«,
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)
.^
<i^
1.0
I.I
Ui lii |Z2
£ Pi£ 12.0
i;
m
L25 lyyu m\A
^^.
7
v^
iV
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
^IHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Institute for Historical Microroproductions
Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
1980
Technical Notes / Notes techniques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Physical
features of this copy which may alter any of the
images in the reproduction are checked below.
Coloured covers/
Couvertures de couleur
Coloured maps/
Cartes gAographiques en couleur
L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Certains
dAfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de la
reproduction sont notto ci-dessous.
D
D
Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Coloured plates/
Planches en couleur
D
D
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dicolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es
Tight binding (may cause shadows or
distortion along interior margin)/
Reliure serrd (peut ca'jser de I'ombre ou
de la distortion le long de la marge
int^rieure)
D
D
Show through/
Transparence
Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es
n
ii
u
b
fi
Additional comments/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires
Original copy restored and laminated.
Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibiiographiques
D
D
Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents
D
D
Pagination incorrect/
Erreurs de pagination
Pages missing/
Des pages manquent
n
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
D
Maps missing/
Des cartes gdographiques manquent
D
Plates missing/
Des planches manquent
D
Additional comments/
Commentaires supplAmentaires
re
lins
I la
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall
contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"),
or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever
applies.
The original copy was borrowed from, and
filmed with, the kind consent of the following
institution:
Library of the Public
Archives of Canada
Maps or plates too large to be entirely included
in one exposure are filmed beginning in the
upper left hand corner, left to right and top to
bottom, as many frames as required. The
following diagrams illustrate the method:
Les images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le
plus grand soln, compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettetA de I'exemplaire film«, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
fllmage.
Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la der-
nlAre Image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas:
le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole
V signifie "FIN".
L'exemplaire iWmi fut reproduit grice d la
g«nArosit6 de I'^tablissement prAteur
suivant :
La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada
Les cartes ou les pianchss trop grandes pour Atre
reproduites en un seul clich* sont filmtes A
partir de Tangle sup6rieure gauche, de gauche A
droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Le diagramme suivant
illustre la mAthode :
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
■■-'•J
1
hV
'•*v,^
T^pf.
:',7.' '
TSB.BUDGET
i<-^>„
^ ■' ^1
^ou
Vv >
t
',i
:!^jixx>Jl
■,.»»^«fN^.
^Ir.
f "Ku'
i^iSS^t— ''-#^-
•fti
,X
-»!«?-* '
v#«aff^^f|»^:
^^:,-
■:f^-^/':'4m^*r
-v>^^-^v
m^is^^
i^:r-
f(QU$e of Commons B^tiates
FOURTH SESSION -SIXTH PARLIAMENT.
SPEECH OF MR. CHARLTON, M.P.,
ON
THE BXJDG^ET.
FEIDAY, MAECH 28th, 1890.
Mr. CHARLTON. I can compliment the hon.
member for North Kcnfrew (Mr. White) very cor-
dially upon the able presentation of the case from
his own standpoint, that he has made to-night. I
can say, with equal truth, that I am unable to
agree with the hon. gentleman in a single conclu-
sion he has drawn. He had a good deal to say with
regard to my hon. friend beside me (Sir Richard
Cartwright), as to his management of pu])lic affairs
wliile he was Finance Minister of Canada, and as to
the positions advanced by that hon. gentleman in
his speech last evening, and I shall crave the indul-
gence of the House for a few moments in reviewing
brieflj some of the points made in this connection
by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr.
White). Heasks, almostnt the outset of his speech,
how it was that upon one occasion the member
for South Oxford did not occupy a seat in this
House, and he left the House to infer that the
riding the hon. gentleman had represented had lost
confidence in him, and had failed to return him ;
but the truth was that the Government had blotted
out that riding })y the infamous (Jerrymander Act
of 1882, and consequently a temporary derange-
ment of affairs resulted in my hon. friend being out
of the House, I think, for one Session. The hon
uieinber for North Renfrew goes on to say that
in the first 'financial statement that he heard
from the member' for South Oxford, my
hon. friend advanced ^he Customs duties of this
country from 15 to 17^ per cent. Well, that was a
very moderate advance. It was my opinion at the
time that it should have been 2j| per cent, more ;
but the slight advance made by my hon. friend
indicated the conservative character of his admin-
istration of the finances. He chose to refrain
from imposing burdens upon the country ; and in
connection with the strict economy in the manage-
ment of public affairs which that hon. gentleman
practised, I think it is greatly to his credit that so
slight an advance was made. The Public Accounts
of this country show that during the five years of
the administrati<m of the finances of this country
by the Mackenzie Government the increase of ex-
penditure was very small ; !or 1873-74 the expen-
diture upon Consolidated Fund was $23,316,000,
and the expenditure in 1877 - 78, after five
years of the administration of affairs by my
hon. friend, was $23,503,000, an increase of
about $184,000 only in the expenditure of this
country, chargeable to Consolidated Fund, in five
years, under the prudent, conservative an<l econ-
omical management of the hon. member for South
Oxford — a management the character of which
stands out in striking contrast with the manage-
ment of the Finance Ministers who have succeeded
him in this country.
Then the hon. gentleman states that the fact
that my hon. friend and those associated with
him on tliis side of the House, are still in
Opposition, is proof positive that the country
has no confidence in them, that the jieople refuse
U) repose confidence in the policy and in the char-
acter of those hon. gentlemen. Sir, when we take
a survey of the political field of this country, when
we take into account the influences used by
the Government that now occupy the Treasury
benches, when we consider the Gerrymander
Act of 1882, the Franchise Act of 1885, the timW
limit scandals, the pasture lease scandals, the
appropriations amounting to millions of dollars
made by that Government from time to time to
influence the elections in various ridings of this
country, the purchase of ridings en bloc, the pur-
chase of Provinces, the refusal of that Govern-
ment a few days ago to allow the passage of a law
that would curtail its own powers for evil, so un-
scrupulously used— I say, when we look at all these
things it is folly to talk of hon. members on this
side of the House failing to secure the approval of
the people. They are bought out ; bought out by
the money resources and the corrupting resources
employed in every possible way by the Govern-
ment of the day for the purpose of influencing the
elections in this country.
Then, Sir, the hon. member for North Renfrew
(Mr. White) refers to the intimation made by my
hon. friend (Sir Richard Car+wright) that the
policy of this country was only calculated to
produce irritation in the United States, and that
2
conswjuently the policy was oihs to be regretted ;
and he tella us that if to maintain our dignity
is to produce irritation, then let the irritation
be produced and we will stand upon oar dignity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great im-'
portance that Canada should set a good
example to the world, that its progress
and course in this matter should be dignihed ;
but I think I will show a little later on, that I
have gooil reason for the Ixslief that (Canada, in its
intercourse with the United States, in the character
of its policy towards the United States, has been
more than digniKed, that it has been captious,
that it has been more than captious, that it has
been insolent in some respects, that it has given
good reasons for l)eing cf)nsi(iored so, and that a
just cause has been given for the feeling of irrita-
tion towards Canada that exists ; and I think I
will be able to present, later on, the facts upon
which this opinion is based.
The hon. member tella us that the pjirty
to which the hon. mendier for .South Oxford
(Sir Richartl Cartwright) belongs has no policy;'
and that it is useless to talk about a party
asking for the confidence of the country when it
has no policy to present to the public, that it Just
sits hei:e and indulges in a course of factious
opposition, attempting to pull down every tiling that
is offered, without having anything itself to oner in
return. Now, I have always imagined that the
Liberal party of this country had a policy — in fact,
the hon. gentleman has attempted to criticise the
g)licy that the Lilnsral party a<lvanced to-night,
ne of the points in the policy of the Liberal
party is that it advocates reciprocity with the
United States, it desires to extend our trade
relations with that country. That is one point
in its policy. Another point in its policy is the
assertion that this country is unduly taxed, that
the burdens resting upon the shoulders of the
iMiople are too great, and that these burdens should
De reduced, .\nother point in the policy of this
party is that the expenditure is too great, that the
Government in expending mon^y is reckless, that
it lietrays the trust imposed in it by the people,
and squanders their money ; that there shoulif be
economy introduced in the expenditure of this
money ; that is one plank in the policy of the
Lil)erttl party. Another point is the assertion that
the debt is too great, that the accumulation of
debt should cease, and that a policy should be
adopted that will reduce that deV>t, lather than
increase it. That is another plank in the platform
of the Lilieral Party. Then, with regard to the
management of the public domain of this country,
the Liberal party asserts that the inaimgement has
been reckless ; that it has not been judicious ; that
it has not been, in the pv>blic interest ; that it has
been conceived in the interest of the friends of the
party and of the (iovernment ; that it has l>een
used to increase the Government influence and to
give the Government powqr, and that in all these
things the J)olicy of the party now in power is
wrong : and' per contra, that tne policy advocated
by the Liberal party being in direct opposition
to the policy the Government has pursuecf is right.
