO REDUCE THK EXPENDITURE. Let me consider for a moment some of the promises of the hon. gentlemen, and the way I hey are going to reduce the expen- diture. I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite who may a4dress the House after myself, to give a statement of the particular Items in which they intend to decrease the expenditure of this country, and show how they are going to levy the amount of money that will be needed. We remember that there was an interprovincial conference at Quebec some time ago, and I will just analyse some of the demands of that coi^ ferciice. The leader of the Opposition is bound in a sense by that conference, because one of my hon. friends the other day read a letter from Mr. Mcrcier, then the leader of the Quebec Government, in which he stated, if I am not mistaken — at least the statement has never been denied in this House — that if the leader of the Opposition got into power he would cany out the pledge made by Mr. Mercier during the election, and give increased subsidies to the provinces. The result of fulfilling that promise will be to increase the subsidies to the different pro- vinces to the extent of $1,721,476. If these hon. gentlemen get into power that wil) be an additional annual charge upon the expen- diture of this country. Carrying out that pledge, how is it possible for them to reduce the expenditure ? If they do not intend to carry it out, let them stand up and say so. The people of the country demand that the Opposition should say whether they intend to carry out the resolutions passed by the Quebec conference, and approved by the leader of the Opposition, in case they get into power. WHAT THIS PREMIER OF P. E. 1, EXPECTS FROM T.IE LIBERALS. Let us see what is stated by Mr. Peters, the friend of the hon. gentleman from Queen's (Mr. Davis). He states openly in a speech down there that the hon. member for Queen's is Mt. Laurier's right-hand man, and if the Liberal party get into power, the hon. mem- ber for Queen's will have an influence with the Government such as no other man will have. He says there will be no direct taxa- tion required from the people of the island, if Mr. Laurier gets into power ; in other words, they will have more public works, the resolutions of the Quebec conference will receive an endorsation from the Government, and Prince Edward Island will receive $70,- 000 more than it does at present. The hon. gentleman from Queen's will not say that if he and his friends get into power he would not give $70,000 annually to Prince Edward Island. I will tell the hbn. gentleman this, that his friends in Ontario could not support a policy of that kind ; they dare not support any Government in power which would milk the Dominion to the extent of $1,770,000 more, and if the Liberals had a majority of two-thirds of the Ontario members, the Gov- ernment dare not support such a policy. Mr. Davies, (P.E.I.)— Then you do not intend to give us that ? Mr. Haggart — So, for the purpose of my argument, there is this amount to be added to the expenditure of 1878, and also differ- ent sums to carry out the promises made by the leader of the Opposition in regard to public works. Hon. gentlemen opposite criticise the Government for our lavish ex- penditure, not lowest expenditure, in their opinion, but corrupt and criminal expend' ture. INCREASED EXPENDITURE PROMISED BY LIBERALS. But hon. gentlemen opposite have stated publicly that in regard to the North- West, Manitoba and British Columbia, the present expenditure is not sufficient, and it would be increased if they got into power. At Medi- cine Hat, Mr. Laurier said : I am not a puritan or a Baint, but Biinplv a man, and I do not hesitate to say to you that in tli6 west you need public works. Mr. Gibson at Medicine Hat, said : In the North-V/est the requirements are Diany. Your constituency has not got all it Bliouid hav^. You need a bridge. At Vancouver, on September 13th, 1894, that hon. gentleman said : He would say tliat the I^ibeial party was just as nuich in favor of Itgitimate public works as the Conservatives were. Any one sailing from Vancouver to Victoria could sec where public money might Vie spent in improving tlie ap- proacii to the Terminal City's magnificent har- bour. Mr. Laurier, in his speech at Vancouver, said : I agree with ray ^icnd Mr. Gibson, that per- haps there is something to do lor this city yet. Perhaps it would be well to encourage and assist the energy of the people, and that the liarl)our'of Vancouver might be improved with some public money. I can only reiterate what has been said by Mr. Gibson : That when we have a Liberal Administration at Ottawa, it will be the duty, it will be the pleasure of that Administration to favour any public work that is for the credit and benefit of the Canadian ppoi)le, and it would certainly be for the benefit of Vancouver, and for the whole of Canada, that the harbour of this fair city should be made as accessible as it is possible to make it. Mr. Laurier at New Westminster said : — Great works are required up on the Fraser River. Mr.Laurier, at Winnipeg, on September 6th, 1894, (" Globe report) said : — Mr. Laurier, in reply to a qtiestion from Mir. James, a prominent Patron of Industry, stated that because of the insufiiciency of informa*., tiou in his possession, lio had formed no opia-''f ion as to the feasibility of the Hudson Bay;;^ route, but he would favour the voting of coB-- eiderable money in favour of a thorough investigatioa. 