I might indicate many other points upon which the
Liberal party stand before the people with a clearly
defined policy, a policy exactly the opposite of that
pursued by the hon. gentlemen in power.
Then, th© m9mb«r for North Renfrew (Mr,
White) proceeds to refer to the resolutions intro-
duced in the House of Representatives lost year
by ('ongressman Hitt, and tne resolutions this ye.ar
reported by the Committee on Foreign Rela-
■ons, of which Mr. Congressman Hitt is chairman ;
and the hon. gentleman informs us that there is
something very suspicious about that matter, that
last year the resolution reported to Congress and
passed by the House of Representatives was one
favoring commercial union, offering to negotiate
with Caiuula on the basis of commercial union ;
while this year, singularly ennugli and suspiciously
enough, the resolution rciwrted by the Committee
on Foreign Relations to C ongress is not definitely
in favor of commercial union, but is a proposition
that Commissioners should l>e ap[>ointea on behalf
of the United States, when Canada indicates a
desire to treat, for tlie purpose of c()nsidcring the
best methods to secure wider trade I'elations be-
tween the two countries, without any definition as
to exactly in what way the details are to be settled —
a resolution covering almost identically the ground
occupied by my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cart-
wright) when he moved his resolution last year.
This simply shows, in iny estimation, that C'on-
gressman Hitt, one of the most advanced thinkers
in the United States, one of the most liberal-
minded statesmen in the Republic, has somewhat
modified the view he entertaine<l last year, and
he now Imlieves that unrestricted reciprocity
Itetween these two countries can he secured on some
r>ther basis than commercial union, that it can
be secured on the basis which my hon. friend from
South Oxford proposed last year. In fact, it
E laces us in a better pi>sition in this matter than
efore ; it gives us a more lilieral offer as to the
Imsis on which negotiations shall be entered upon ;
it offers to us, if the resolution passes Clongress, a
basis for seeking to make an arrangement, which
is one we may, with every confidence, enter upon
and carry to a successful issue. But, the lion,
gentleman tells us, that is all bosh ; that this hope
held out by the motion, introduced by Congress-
man Hitt, is perfectly delusive. He says, that
Senator Sherman, last year expressed the opuiion,
that we could not have free trade relations between
these two countries', except on the basis of p<jliti-
cal union. Then, the hon. gentleman takes up the
New York Evening Sun, a one cent evening (laily,
and he reads an editorial from that newspaper,
in which the writer ventures the assertion,
that if we want free trade, we must take it on
the basis of annexation. Does that settle the
question ? Does the opinion of Senator Sherman,
respectable and eminent as he is, settle the ques-
tion? If the United States im'itethis country to treat
with it, to appoint Commifisioners for the purpose
of negotiating as to freer trade relations upon the
basis that Congressman Hitt's resolution indicates,
shall we, because some New York newspaper or some
individual member of the United States Senate,
refuse to accept the proposition,' made through
Congress, inviting us to enter into negotiations
with a view to ascertaining what results can be
reached, refuse to accept the invitation to secure
an acceptable treaty ? To refuse to enter into
negotiations is to show we do not want reciprocal
relations on any terms whatever.
Then the hon. gentleman has told us about the
ftessimistic wails of the hon. member for South Ox-
ord (Sir Richard Cartwright). Well, I might speak
tlul
the
d.
butl
smil
it,
Nol
ag
foil
(TO
thd
of the optimistic cock-a-dootlle-doo expressions of
thu lion, gentloiimn iiiinself, and on«^ would he as
iipT)r()j)riatc aa tiie other. It may he pessimistic to
point out clearly the dangers that threaten this
country, to show that we are on the way to ruin,
to warn the people of the result of the course we
lun pursuing. Hut I do not think so. I think it
i.s (Mitriotic in a puhlic man, and he who has the
courage to ntand up and speak the truth and warn
the people as to the natural outcome of the policy
pursued hy the (Government is one who dciservcs
thanks rather than condemnation.
Then the hon. gentleman goes on to talk alwut
the small increase in our rural population. He
does not admit directly tliat there is a tlecrease,
l)ut lie admits, inferentially, that there is a very
small increase, hecausc he proceeds to account for
it, and he says the drainage of the po])ulatioii to tiie
North -West accounts for it. There is not a sufficient
agLcregation of people in the North- West to account
for the drain from the older Provinces. The people
go to the United States — they go in streams an(l in
thousands.
An hon. MEMBER. Why?
Mr. CHARLTON. Because there are Injtter
opportunities and ojwnings there. I tind Canadi..ns
wherever I go, and 1 find them satistied with the
con<liti(in of affairs there. I am hound to say that
] never lia\e found a Canadian in the United
.States who expressed any desire or intenti(m to
come hack to Canada.
Home hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh,
Mr. CHARLTON. It is a hald statement of
fact, and simply that. It is a fact that the increase
of our rural population is at a standstill, an«l tliis
is not accounted for hy the drain of our population
to the North- West, for, where one man go«!.s to the
North-West from Ontario, four or five cross the
line into the United States.
Thehim. member from North Renfrew (Mr. White)
next comes t,othestatementmade by the hon. mem her
for Houth Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) with
respect to the mortgage indehtedness of Ontario,
and he disputes the statement made. It is an easy
matter to do so. Accurate information as to tlie
matter is not prohaVilj available. What the hon.
meniher for South Oxford (Sir Richard (^artwright)
did was to name eleven ridings in the Province, and
his statement was that a certain condition of affairs
with respect to mortgage indebtedness prevailed in
these ridings, and he said, if a like condition of
things prevailed in the rest of the Dominion, then
there was a mortgaged indebtedness in Canada of
from «2(X),IKK),00() to $300 '"X),0(H) ; and, to satisfy
the country that his calculations were correct, he
asked that there should he a vote of money for the
purpose of appointing a commission to examine
into this mn tter, ana decide whether these calcul-
ations with regard to the mortgage indebtedness
were well founded or not. And if the ( Jovernment
have any doubt as to the conclusion, let them give
us a small vote, and appoint a commission, and
investigate the matter, and demonstrate whether
the calculations of the hon. member for South
Oxford are well founded or not. But whether we
have a mortgage indehtedness of between
$200,000,000 and $300,000,000, made upon mort-
gage loans Ico or more, I can assure the hon.
gentleman, and the members of this House, that
there is a certain mortgage indebtedness, the
amount of which we can arrive at almost exactly.
There is a mortgage indebtedness on the improved
lands in this l>omiiii(m, amounting to over f 10 an
acre, due to the puhlic debt of Canada. That
mortgage indehtedness we have at all events.
An hon. MEMBER. Are there lU) assets ?
Mr. CHARLTON. We have $237,000,000 of net
debt, and we have 22,(KK»,0(K) or 23,(K)0,000 acre*
of improvetl lands, and it is, therefore, cosy to figure
up how much it the mortgage indebtedness on the
improved lands of the Donunicm.
Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. White) proceeds to
give us some statistics, or not statistics exactly, hut
.speculations, as to the depression existing in the
United States. If all he asserts with respect to the
United States were true, it simply points t<i the fact
that protection, which has been the policy of that
country since I8H1, has not worked satisfactorily,
and if protection in the Uniteil States has produce«l,
or any other cause has produced, the depression in
that country, which the hon. gentleman asserts
exists there, it behooves us to see whether the
policy we are pursuing is not one of a similar
character and likely to produce similar results.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. White)refer8 to England
under a free trade policy. Well, in England a great
many causes have operateil to produce agricuJ-
tural depression. In the first place, the natural
customers of England for the products of her
looms and workshops are the countries that
have adopted a policy which is calculated to keep
her goods out of tltelr markets. The result has
been, to that extent, to reduce the purchasing
{K)wer of England. These counti-iea have a sur-
plus of food to sell to Britjiin. The price of natural
products in those countries is governed by the prices
in England, and the protective policy which im-
poverishes their natuiul customer for food products,
and reduces her ])urchasing jiower has its effect
u{)on the reduced prices paid in America for farm
products. Added to this there has been a great
ie<luction in freights, l>oth railway and ocean, and
the oi)ening up oi new sources qt supply, as in the
case of India, all of which has tencted to depress
tiie agricultural interests in England. The most
marked influences upon prices of farm produce in
England and America have been" exercised hy the
construction of railway lines to reach the wheat
fields of India, which bring our farmers into com-
petition with the ('oolie ralx>r of that country.
All these causes combine<l have reduced the agri-
cultural prices in England, but that is a (juestion
(juite f(jieign to the matter under discussion in this
House at tne present tinie.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. White) wants to know
if we did not consider ourselves largely to blame for
the slow settlement of the North -West. I hardly
know Uhai 'ton. gentleman means. Perhaps, he
means to in^ .ace that we have taken a course that
is calculated to deter people from going to the
North-West, and that we have sought, to diminish
the movement of population into that country. I do
not think, Sir, that the North-West has better
friends in this country than the Liberal members of
this House, or friends who are more desirous of
seeing the country prosperous. Of course, we have
criticised freely various parts of the policy of th*
Government with reference to the Nortn West. We
have criticised its land policy ; we have criticised
that colonisation policy which gave to speculators
land lit $1 an acre, for which the itettlerH were
charged 1^2 an acre. We have criticised the pasture
lease grazing policy, wliich puts in the hands of
cattle kings va«t tracts of land, on which a settlor
is not allowed to settle, unless the cattle king gives
his consent, and by which the settlor is shut out
from some of tl»c Insst agricultural regions of tlie
North- West. We have criticised the policy of the
(Government in regard to timber linuts ; we iiave
criticised its mineral lands leases ; and we have
criticised its railway policy, by which vadt sums of
money are expended uselessly in that country.
All these things it was our duty to do, and if these
criticisms in any way had an unfavorable effect
upon the settlement of the North-West, why, we
cannot help it, and it is really tlie fault of tlie
(joveniment that tliey gave ground for criticism
by tlieir improper conduct, and not our fault that
we criticised what we found to be objectionable in
their policy.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. White) then proceeds to
a criticism of Mr. Mackenzie's Administration—
really ho has covered a wide range in his speech
to-nigiit— and he sjiys that Mr. Mackenzie and his
colleagues accomplislied practically nothing for
the country. Did they not? They completed
the Intercolonial Railway, they proposed to give to
the North-West an outlet by constructing a road
from Liike Superior to the Red River in Manitoba,
and from the Red River to Pembina, to connect with
the American lines ; and further, as soon as the
wants of the country required it, to continue the
Canadian Pacific Railway west. They deepened
the canals, they did various things that were bene-
ficial to this country, and the best thing they did
was to set an example of honesty and economy in the
administration of the affairs of the country. Then,
Sir, the hon. gentleman says that the hon. mem-
ber for South Oxford (vSir Richard Cartwright)
wrestled constantly with deficits during his admin-
istration of the financial affairs of this country.
Let us look at that deficit question a little. If
the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. \^'hite) had
examined the Public Accounts, I do not lielieve he
would have said anything about deficits, and I
rather think he would be disposed to let this mat-
ter rest. I have here a list of the deficits since
Confederation, and during the five years my hon.
friend, Sir Richard Cartwright, held oHice, the
deficits were :
1875-76 $1,900,000
1876-77 1,460,000
1877-78 1,128,000
or a totiil deficit for the three years of $4,488,0(X).
Now, are these the last deficits in our financial
history, and did the deficits cease when the hon.
gentlenian left office ? Let us see. The deficit was
in:
1878-79 $1,937,000
1879-80 1 ,643,000
1884-85 2,240.000
1886-86 5,834,00"
1886-87 810,000
6r a total deficit of $11,365,000, as compared with
a total deficit of $4,488,000 during the hon. member
for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright's) in-
cumbency of the office of Minister of Finance.
Mr. FOSTER. We will soon pull the deficit
down,
Mr. CHARLTON. Oh, yes, you will pull things
down.
Fault has been found with my hon. friend l)eside
me (Sir Richard C-artwriglit) because he refused to
raise the duties. Now, the deficits under lAe admin-
istration were due, not to extravagance, and not to
mismanagement, but to causes entirely beyond his
control. They wei e due to the world-wide depres-
sion which diminished the revenues of Canaifa, of
the United States, of Kngland, and of every coun-
try in the world, and my hon. friend knowing that
tliis condition of tilings was temporary ; knowing
that when this depression passed away, the duties
that were then being levied were ample to afford
him all the revenue that an eccmomic administration
of the affairs of this country re(iuire<l, refused upon
the pretext of scant revenues, resulting from this
abnormal condition of things, to increase the bur-
dens placed on the people. The revenue of the
United States during this period of depression, and
the increase of the revenue immediately after this
Fteriod of tlepiession, clearly show that my hon.
riend's expectations would have l3eeii realised had
he remained in office. The Customs revenue of the
United States was :
1876 $148,000,000
1877 130,966.000
1878 , 130,170.000
1879 137,250,000
Then the depression passed away and in 1880 there
was a leap from $1.37,000,000, the revenue of the
previous year, to $i86,.')00,000 ; and in 1881, the
Customs revenue of the United States was $198,-
000,000 against $137,000,000 two years before, and
that without the change of a single item on the
tariff list. That shows that there was a rapid
advance in the collections from Customs in that
country as soon as the (lepression passed away, and
it warrants the impression that liad the tariff
remained as it was in this country, and had ^y hon.
friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) remained in the"
position of Minister of Finance, the increase in the
revenue of C^anada, when the depression passed
away, would have been ample for all purposes and
would have left him a smrplus instead of a deficit.
My hon, friend from Renfrew (Mr. White) says
that he is in favor of reciprocity on fair fcenns.
What are fair terms, and what does he esteem to
be fair terms ? Li my opinion the proposal made
by my hon, friend (Sir Richard Cfartwright) for
unrestricted reciprocity, is a proposal for reci-
procity upon fair terms, and anything coming
short of that falls short of being such a proposal.
If we ask the United States people to grant us
a treaty of reciprocity that will enable us to
sell to them exactly what we want to soil, and
not enable them to sell to us anything they wish to
sell, that is not reciprocity on fair terms. That is a
treaty by which we secure a decided advantage at
their expense. A true reciprocity treaty must
permit us to sell to them the products of our labor,
and permit them to sell to us the products of
their labor ; what they naturally want to sell.
Anything short of this, falls short of being a true
reciprocity treaty. But the hon, gentleman says
in effect ^it ia not a matter of much moment after
all ; it ia a very trifling matter whether we get
reciprocity or not ; it is hardly worth lookitig
after ; it might be advantageous, if we could get it
exactly as we wanted it — if we could dictate our
own terms ; but, if we have to go into negotiations
with our neighlmrs, and give them some advantage
as well as secure some advantage ourselves, then It
tavoi
COUIll
H(juail
coming
oposaf
ant u[i
us to
11, and
wish to
hat is a
tage at
must
labor,
lets of
sell,
a true
says
after
we get
ookitig
1 get it
te oar
ations
,n
ifl not a matter of much consequence ; he does not
know lis we care alMtut it at nil. Rut, the hon.
gentleman infers tliat the Lil>eralB are still in
favor of n^cipnjcity, and I am sure his inference
is right. I can assure the hon. gentleman that
that is <me of the principles on which the Liberal
party stand, and on which they will appeal to this
country ; and with that principle they have vic-
tory writl 01' on tlieir banners if ever they can reach
tlic people of this <'ountry and place tliat issue
Hijuarely iHjfore them.
Mr. SPROULK. You did not work it very well
ill Haldimand the other day.
Mr. CHARLTON. When the CJovernment have
to distribute their boodle among *2ir) ridings, and
cannot concentrate it in one, we shall not probably
have the result we had in Haldimand.
Now, the hon. member for Nortli Renfrew (Mr.
White) tells us that the farmers are not burdened
by j)rotection — that the (lovermnent have consider-
ed his case and are about to give him protection.
Well, Sir, if we are going to have protection, I
think it is alnnit time the farmer had his share ; if
there is anvtiiing that can be done for the farmer,
in Hcaven'^8 name let it be done. When he is bleed-
ing at every pore for the benefit of a lot of monopo-
lies it is but fair that somebody siiould bleed for his
))eneHt ; it is " case of blood-letting all round. But
I do not know as you can give tne farmer much
advantage by bleeding others. There majf be some-
thing in the duty on meat for him — he may get one
01' two cents back in return for the dollars he is
losing, but the whole thing taken together is a bad
p(jlicy. I do not know that I need weary the
llouse by referring, at greater length, to the
remarks made by my hon. friend from North
Renfrew.
Tlie hon. Finance Minister the other night
made a few statements, and took a few positions
to whicli I wish to refer briefly. He told us
that tne incretuse of the public debt of this
country was a wise arrangement, that we had got
value for it, that it had been beneficial to us in
every respect. He iold us that the increase of the
. expenditure was also an act of wisdom. Well,
I have great respect for the judgment of the
lion. Minister of Finance, and I have great
respect for him jjersonally — greater respect, per-
haps, for him personally than I have for his
judgment in these matters. I doubt very much
whether I can agree with him in. the position
he takes with regard to the l»enefit this country is
likely to derive from the vast increase which has
taken place in its public burdens. For instiuice,
in 1867 the net public debt — I deal with that en-
tirely, not referring to the gross debt — amounted
to ^75,7'28,(XK) ; last June that debt had been in-
creased to $237,r),30,OtX), an increase of $161,802,000.