1) THB LIBERAL FLEDGE TO P. E. I. ALONE RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO REDUCE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE. Hon. gentleman opposite, as appears from their public utterances in the North-west, Manitoba and British Columbia, have prom- ised considerable additions to the expendi- ture for public works, and also an expendi- ture for Prince Edward Island of $1,771,000 ; and yet, notwithstanding the statement I have made, and the comparison I have insti- tutedjShowing the uncontrollable expenditure, hon. members opposite declare they would reduce the expenditure to the extent of $5,000,000 per annum, the hon. member for Oxford puts the amount at $2,000,000, and other members at $1,000,000. I should like to hear an explanation from some hon. gen- tlemen opposite, and I suppose it will be made by the hoo. gentleman who will follow roe, how, when to the expenditure of 1878 there is added $1,771,000, even omitting al- together the promises of additional public works made by the leader of the Opposition in different sections of the country, to show how hon. gentlemen opposite could submit a less expenditure than that asked by the Min- ister of Finance. I defy such a reduction to be made, and I do not believe a statement could be submitted to show it, one that would stand the test of investigation by finan- cial men, as it would be criticised from one end of the country to the other. [Applause]. The expenditure of the country, as the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cart- wright) stated, is but slightly controllable — it is almost beyond the control of the Finance Minister. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite, in addressing the people continually state that the present enormous expenditure is due to the Conservative Government. I affirm that as regards the public debt, every man is responsible for it, and if hon. gentlemen op- posite were in power tomorrow, they could not bring down an estimate of a less amount than the one subtnitted a few days ago. [Cheers,] Let me now discuss for a few mo- ments the policy of the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) as ^enunciated in his amendment. THREE SYSTEMS OF TAXATION. It is proposed to establish a system I6i taxation on the principle of a tariff for revenue only. I accept the defi- nition given by the hon. member for Queen's (Mr. Davies), who declared that there were three systems of taxation, one is free trade, another tariff for revenue only, and another a protective system. I am quot- ing from memory from the statement that the hon. member made, and if I am not right I shall be glad to be corrected. Free trade, he stated, was unattainable at present. There was, he said, no country in the world which had a system of pure free trade. The system which they had in England, he added, was a tariff for revenue purposes But the goal of the hon. gentleman was to adopt a system similar to what they have now in England and to impose the incidents of taxation upon the people of this country. I tell hon. gen- tlemen opposite that they dare. not state from one section of the country to the ether that they intended to raise taxes in Canada the same as they do in En land, (Loud cheers), I am taking the natural sequence of the amendment of the hon. gentleman ini which he states that they intend to raise the taxes for revenue only, and the logical sequence of the statement of the hon. gentleman is, that that would be done by a system of taxation similar to that of England. I am not im- puting any statement to the hon. gentleman, but I am drawing the deductions myself. Now let us see what is meant by "taxation the same as they have in England. HOW THE REVENUE IS RAISED IN ENGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the system of taxation they have in Eng« land. The customs taxation in England is raised on nine articles only, namely, tobacco, ;^9,948,8o9 ; tea, ^^3,418,162 j rum, £2^ 335.147; brandy, ^^1,423,826; spirits, ^^668,92 1 ; wine, ;^i,92i,0S2; currants, _;^ti3,994; coffee, ;^"i77,2o6; and raisins, .;^^75)957 j the whole customs taxes of Eng- land is levied on these articles. Do hon, gentlemen opposite propose that the customs taxation in this country will be raised on similar articles ? No, Sir; the people of this country would not submit to anything of that kind. It is but to be mentioned and understood in Canada that such is the policy, and the people will have none of it. THE customs' tax OF ENGLAND FALLS MOST HEAVILY ON THE POOR.' In England the incidents of taxation do not fall on the rich as ought to be the case and hear lightly upon the poor. Ikies not the poor man in this country use as