Now, how has this increase been applied ? Have
we got value to show for it ? I suppose my hrn.
friifiKl would say we have, but I shall be obliged to
express grave doubts on that point. We have
S51,000,0()0 sunk in the Intercolonial, and if we
had a true stMement of the management of that
roa<l, I believe we should find that it is costing us
not only the loss of the interest on that amount,
but about 91 ,000,000 more every year ; so that
certainly that is not a profitable investment
directly, and I do not think it is a profitable in-
vestment indirectly. Then, we have about
170,000,000 in the Canadian Pacific Railway, in-
cluding the $IO,(HM),(KM) worth of lands Uken from
the company when we settled with it the
!J20,(K)0,(MK) loan. I have the greatest reapcct for
tile promoters of that road. They were men of great
enterprise and energy, and tiie construction of the
road was a marvel in railway constructi(m- a won-
derful display of .energy ; but the action of the
(loveriunent I do not think was politic or advisable
undei the circumstances. I do not think we re-
({uired to push through that great work with such
haste as we did. I believe tiiat if the [Kilicy out-
lined V>y the Mackenzie (loveriunent — building the
line first from I.iake Superior to the Red River,
with a branch to connect with the American roads
for a winter outlet, and carrying the construction
westward to the Iwse of the Rocky Mountains, as
the ccmntry settled— had been coatiiijued, by the
time the line reached the Rocky Mountains, wo
should not have expended more than lf30,000,(XK)
or 9^ir),(K)(),(KK), anil we should have had a paying
road, which, given as a bonu.s, wyuld have been
more than sufficient to secure the lonstruction of
the remainder. By that policy, I believe, we
ccmld have save<l from !!f!;«,(XX),0<)0 to !S40,000,(KK)
and a land grant of 25,(MK),()00 acres ; we shouhl
have got the line as soon as the country recpiired
it ; a better line, and by a better route ; and
we should have had a large population along
the line when it was opene<l to fuinish it with
business. I lielieve the iiolicy of this liovernment
with regard to the (-anadian Pacific Railway was a
gigantic folly. I do not look at the question from
the standpoint of the comjiany, but I look at it
from the standpoint of the Government and the
country. Therefore, I do not think this great in-
crease of the public debt was in the interest of the
taxpayer of this country, or in any sense warrant-
able.
Then, the hon. gentleman tells us — and in this I
agree with him — that we ought not increase the
debt after 1892. I more than agree with him. I
say we ought not to increase the debt after 1890.
Mr. FOSTER. That is what I said.
Mr. CHARLTON. We ought to stop increasing
it now ; it is already too large. The hon. gentle-
man tells us he expects a large surplus in the next
three years. In that he may possibly be reckoning
without his host. If the tariff policy of the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means at Washington, as
.embodied in the McKinley Bill, becomes the law
of the Unite ^ Staies, the hon. gentleman may find
that his su^, .us ■vill dwindle away and disappear,
and that deh. Ito will take its place. He may find
'a condition of things among the laborers and
fanners of this country, brought about in con-
sequence of that American Tariff Bill, that will
dry up the sources of revenue, and be more disas-
trous and lamentable than any condition we have
experienced in the reccdlection of any hon. member
of this House. Therefore, I fear that the hon.
gentleman's anticipations with regard to a surplus
in the next three years are not likely to be fully
realised.
Then the hon. gentleman alludes to a prediction
which he says I made in 1879, of a reversal of
the protective system in the United States,
and a breakdown of the same system in this
country. Well, perhaps, I have only put the
realisation of that prediction tt too early a date,
It is my Iwlief tliivt tho next presiflnntiiil elec-
tion in the United StatoB will we tlio tHuin|)li
of the Deinoci'iitio niirty, wliich in tlie liwt prtiMi.
(lentiiil election hail a large iriajority in the popiihir
vot«. The Uepiililican party to-<lay only holits the
Honse of KeprcHentativeH hy a very narrow major
ity, and they hold tho Senate aim) l>y a Hniull ma-
jority. So that a Hli^ht revermil woidd give the
nmiority in ( ongreMH to the DcmoiTatic i)arty again,
and there is evidenee of a very rapid piiigreHs of
free trade ideas in the lJnit(Ml Statt^H. Tlu're i*
evidence that the funning po]mlation of that conn-
try are hecoining aroii.sed to (lie trne condition of
things, and that th<> op<M'ativeH in maniifactnring
contreH are hecoming free traders. This was indicat-
e«l hy the gains made hy the Mctnocnitic party in
the last ele(;tion in the State of Connecticut and
in other manufacturing centres. ^V(• Hhall see
within a few years a lireakdown of the prf>tec-
tive system in the United States. A highly
reapectahle element among the Republican n»em
bers of the House of Kepresentatives favor tariff
refoiin and a sweeping reduction of (luties at this
moment.
The hon. gentleman lauded the National Policy
as having Iwen the means of calling into existence
new industries of having in fact lieen the means
of creating the munufcU-turing indu.stries of Canada.
We often near this assertion maile, and I wish U))on
this occasion emphatically to deny it. I believe
that if the tariff of my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie),
of 17i, had not been re])ealf;din 1S7J), but had been
continued until the year I89<), we would to-day see
a healthier state of manufacturing industries in
this country, a healthier development of tho.se
industr'-fi, and a development ample for the wants
of the country. I am warranted in this assertion
by the extent of their development in Cana<la,
first, under the tariff of 15 per cent, and later
mider the tariflF of 17i per cent. It is not con-
tended, for it cannot be, that manufacturers
commenced in this country from the oper-
ation of protection and were not in exist-
ence l)efore. Why, Sir, in 1871, we had
177,904,000 of capital invested and 187,942 men
employed in manufactures in this country, and
the products of these industries in. 1871 reach-
ed the value of $221,619,(X)0. And all this
business was called into existence under a tarifl'
of 15 per cent. — a strictly revenue tariff and a very
low revenue tariff. In 1881, we had a capital in-
vested in mnnufacturing industries in this country
of .1165,302, ,00, and 264,935 hands engageil in
them, and their products amounted to $,'i(|!9,67(5,-
000 ; and very little, if any, of this development
can be claimed as due to protection, because the
protective tariff was not passed until 1879, and
there was no time for it to produce any perceptible
effect so soon as April, 1881. I assert, therefore,
that in Canada, under a revenue tariff, and a very
low revenue tariff, we had, in 1871, manufac-
tured in this country, ^221 ,000,000 worth of pro-
ducts, and, in 1881, li!309,(KK),000 worth, showing a
rapid development between 1871 and 1881 under i.
purely revenue tariff policy. It is an insult to the
intelligence of men understanding this question for
any one to stand up here or anywhere else and
assert that the present policy of th-i (Jovernment
Hp:;. oeen the cause of the existence in Canada of
the manufacturing industries we have.
Then we come to the question of the burdens im-
|K)sed by this debt. Our net debt of f237,530,(X)0
nnixmes a per capita charge of $47.50, taking the
basi.i of .'),(HK),0(MI ijoiiulation, which T believe is
more than we have. The gross interest last year
was ^10, I4H,!(31, but we rci.eived interest to offset
this on invt^Htineuts of .#1,. "105, 392, leaving a not
interest on our |)ublii- debt last year of f8,843,-
539, or !? 1,70 per head. Now, there have been
some allusions madt' to the United States. The
President of the Council enforced his argumentH
by such iillusions and so to some extent did the
Myiister of Finance. The hon. member for North
Hctifiew (Mr. White) foUowed their course, and
[ shall, imitating the example .net by these
hon. gentlemen, draw a contrast, as reganls the
amount of debt and per capita expenditure l>e-
tween this country and the United States. The
debt of the United States on the 30tli June last
was !jl,(l,")0,034,' '>•>, or a per ca[)ita charge, taking
the basis of (HK),0(M) inhabitant* which I
believe is less .an the actual popuIati(m— of .
1^10.07, against a per capita charge in Canada
of .$47.50. Our debt ol)ligation is threefold
greater ])er hea<l than that of the United Stlvtes,
and the interest on the public debt in tho United
States amrmnt'.'d to ^1,001,484 last year, or a
|)er capita charge of (55 cents against a per capita
charge in (^anaiui of .^1.70. These are suggestive
facts. They are facts it is well for uk to pause and
consider. If we owe three times as nuich as
the United States per head, if wo are paying
tlii'ee times as much interest per hea<f, that
is not a satisfactory comlition of things.