much tobacco as the rich man ? Does eot the poor man in this country use as much tea as the rich man, although it may be of an inferior quality 7 Does not he use as much ram as the rich man ? Perhaps be does not use as much brandy, perhaps more spirits, less wine, perhaps as much coffee and proba- bly less raisins. The incidents of taxation upon the people of the country as it is known to be in England is a specific tax, or a tax per capita upon the people. In England the poor man pays as much as the rich man does under their systems of levying the cus- toms taxes. Do hon. gentlemen opposite intend to levy the custom taxes in Canada in a manner similar to what they are levied in Endtland ? I tell them that they dare not do any such thing. [Applause.] It may be asked why they levy the taxes m this manner in England, it must be remembered but then they correct it in another way. They cor- rect it by the following taxes which are levied entirely upon the rich : The Probate Duty, the Legacy Duty, the Estate Duty, the Su^-! cession tax, the Deeds, the Receipts, the Bills of Exchange, the Patent Medicine! (which perhaps do not fall so much on the rich) the licenses, the Companies Capital Duty, the Marine Insurance, other stamps. And then as other taxation, the Land tax, the House tax, the Income tax, which the poor man does not pay at all, and the Post Office tax which he, perhaps, pays less of than the rich man. They correct the levy- ing of the taxation in England by a special impost upon the rich men of the country, but the customs tax is largely paid by the poor. In England there is a specific tax, or a per capita tax, and the people of Canada have only to understand the system and no Government in this country dare put on a tax such as that, nor dare they supplement it by a direct tax, such as the hon . gentlemen opposite propose today. [Applause.] There- fore, I state that if the policy of hon . gentle- men opposite means a system of taxation such as they have in that country, the people of Canada will not submit to it. PROTECTION, THE POLICY OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN CONTINENT. The policy of the Canadian people has been declared again and again in favour of inci- dental protection to the manufactures of the country [Cheers.] It is the policy of the American continent. Last session, or the session before, when the Democratic party got into power in the United States, hon . gentlemen were constantly vaunting " Oh, protection is gone forever, we are going to have continual free tiade for ever, and if we get into power in Canada we shall have a syitem of free trade, levy the taxes directly, »^»J»»ii f I • ii n li n » i -~~T^ a and have reciprocal arrangements with the different countries of America. A more ab* surd statement was never made to ao intelli- gent audience. [Hear 1 Hear 1] If we were to have free trade in Canada, and allow the products of other countries of the world to enter free, what compensation would the peo- ple of the United States, or of aDy other country have for allowing our products to go into their country free. Sudi a proposition has only to be stated and understood to be laughed at by every intelligent people [Loud applause.] Every one knows the great success of the Republican party of the United States at the last election, when the Efemocrats were swept out of office by a cyclone such as never struck any political party in the world. The people of the Uni- ted Stales have declared in favour of a pro- tective system, and a protective system must be the policy of this country for a number of years to come. For a number of years to come. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not now a word of grief over their departed ones, unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union and continental free trade. fre:e trade will be laid m the cemetbrt WITH unrestricted RECIPROCITY AND commercial union. The dear one which they have now taken to their bosom is a system similar to what it is in England, but I venture to say that the Liberal party themselves will see how ridi- culous is their position in this respect, and that when they go before the country they will be hedging on the meaning of the word in the resolution. They will, no doubt, be telling to the manufacturers of this country, that a tariff for revenue purposes means, perhaps, incidental protection to manufac- turers, but they will not tell the true mean- ing of the word, and before long they will leave their policy of free trade, or the policy such as they nave in England, in the ceme- tery with unrestricted reciprocity and com- mercial union, (Loud ministerial applause). THE NATIONAL POLICY STILL THE WATCH- WORD. The hon. member for Oxford (Sir Richa Cartwright) chaffed the Minister of Fina that he had not said a word about National Policy. Well, the policy of party has been defined by the resolutioc 1878, and is still stuck to, and approved 1 by the people of this country. That piett(^ is to protect any manufactures which nJi| be peculiar to the country, which may bi meantime in order to obtaia that, the impost upon the people may be in excess of what they could get it for from other countries. There is the promise to the people of this country that we will protect our manufac- tures, and the promise of the manufacturers is : we will give, after a time, the protected manufactures to the people at as cheap a price as they can be imported from any other country, (Cheers). Now, how have they carried out their promise ? NECESSARIES CHEAPER IN CANADA THAN ELSEWHERE. The four or five principal articles manufac- tured in Canada are woollen goods, cotton goods, leather goods, manufactures of agri- cultural implements, and the different industries of which iron is ,the component part. What I state is, and I state it boldly, that for the same quality of wool len goods, the people of Canada receive for their money as fair value as they do in any other part of the world. Am I correct in that ? Do they not get it cheaper than the people of the United States ? Some hon. membcrit^— Yes. Mr. Haggart — I have heard the same statement made with reference to woollen find cotton goods. The test of the cheap- ness of cotton goods in the country is the ability to export them" and put them into successful competition in a foreign market with similar goods from free trade countries. Is not that the test that they are being manu- factured in the country as cheaply as they could be imported into the country ? Sir Richard Cartwright— ^What do you want of the tax, then ? Mr. Haggart — I will explain afterwards what we want of the tax. Let me get through with my argument, and I will tell you, I will admit openly that perhaps you may have to pay a little more for cotton goods. SIR RICHARD ADMITS CANADIAN BOOTS AND SHOES TO BE THE CHEAPEST IN THE WORLD. In regard to leather goods, I have the authority of the hon. gentleman himself, in a speech, which he delivered in Quebec, for stating that Canadian manufacturers make boots and shoes as cheaply as they are made in any other country in the world. (Loud cheers.) Are we not export- the old country ? Do we not send agrirul« tural implements to Australia, New Zealand, and all other countries in the world, and sell them more cheaply than any other country ? Do we not buy sugar in this country as cheaply as it can be bought in any other country ? and it is all manufactured in the country, (Prolonged applause.) THE IRON INDUSTRY. There is one industry, the product of which I will admit at present costs more here than in other countries, that is, the iron industry. At present there is a bounty on iron, and we also impose a duty on iron cooling into the country ; but we say to the pGu^ of Canada : You are at present pay- ing a little m6re for your iron goods ; but the time will come and come shortly, when we shall be able to furnish you with iron goods manufactured in this country as cheaply as they are imported into the country. HOW PROTECnON HAS PRODUCED CHEAP IRON IN THE UNITED STATES. Let me, by way of example, show how the protective duty on iron has operated in the United States. In that country there is a customs duty of from $5 to $20 per ton on different kinds of iron and steel goods im- ported into the country. The hon. gentle- man's argument is that that duty is added to the price at which the consumer could obtain the goods from outside countries, because the manufacturers in the coun- try just keep the price up to the point at which the goods could be brought in plus the duty. But what has been the case in the United States ? Notwithstanding the high duty imposed upon pig iron coming into this country, the people of the United States have pig iron furnished to them from Alabama and Georgia cheaper than it can be bought in any other country in the world. It is sold in Alabama and Georgia for a little ipore than $6 a ton, while the customs duty is abtitlt $5 a tOft. Some of the manufac- turers m the city of Toronto are able, not- withstanding our duty, to purchase pig iron m the Southern States and pay the duty and bring it to Toronto, in competition with English iron and iron from other countries. AMERICAN 'IRON SOLD IN ENGLAND. Not only that, but the Americans are send- ing pig iron trorn Alabama and Georgia to ^tgrnrn^ uiiu Jjiigiuu pig iron. Wha^does the Iron Age, a paper published in London, state in reference to this matter ? -Owing to the cona petition of Germany and Belgum in the n^anuCacture of pig iron, the iron inanufacturcrs of Free Trade England have fonred a combine, under which a cer- tain percentage of the price obtained for every rail that is sold in England or in any other part of the world is paid to the German and Belgian manufacturers ; and now the Iron Age states that they will be obliged to take another nation into the combine, be- cause the people of the United States are sending their pig iron over to England to enter into competition with the English pro- duct. ^Cheers.) What the advocates of the National Policy in this country say to the people of 'Canada is this : WHAT THS NATIONAL POLICY WILL DO FOR IRON. Protect our industries for a short time ; it is true you