The burdens of the country are too great,
because we necessarily come into direct competi-
tion with the Unite(f States, and to have a fair
chance in the race we do not want to be encum-
bered to a greater extent than they arc. The
nation that nas the lightest debt and the lightest
burden is the nation that has the best chance to
succeed in the -race of progress. If we were to
treat the Unite<l States debt on the same basis
as we do our own ; if we were to deduct from
the amount of their debt the assets of the coun-
try in the form of securities held, we would
take from that debt the Pacific railway debt
due to the United States, which is said tr be
perfectly good, ami which amounts, principal and
interest, to more than $120,000,000. If we did
this, it would leave tho debt of the United States
last June at .|930,00t),000, or $14.70 per capiU,
against $47.r/0 in Canada.
I come next to the question of Customs taxa-
tion, and a comparison of the relative bur-
(Ipn« nn'le'- this head in the two countries. Our
Customs taxation last year was $23,720,783, orV
a per capit«v charge of $4.74, on the basis of
5,()(X),(K)0 inhabitants. I shall not make a com-
[mrison l)etween the Excise taxes in the United
States and in Canada, because it would take
more time than is necessary, and because the
Excise tax is a voluntary tax. The Customs
duties are an involunt»iry tax, the people are
obliged to pay it, but no man is obliged
to contribute one cent to the Excise duties. It is
a purely voluntivry tax. The Customs tax then of
Canada amounted to $4.74 per head last year.
In the United States, the Customs revenue was
$223,832,741, or a per capita charge of $3.55, so
that we paid in Customs last year $1.19 more per
head than the people of the United States, or a
(lifTurenco in their favor in the matter of Cuitoms
ttixiitiim (>f ,'W jHir cent.
In the niivttor of
tuio Itwt ywir, chiii(i{fii
oxi)un(lit)ifc, our tixpondi
■iilAu to the ConsoliiliittM
Funil, wiia ♦;{t),»l7,S."*4, or $1.W ptr heiul. In the
L'niteii Stntea, the onliniiry exiR-ndituro hint year
witH #*2SI,)>JHi,(lir>, or l|4.47 per huuil, making a
ilitFuroncu of J'2.S.'< jicr hcinl in favor of tlie Unitod
StatoM, or our oxpumliture wa« ti2 ptrcent. greater
than tliat of the Unitu<l StjituH eoin|uvring tlie
ordinary expenditure of tlie United State» with tlie
expenditure chargeable to { 'onsolidated Fund in
Canada. Uut if we take the Coiwolidated Fund
and the expeUHeti chargeable to ('apital Account
last year, amounting to !ji4<"),7<H),!MM>, wu have a
total expenditure per heail in ('anada of $1). 14;
and if we take the expenditure in the United
States, corre8p<»ntling to our Consolidated ITund
and ('apital Acucuint, we Hnd an expenditure
of |1387,or)<),(KK), or *(l. 14 per head, showing
that the total cx|>en<liture in the United States
last year was l$3 per head less, or 4H pel'
cent, less than the total expenditure in Canada.
Then we have the fact that, in this totiil exncndi-
ture in the United States of !Ji:W7,(>r)<),(K)(), wlii'^h I
nlace against our Ci^nsolidated Fund expenditure of
Canada, the former amounting toiiMi. I4per head and
the latter to |!S). 14 per head, there is no le.s8 than
S!|(t5,().'}3,443 of a surplus which went to the reduc-
tion of the debt of that country and to rest, while
we had no reduction of the debt, but on the con-
trary an increase of |2,9i)8,09().
It may be claimed, and truthfully claimed,
that this is scarcely a fair comparisfm, that we
have in our Consolidated Revenue Fund ex-
penditure an item for which the United States
na.s no corresponding expenditure, and tliat is
the subsidies which are paid to the Provinces,
which would correspond with the expenditures
of the State (iovcrnments in that c(n'.ntry to
which the United States (iovernnient does iy)t
contiibute a dollar. 1 recognise the force of that
contention, and I will make a comparison deduct-
ing that amount. Taking the Consolidated Fund
exienditure at ^3(),917,S34, and deducting ifom
ti'ut the provincial subsidies of $4,().")l,427, we
have a net expenditure of ^32, SOU, 407, or an expen-
diture per head of $().r)7 against the ordinary
expenditure in tl.e United States of iJ4-47 per
lieatl, and still we have an excess (»f $2.\0
per head in Canada as com])ared with the United
States after leaving out of account the subsidies, or
47 per cent, more than the ordinary expenditure
in the United States.
A comparison which is still more interesting and
suggestive is that of corresponding items. Taking
the United States ordinary expenditure to be
$281,996,615, we may deduct from that the pension
list, $87,624,779, the military list *44,43.''.,27<), the
navy list, $21,378,819, ami we have a total of
$153,438,858 to ^lednct from the total ordinary ex-
penditure, leaving an expenditure for all other
purposes except reduction of debt, of $128,557,758,
or an expenditure per head of $2.04. Treat our
own expenditure in the same way. From the
total of $36,917,834 expenditure on account of
Consolidated Fund, deduct subsidies to Provinces
$4,051,427, militia $1,323,551, mounted police
$829,701, and pensions $116,029, making a total of
$6,320,708, it leaves a Ixvlunce of expenditur»-
amounting to $30,597,126, or an expenditure per
head of $6. II against an expenditure in the United
States for substantially tliosame purposes of $2.04,
or an excess of expenditure per head in ('anada
of $4.07, or 200 per cent, more in Canada than in
the Unite<l States when these items are left out.
These are comparisons which are not only unfavor-
able but are alarming. They show our reckless-
ness. This is a young country. When we expend
in exery Department and in every way more than
an oilier and richer country, when we add three
times as much per head to our debt, and- expend
three titiies us much, after eliminating these charges,
it must suggest serious rellections to those who take
a look at the future.
L(!t us for a moment look .it the expenditure of
this country now, and at the expenifiture of the
United States at vari(uis times in its history. The
expenditure in the United States in 1810, when it
had a |K>pulation of 7,23!»,(KK), was $10,280,000.
In 1820, when the population was 9, 6^13, (NX), the
expeiKliture was $1S,285,0(K). In 1830, when the
population was 12,S()6,(KH), the expenditure was
$15,142,000. In 1840, when the population was
17.(H)9,(KK), the expenditure was $24,314,(K)0. In
1846, with a population 20,(KK),(MM), the expendi-
ture was $27,261, (HH>, or $10,(KK),0(K) less than our
expenditui'e with the population we now have,
theirs luiing four times as great, while thoir
exjMJuditure was only two-thirds of what ours
is now. The first time when the expenditure
of the United States reached the present expen-
diture of Canada was in 1847. In 1860, with
a population of 31,443,(K)0, their expenditure was
$63,200,000. After that date we have not a fair
comparison, because the war commenced and great
drains were made on the treasury of the United
.States, but up to 1861, the compariscm between the
expenditure of the United States and that of
Canada is st.irtling. It is startling to see that a
cfrtintry with twenty million people should expend
only two-thirds of the amount expended by a
country with five million people. '
The most interesting point of my cose to-night is
that which 1 am about to refer to, and that is the
measure of the burdens of taxation. An ordinary
person would say we pay $23,756,783 in Customs
duties a year, and that is the measure of our bur-
den. It is not so. That is only a part of the cost
of the goods. The wholesale merchant assesses upon
that his profit of say 20 per cent. The retail mer-
chant buys the goods and assesses his profit of 25
per cent, on the tluty, and 25 per cent, on the profit
of 20 per cent, made by the wholesale merchant
which forms an item in the cost to the retail dealer.
When the goods reach the consumer, they cost
him $1.50 for every dollar which the (Jovernment
receives. But, not to be accused of exaggeration,
I will say that the cost to the consumer is only 40
per cent, extra instead of 50 per cent. ; and in that
case, the consumer pays $33,197,496 for the goods
from which the Government has only received*'
duties amounting to $22,726,783. But is that all ?
No ; there is still a more sei-ious charge. Every
dollar's worth of goods manufactured in this coun-
try costs, within a fraction, as much more than the
Soods could be imported for as the amount of the
uty. That is what is called incidental taxation. ^
Mr. Springer, a Congressman in the United States, '
who is a recognised financial authority, made a
careful calculation as to the amount of incidental
taxation paid by the people in that country. The
8
result of that was that he estimated that the people
of the United States paid $5;J9,(KM),000 more in the
year the calculation was made than they would
have paid for the (/oods if they coidd import them
free of duty, while the amount of the Customs
receipts that year were $2(K),(KK),0(JlO ; in otlier
words they were paying two and a half times the
amount of the Customs taxes in the form of inci-
dental taxation duo to the higher prices of domes-
tic goods than the same article could be imported
for if free of duty. I will assume that we are not
doing as badly as that— though I fear we are — but
that the incidental taxation, the enhanced cost that
we have to pay over that which would have to be
paid if those goods were imported free is only one
and a half times the amount of the Customs duties,
and that gives us an incidental tax of $35,589,(XK),
and it makes tlie measure of th6 burden of taxa-
tion on the people in consequenco of the tariff
which imposes a scale of duties realising
$23,726,783, and including the 4f) per cent, whole-
sale and retail dealers profits on the duty cost of
goods of wlfich I have already spoken, a total
of $68,786,496, and it is probably more, or
f3 that the people lose for every dollar that
tlie (government gets. Can you conceive of a more
wasteful system, or a more absurd system ? Is it
any woiuler that the people of this country are
poor, that business is depressed, when the Govern-
ment adopt a policy that takes $3 out of the
pockets of the consumer directly and indirectly,
that it may get one dollar into its coffers ? Our
total exports last year were $89,189,000. It took
three-quarters of tliis total volume of exports to
pay the losses, direct oi' indirect, sustained by this
country through this absurd policy.
Now, we come down to the questioii of the
increase of the debt, and I wish to compare the
percentage of the increase in that debt with the
percentage of the increase in the population of this
country, just to allow the hon. gentlemen who have
charge of this matter to realise where they are going
to, and how fast they are going theie. We had
a net debt, as I said, in 1867, of $75,728,000 ; last
year it amounted to$237,i')3(),'KK), or an increase of
$161,802, (XK). The debt was 314 per cent, greater
on the 3(tth June last year than it was 22 years
ago. In 1867 the population \.as 3,371,000 ; sup-
posing it was r),0(X),0(K) last year, the increase was
only 1,628,(KX), so that the populatitm increased by
48 per cent, while the debt increased by 213 per
cent. , the increase of debt was almost five times
greater than the increase of populaticm. Is not that
a nice showing for the Finance Minister to make,
that the (lovernment is increasing tiie debt five
times faster than the country's power to pay has
increased ? Why, any business man whose agent
would manage his affairs in that way, would turn
him out, he would get ri<l of him as quickly as he
could, and he would not stand upon the order of
doing it.
The expenditure chargealileto Con8olidate<l Fund
in 1868 was $13,486,0(K), in 1889itwa8$36,917,(XK),
an increase in 22 years of $23,431,000 ; it was 274
per cent, greater in 1889 than it was in 1867. The
increase was 171 per cent., against an increase in
the population of 48 per cent., — a nice showing !
What flo you think of a body of men who Mould
manage the ".ffuirs of the country in such a way
as to increase the debt nearly five times faster than
population increases ; and increase the expendi-
ture over four times faster than tlie population ?
I should think the Minister of Finance would take
credit to himself and say that tlie management of
affairs had beeti satisfactory, that the increase of
the debt was cjuitc commeiulable, that the in-
crease of the expenditure was just the thing, I
should imagine tiiat he would say so.
We will next take the Customs account. Here
we have another beautiful illustration of the
thrifty management which tlie Minister of Finance
congratulates himself upon. In any other country
in the world such a (Joveriiment as we have would
have been turned out by an overwhelming ma-
jority years and years ago ; they do not desen e
Eublic confidence. Any man who would manage,
usiness in such a way wouM be called idiotic, he
would be sure to go to ruin. In 1867, the taxation,
from customs, was $8,578, (X)0 ; in 1888 it was
$23,826,000, an increase in 21 years of $17,148,000,
it was 276 per cent, greater in 1889 than it was
in 1868, an increase of 176 per cent, in those 21
years against an ini'iease in population of 48 per
cent. The increase in taxation was four times
faster tlian tiie increase of population. Brilliant
management ! No wonder, I repeat again, that
the Finance Minister congratulates himself and
the country on this brilliant achievement. I
should imagine that his judgment was scarcely as
reliable as it ought to be, and I think I am war-
ranted in saying that I have a higher • ijard for him
personally than I have for his f' ...^ judgment.
Mr. FOSTER. That will g .w.
Mr. CHARLTON. If the hon. tleman means
the expenditure no doubt it w ,'row ; it has
been growing; it has a thrifty g vth. We are
growing right on towards ruin, there is no question
about that. No man can gainsay these deductions,
they are unmistakable. There is an undue in-
crease in the debt, an undue increase in the exjien-
ditiire, and an undue increase in i/i:e taxes. Any
(lOvernment or any party that would iustify this
recklessness is unworthy the confidence of the
people of this country. What is tiie eflFect of all
this when we enter upon the race of competition
with the United Stiites in seeking to obtain immi-
grants, when we are placing before iiitendmg im-
migrants what we have to offer to induce them to
come here ? Is it likely to secure their settling in
this country when we tell them that our debt i.s
three times greater jier head than that of the
United States ? Is it likely to secure their confi-
dence when we tell them that we are increasing the
debt five times faster than we are increasing our
population ? Is it likely to secure their confidenci'
when they know tha'i we are increasing the expen-
diture four times faf.ter than wc are increasing our
population ? Is it likely to draw them to us when
wo tell them that we are increasing the taxes four
times faster than the population ? Why, we have
not the inducements to draw them here, we cannot
get them to come here. Not only do we fail to get im-
migrants to come here, but our own people are for
su. ing us, and the result is that We have fear for
the future, and the consequence is a great exodus
of people fleeing from the wrath to come, realising
that tlie country is going to ruin, and they are
1x>»md to get oat of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, what
does the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Hesson)
say?
Mr. HESSON. The people will let you know
what they think about it.
Mr. CHARLTON. The Government has taken
care of my hon. friend ; I do not think the agricul-
tural depression atfects his sons very much who
have snug government positions in the Nortli-West.
Now, I am coming to the consideration of the
agricultural depression. We have reported from
the Ways and Means Committee of the United
States House of Representatives a tariff law, and
its prf)vi8ions are a little startling. We had hopes
that the rumors that reached ua were not well
founded, but the result, if tlie Hill reported l)e-
ct)me8 hiw, is worse than our fears. Let us scan
some of tlie provisions of the Bill, and 1 will
first refer .to the article of eggs. This article
has lieen free of <luty for a good many years, and
an enormous trade has grown up, amounting to
.S2, 1.S.i.iKH) I'lst year. This tarifi' proposes to im-
pose a (hity of ii cents a (h)zen on eggs, whicli will
nearly wipe out the trade. Tlie Minister of Cus-
toms says "Humph." If he was engaged in the
hen business, I think he would have good reason to
say " humph." We liave a duty of $.30 a head on
horses- not 2<) per cent., but #30 per head — a
specific duty that my hon. friend is so fond of.
That will be a dead sliot. Tlien we have a specific
duty of JSilO {)er liead cm cattle ; that is a dead shot
too. There is a specific duty of 30 cents a bushel
on barley. It is only, wortli 45 to .50 cents in
[ Canada now, and 20 cents more tluty will bring it
down t<j 2.") or 30 cents a busliel. There is 25 cents a
I l>usliel on potatoes, a duty of $4 a ton on hay.
Your own Province, Mr. Speaker, is interested in
'that trade. The duty at present is $2, and $4 will
be disastrous. There is a duty of 6 cents per pound
on butter, and 1 cent a pound on fish, and so on
through the list.
Now, I said a while ago that I was going to allude
to the provocations that this country iiad given to
the United Stfites, inviting this very jjolicy that has
been adopted partly by way of retaliation, and partly
for the purpose of throwing a tub to tho agricultural
whale of the United States, in order to pacify it.
i Wc have first as a i)rovocation the fisheriesquestion.
I have no doubt the old treaty of 1S18, that dcQies
to a fishing vessel of the United States any of the
usual courtesies which are extended to other mer-
cantile vessels, that does not permit such fishing
vessels to come into port for food of anything but
wood and water, thai does not permit it to supply
itself with any tackling or to replace anythmg
lost ill case of distress, and the enforcement of
these regulations have produced bad feelings.
There is a party in the United States that takes
this ground with regard to our fisheries. They say
these fisheries were acquired by the joint action of
Great Ikitain and the thirteen colonies, that the
thirteen colonies had a proprietary right in those
[fisheries, and that contention, it is well to remem-
jber, was recognised by Great Britain up to 1818 ;
land, further, they say that the provisions of that
Itreaty are antiquated, and the more that common
Isense and courtesy and good neighborhood prevail
Iwith respect to commercial relations, the more anti-
jquated and exasperating becomes an enforcement
lof those provisions. This state of things has pro-
|voked irritation and friction in the United States.
That country grants to us the bonding privi-
lege. Our raib-oads, the Grand Truok and
2o
the Cantulian Pacific r^ailway*, carry products
through the United States without interference,
bonded in tlieir cars to New York or Boston
or Portland, or any of the other sea])! rts which
their lines or connections reach, while we have
denied to the United States the privilege of
sending fish in bond through Canacfa. This is
another ground of serious niction and trouble.