will perhaps pay a little more for the article manufactured in the country ; but the result will be that alter a while you will get your iron here as cheap as you can any where else, because we have the coal or the natural gas with which to manufacture iron in the country ; we have abundance of iron ore, and we have the authority of two of the most illustrious ol our friends in the Liber- al party in favor of protecting the iron in- dustry of Canada ; we have the leader of the Liberals in the province of Ontario bonusing an institution for the manufacture of iron in the city of Hamilton ; we promise, as in the case of, woollen, leather and cotton goods, agricultural implements, and other great in- industries of tht country, that a judicious system of protection will, in a few years, result in the establishment of iron manufac- tories, by which the skilled labour and the capital will be retained in the country, and the product will be sold to the consumer at as low a price as he can import it at from any other country. (Loud applause.) What is the reason, then, the hon. gentleman asks, why you put imposts upon cotton and wool- len goods brought into the country ? The reason is this. In a small country like this the duty does not prevent foreign goods WBUOMUU to manufacture gooos as cneapiy as iney could be imported from the country which has the largest market and the largest manu- factories, and it is not necessary that foreign goods should be entirely prevented from coming in. The policy of this Government is that the protection granted should be placed at such a point as not to prevent all articles of the kind protected from coming into the country — ^why ? For this simple reason, that the protection i a stimulus to cheap production. It improves the design ; it increases the skill of the worker ; it results in better machinery being used ; and there is a certain amount of competition with foreign goods. (Cheers.) Moreover, we are enabled by the import duties to levy a certain amount of money for the purpose of carrying on the Government of the country. What would be the result, then, if the hon, gentle* men got into power ? THE RESULT OF THE SWEEPINO AWAY Of "every VESTlCa or PROTECnON." If, as they say* they will never rest content until they sweep away every vestige of pro- tection in thii country, such a catastrophe will happen to this country as might never happen to any country in the world. The whole manufacturing' class would be swept away at one blow. (Hear, hear.) We would be left a purely agricultural countiy, and the history shows beyond cavil that a country without diversified industries is necessarily a poor one. They dare not do it, even should they get into power. If they should do it, their own following would receive such a correction from the electorate, from one end of the country to the other, that they would not remain in offirc a week. (Ministerial applause.) Is it possible that they would be so insane, if they should get into power, as to attempt to carry out the pledge they have made by a solemn resolution? We have heard the promises they have made with reference to commercial union and unre- stricted reciprocity, and we know how . quickly they changed front on these and other questions, so that we are justified in_ concluding that they will again be equal to the occasion. But God help this country if such a catastrophe should ever happen us as the sweeping away of every vestige of pro- tection. (Hear, hear and cheers.) VVitb If it were not for the momentous consequences that i^v tiiKng upon the reveitjal of our present trade policy at this junc we would unhesitatingly advocate a change of Government, aj kmg tenure of office often leads to an abuse of power. The mercial life of the nation is passing through a critical period, a should be remembered that any radical, change in our fiscal sj might result in upheavals as disastrous as those which occurred in Australia and the Argentine Republic, and which shook the United States to its foundation. The introduction policy based on the broad lines of British free trade would fatal mistake, and might hurl us into a commercial pitfall which it would take us years to emerge. It is too well knowq if our protective barricade, which insuras a home market fo^ manufactures, were removed, or even lowered to any great ex the Americans would at once monopolize the home trade. The "CANArnAN Journal of Commerce" speaking of the ma Canada has weathered the world-wide storm of commercial ,d€ sion says : The manufacturers there (in the United States) have s on hand which are unsaleable. They are in great need of i cash, and if Canada's market were now unprotected, there v be such an influx of American gojods as would drown out industries of this country like one burst from a 'reservoir, calamity would bring the manufacturers of Canada into a \ financial and industrial plight than that in which the Amer are. The tariff, with all its faults, is demonstrating at this more than it has ever done the value and the necessity of gua our industries from slaughtering operations.