Tlieii we have created the grievance of differential
canal tolls, in violation of treaty stipulations, by
giving a drawback of 18 cents a t(m on the 20 cents
a ton collected on the Welland Canal to all vessels
bound for (Canadian ports. Then we have refused to
meet the overtures of the American people with
respect to reciprocity. A resolution was passed in
tile House of Representatives, last year, ottering us
the olive branch. We might at least have exer-
t^ised equal courtesy, and have passed a resolution
providing that the Governor in Council might
appoint commissioners to meet commif'siouers ap-
pointed by the United Scates in accordance with
the offer of the House of Representatives, to
enter into negotiations with respect to this sub-
ject. We would not have needed to conseni to
anything we did not wish. But this {Government
did not entertain the proposition. It was Imund
tt) maintain its dignity, and it would not deign to
meet overtures fi-om (j.'),(KK),(MK) of people and
treat them with the same degree of courtesy with
which they treated us. No, we would not have
reciprocity. We had too many men like the Pre-
sident of the Council, who thought it woubl be dis-
astrous to have reciprocity, and did not want
it even in natural products, and so we refused to
meet those overtures ; and, accorilingly, the United
Sta.tes feel that they ha\e received, in a certain
sense, an insult from the Govei'nment of Canada.
Then we had the export duty on logs, a miserable
little exaction, which is worthy of a Burbary state
or a South American Republic, but not worthy of
an enlightened Anglo-Saxon state, a mi9eraV)le little
half-p«nny affair which produces irritation. Last
winter a very large and influential delegation repre-
senting the entire lumber trode waiteif on the Gov-
ernment, a tlelegation liept altogether apai't from
politics, which demonstrated to the (government
that the reuioval of this duty was necessary in the
interests of the country. Thisdelegation pointed out
that the removal of this duty would probably result
in the removal of the lumber duties by the United
States ; but the (iovernment refused to surrender
this income of ^30,000 or $40,000, and this gives
the lumber interests of the United States a lever
to use against the lumber interests of this coun-
try. What is the state of the log trade? We
imported from the United States from 1885 to
1889 logs to the value of $6,750,0<X), $4,t$75,(KK)
of which went down St. John river from the State
of Maine, and we exported to the United States
logs to the value of $1,958,000. We, therefore,
imported more than three times as many as we
exported. There was no export duty on the
logs of the value of $6,750,000 comuig from the
United States into this country, but we must im-
pose an exix)rt duty on our paltry exportation, to
create irritation and show our utter incapacity to
deal with questions of international comity. The
result is, that we see the lumber duties have only
been reduced 50 cents per M. , and before the various
deputations are through, probably the duty will bfe
back to $2, with some provision as to the export
10
duty that will prove disaatrous to this country.
In all these respects we have adopted a policy
calculated to produce irritation, and we have pro-
duced irritation, and the result will be that this
country will suffer dinaster.
The National Policy, we were assured, when it
was adopted in 187S, would result to the advantage
of the agricultural interests of the countrj' ; and I
wish to make a comparison V)etween the prices
of tlie leading agricultural products on 1st October
1878, about the time tlie Mackenzie (iovernment
surrendered office, and 1st October last year. The
figures are as follows :
PARMEHS' PRICES.
Wheat. Barloy. Rye. Peas. Oats.
Oct. l,1878...$1.10tol.24 50 to 66 63c. 70 to 73 36 to 38
do 1, 1889... 0.81 to 0.90 40 to 50 52 to 53 53 J 00 25ito27
I think the farmers were deceived in regard to this
policy Ijenefiting them. We see tl»e result in this
great decline of prices, or at least we see tliat prices
have fallen greatly despite the National Policy.
It is said that a fanner down in Western Ontario
died lately, an<l some spirit medium professed to say
what happened after his death. He had gone to
market and sold his little crop of wheat for 81 cents
a bushel. He had gone to liis storekeeper, and find-
ing he had only sufficient money to pay one-half his
bill, he gave his note at six months for the balance.
He had saved a little money for the absolute neces-
siiries of life, and he made a few small purchases.
He bought a dollar's worth of sugar, and lu; found
that between the government and the I'cfiner they
took oO cents of the dollar he expendeil. Then he
wanted a felt hat for his little boy, and on it there
was a tluty of 25 per cent, which, with the profits
of tlie wholesale and retailer on the dutj'. brought
its cost to 37 per cent, more than it siiould be. He
bought a few nails to fasten a few boards on his
barn, and on them tiierc was a duty of a cent a
pound and the profit of the nierdumt on the iluty
was half a cent, making the amount one and half a
cents more than tliey could have been purchased
under free trade. He bought a razor, and that was
taxed 25 cents. Tiien he looked at some glass
goblets for his wife, but as the duty was 30 per
cent, tiiey were beyond liis resources. Tiien as to
binding twine he fcmnd when he came to settle his
bill for that article that it cost 2."> per cent, more
than should have been charged, in consei|uence of
the duty, and he tried in vain to figure out bow
the (iovernment had benefited' the farmer in that
matter. He wanted a cloak for his little girl who
was attending Sunday school, but lu'- found a duty
on it of 7i cents a p<mnd and 21) jjcr cent, ad ra/onm,
antl the cloak was beyon<l his wealth. Next he
bought some yarn for his poor old nuither-in-law
to knit two pairs of stockings for herself, and on
that there was a duty of 7A cents per pound and 20
per cent. He looked at some kid gloves as his
daughter was about to Imj married, but he could not
readi them as the duty was too high ; then he
bought a sheet of paper to write his will on, and
he paid a tax of 3.1 per cent, on that. He went
home,- and when he came to think over matters,
he got glo( ihy, and he ma<lo up his mind that this
world, with its combines, rings and monopolies,
fu'eying upon the producer, was no world for tiie
armer to live in, so he took that 2.") per cent, razxjr,
and he went out to the barn and committed suicide.
We have the rest of the transaction oidy through
the spirit medium, and I do not know whether
it is true or not, but it is represented that the
farnier went to Hades, and_ his Satanic Majesty
met him and took him kindly and cordially in. He
put him into a chamber where there were a great
many Conservative inditicians and Conservative
editors, who had diecl in tlieir sins, but the farmer
did not feel at home there. Then he moved him
to a place where there were a couple of deacons
and a ninnber of election agent«, who had met
together in a Conservative caucus to devise means
for carrying the County of Haldimand and had not
been aUowed to live out half thei:- days, but he did
not like that association, and he went next into a
place where there were a number of doctors and
lawyers, Init there he tlid not feel at home either.
Then the Devil came aiound and asked him what
lie wanted, and said to him: "What are you?"
and the other replied : "I am a farmer." " Where
are you from," said the Prince of Hades ? "lam
from Canada," he replied, and " Who did you vote
for?" enquired his Satanic Majesty.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Charlton.
Mr. CHARLTON. No ; he would not have been
punished if he did that. "I voted for Sir John
A. Macdonald and the National Policy," was what
he said ; and the Devil said : " Why did you do
that?" "Well," sjiid the farmer, "I did that
under the impression that it was going to raise the
price of produce." "Oh," said the Devil," then
come along, I have a place for you ; " and he took
him to another large room, a thousand feet long,
three hundred feet wide, and a hundred feet high,
with lines stretched across it and a great number
of people hung up, and the farmer saiil : " Wluit
does tliis mean?" " Well," said the Devil, "these
are Canadian farmers who voted for Sir John A.
Macdonald and the National Policy, under the
impression that it would raise the price of grain,
and as they are too green to burn I have hung
them up to dry." Now, Mr. Speaker, the class of
farmers wlio will be too gnen to burn after the
next general election is, I I lieve, growing small.
They are beginning to realise that all these pro-
mises were fallacious, and they are not going to
take the assertions made l)y the friends of the
National Policy as law and gospel hereafter.
W'e have heard something to-night about depres-
sion in the United .Sates, and the hon. the President
of the Council told us last night, that the trouble
with the world was we had not had any war lately ;
that we had, in fact, lived under the calamitous
condition of a long period of peace, and that if we
could only have a little blooif-letting, the Consei
vative party would be, perhaps, in a Ijetter con-
dition, and the country as well. He told^iis there i.s
1 plethora of production, that everything is out of
joint, and that there is las much depression in tlu)
United States as there is in this country ; in fact I
he saiil that there is more depression in tne United
States than here, and that i^ would not be safe to
have intimate relations with that country, as m c |
might be troubled with depression as they are, and
suffer from the evils under which they lal)or.
Well, Sir, if there is anything the matter with busi-
ness in the United Stotes, if land in Vermont, I
right in the centre of the protected region is only
worth $i> an acre, as the hon. gentleman assert.s
he neglected to say it was barren mountain pasture I
land, and if the further you go from the manufactiu-
ihg centres, the better the price you get for lantl, 1 1
rtie
that
a
do not think it works very well as an argument in
favor of protection. If depression exists in that
great country, as he represents, it does not reflect
very great credit on the policy that he recommends
us a panacea for all the evils of this country. The
fact is, that there does, to some extent, exist de-
pression in the United States, but depression exists
to a greater extent in Canada, and that fact is suf-
ficiently shown by the movement in the exports of
this country to the United States, and to other
niarkets. Naturally, we sell to the United States
that which we can nnd a better market for there
than elsewhere, and although matters may be de-
pressed there, yet tiiere are a great number of the
])roductions of the soil and of the forests of this
country that find their best market in the United
States. The duty imposed upon these various
articles reduces their price to the purchasers here,
to about the extent of th6 duty, for the reason
that the production in theUnited States is so much
greater than the imports from this country, that a
small quantity, comparatively, going in, has little
effect on the prices of the great mass tliere. If
this was the exclusive source of supply, of course
the consimier would pay the <luty, but as we
export but little compared to the great, mass of
the productions of that country, the duty is deducted
fi'om the price we receive. Now, Sir, we find our
l)e3t markets in the United States for a number of
important productions, and during last year the
following statement will sliow the value of a list of
aiticlcs wliich we exported to the United States,
as comj)ared with the value of tlie same articles
whfoh we exported to Great Britain : —
Exported to Exported to
United States. Gt.Brhain.
Egg.s $2,159,725 $ 18
Horses 2,113,782 26,975
Sbeep 918,.^34 303,009
Poultry 110,793 • 1,127
Hides, Ac 454,105 7,070
Wool 216,918 470
Barley •... 6,454,003 3,838
Beans 4ft5,534
Hay 822,381 84,610
Malt 106,183
Potatoes 192,576 245
Planks & boards. 7,187,101 158,443
Total $21,141,035 $585,885
This would show that the movement in tliese
articles is nearly forty times greater to the United
States than to England, for the sim])le reason that
for all of these articles we find our })e8t markets in
that country, and if the duties were removed from
the.se articles our market would be .so much the
better there. We have, tlierefore, a very gieat
advantage to derive from the removal of the duties.
In addition to these articles I have specified, we
have exported last year fish, various kinds of
lumber and other conmiodities amounting to suffi-
I cient to make our exports to the United* States last
linear, !^3,.">0(),000. Upon this vast volume of
[ exports, our direct interests lead us to desire tliat
tlie duties may be removed, for if the duties were
removed, that market would be better, the prices
would Iks higher, and the prosperity of the country
would be greater. Our trade with the United
States is greater than with any other country ;
greater than with England, although we enter the
English markets without any Custom house
restrictions, while in the United States market
these vexatious restrictions are calculate<l to
reduce trade. Last year our trade with the United
States, Great Britain and all the world was as
follows : —
AKgrogiito trade —
United States $ 94,059,844
(IreatBritain 80,422,515
All world 198,862,614
Exports —
Allcountrios 8</,189,167
United States 43,522,404
Great Britain. . .' .38,105,126
Imports for consumption —
All oountrien 109,673,447
United States 50,537,440
Groat Britain 42,317,389
These figures prove conclusively that we must
tiade with the United States, that we will traile
with the United States, that even tariff walls
cannot prevent us from seeking our natural
customers ; that, in spite of all the restricti<ms
placed on our trade, we export more to the United
States and import more from the United States
than any otiier country in the world, even Great
Britain herself.
Now, to show what would be the effect of
reciprocity on our trade, let me for one moment
refer to the result of the reciprocal trade rela-
tions which ''liiined from 1854 to 1806. Our
exports to the United States in the first year after
reciprocity amounted to iS10,473,(X)0, while in the
last year of reciprocity they amounted to $39,-
9o(),(KJ(), an increase of 280 per cent, in eleven years ;
an<l now, twenty-three years after, oiu- exjjorts to
the Utiited States liave only risen to §4r>,500,000,
an increase of only about $3,50(),(K)() in the
23 years, against an increase of nearly #30,-
(K)0,(K)0 in 1 1 years under reciprocity. These
figures tell their owji story ; there can be no doubt
what the result of reciprocity of trade between
these two countries would be.
r will not detain the House by showing the
advantages which would result to the various
lines i)f trade from reciprocity ; I will just refer
to one branch of the subject. My connection
with the Mining Connnission of Ontario brcmght
forcibly under my consideration the great a<l-
vantages which wouhl I'esidt, not only to Ontario,
but to all secti<ms of tlie Dominion having
mining resources, from free trade witii the United
States. For instance, the only coal fields on the
Atlantic coast from Florida to Greenland are in
Nova Scotia. The consimiption of bituminous coal
in the New Englatid States and in tlie Atlantic
seaboard cities of the United States amount.s to
from 12,()00,(KK) to ir>,(K)0,(t(K) tons a year ; and
witl) free trade Nova Scotia could, in all tliese
markets, compete with the bituminous coal brought
from the intei'ior of Pennsylvania, and the paltry
export trade of about 63,000 tons which was the
amount exjiorted by Nova Scotia last year,
could ba increased indefinitely. Would that not
confer great advantages on Nova Scotia ? Then
the iron foundries of the New England cities
and other sealioard cities in the United States
would supply themselves from the unlimited iron
ore beds in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Tiiose Provinces Tvould receive enormous ad-
vantages from the removal of the duties on
iron ore and coal. Then, along the shores of Lake
Huron and Lake .Superior, in the Province of
Ontario, we have the finest structural material in
the world. Marble, granite and freestone quarries
are situated along the lake shores, where ve.sselsof
any draft that can pass through our canals could
rin^Sj i Sw B TffiiMffw wi
J"-"
12
iJ
Ibad. The United States lost vear used $25,000,-
000 worth of structural material, and the great citi«B
on the lakes used a larf{e amount of this structural
material. From these quarries Chicago, Milwau-
kee, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo could be
reached with the utmost ease. The stone could
also be sent down tho Erie Canal to New York,
Brooklyn and Philadelphia, with only one transfer
from lake vessels to canal boats. A trade of millions
of dollars a year in building stone would spring up
in place of the paltry trade of $43,338 lost year,
only $10,812 of which was from Ontario. Then,
if the luty, amounting to $*: a ton on the copper
c^ntAined in copper ore were removetl, I do not
e»vy th:'.t .smelting works would be erected in Canada,
but we should ship thouRands of tons ol copper ore
every year to tuu smelting works of the United
State. A similar tr. de would spring up in iron ore.
The trade of the Lake Superior region in iron ore
amoimted last year to 7,0(10,000 tons — long tons,
as they are called, of 2,240 lbs., and we have only
shipped 60,259 tons from the whole Dominion,
24,329 tons only of which was from Ontario.
We have as good iron ore on our side of the great
lakes as the United States have on theirs, and
there is no reason why we should not participate
largely in this immense trade ; it is only protection
that shuts us out. Western Ontario, projecting
like a wedge into the United States, brings
the cities of New York, Buffalo, Albany,
and many other great centres of population in
the Northfim States to our doora. We poaseaa
unlimited advantages for supplying them with
everything we proiduce, and we are only pre-
vented from enjoying these advantages by the
tariff wall which exists between the two countries.
Yet the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr.
White) considers it of very little consequence for us
to adopt the policy which ran up our trade with the
United States from $10,000,000 to $4(),W)0,000 in
the ele' en years from 1854 to 1860. It is perfect
folly that these non. gentlemen talk. Here
we are, with an increoue of 18 per cent,
in our population in the last decade against
an increase of 30 per cent, in the population
of the United States, although we received 60 per
cent, more immigration proportionately than they
received. We have lost of the population of this
coimtry over 3,000,000 souls directly and indirectly
in consequence of being debarred from our natural
market by hostile tariffs ; and tho Government are
provoking an aggravation of the evil themselvejby
moving in the very direction that will call down
' on thoir heads the disaster threatened by the pro-
Dv^sed tariff legislation at Washington. I tell you,
Sir, these are matters for grave consideration. The
faults -and follies of this Government, their mis-
taken policy, their recklessness in management,
their refusal to seek that which is best for this
country, and which this country must have, will
result m their defeat, I believe, and I hope, when
they next go to the country.
OTTAWA :— Printed by Brown C^mberlin, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.
I
a. We poBMSS
ring them with
J are only pre-
antagea by the
le two countries.
I Renfrew (Mr.
nsequence for us
ir trade with the
o *40,iX)0,000 in
i6. It is perfect
sn talk. Here
18 per cent,
decade against
the population
receiveil 60 per
lately thaii they
apulation of this
ly and indirectly
roni our natural
Grovernment are
il themselvejby
will call down
aed by the pro-
ton. I tell you,
sideration. The
nent, their mis-
n management,
is best for this
must have, will
id I hope, when
snl Majesty.