1 
 
 fl0U$^ of Commons Bi^batts 
 
 FIFTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 THOMAS BAIIN^, M.R 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BUDGET 
 
 OTTAWA, TUESDAY, 21st MAY, 1895. 
 
 :*•:■': . . > . 
 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). In rising to dis- 
 cuss the issues ttiat are presented to the 
 House this afternoon, the question of how 
 we shall raise the necessary money for the 
 purpose of administering the affairs of this 
 country for the ensuing year, and the pro- 
 position of the hon. member for South Ox- 
 ford, as opposed to that of the Minister of 
 Finance, I have only to say that I am dis- 
 tinctly in favour of the proposition of the 
 hon. member for South Oxford. In that re- 
 spect I differ somewhat from the hon. gen- 
 tleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who 
 has just taken his seat. I differ from him 
 in several other matters, but I am able to 
 agree with him when he lays a tribute of 
 respect upon the grave of our departed 
 Premier ; because, I hold that the members 
 of the Opposition respect the worth of that 
 hon. gentleman, and realize the loss that 
 Canada has sustained in his death, just as 
 deeply as the hon. member for Grey ever 
 could. While I congratulate the Minister of 
 Finance upon his promotion to the leader- 
 ship of this House, I have also to express 
 my regret that, for the first time in my par- 
 liamentary experience we have been depriv- 
 ed of the presence of the actual leader in 
 our midst, and I have found these double 
 duties devolving upon the Minister of Fi- 
 nance. Now, I believe that, however much 
 that hon. gentleman may display his ability 
 in hancfling the finances of this country, it 
 is noL in the interest of his political party, 
 nor of this country, that such a combina- 
 
 tion should exist. We now find the Premier 
 sitting in another Chamber which is in no- 
 wise directly responsible to the people, and 
 entirely independent of them in any form, 
 and he is accompanied by the hon. gentle- 
 man who controls the one department that, 
 perhaps, involves greater interests than all 
 the other departments combined. I refer to 
 the Department of Agricrnure. When we 
 find the lawyer who is tne head of that 
 branch of our service, is also located in the 
 Senate, away from any contact with public 
 sentiment, away from associations with the 
 people's representatives, I think it will be 
 found, under these circumstances, that the 
 public interest will distinctly suffer. When 
 I heard the hon. gentleman who has just 
 taken his seat, deliver his singular utter- 
 ance with respect to the people's choice of 
 a man to represent the county of Antigonish 
 in succession to the late Premier, it occur- 
 red to me that no more scathing criticism 
 could be administered to his political party. 
 Granted tiiat half of what he said with r**- 
 spect to that hon. gentleman was true, which 
 I do not grant, it merely shows that after 
 the Minister of Justice went down into the 
 county of Antigonish, and after they had put 
 a family relative of the deceased Premier 
 into the field to secure for him the sym- 
 pathy and support of tho circumstances 
 under which the late Premier passed away, 
 the people of Antigonish, in face of the 
 policy advocated by that hon. geatleman, 
 refused to elect their man, and sent my hon. 
 
frieud here to support the Liberal party. 
 And yet my hen. friend from Grey comes 
 down, and he, of all men in this House, 
 says : " How have the mighty fallen ! " It 
 Is words, only words. 
 
 Before proceeding to criticise the mode in 
 which the Minister of Finance proposes to 
 raise money for the next year, I want to say 
 a few words about the position my hou. 
 friend assumes to our party on this side 
 of the House. He told us a very amusing 
 story about a man out in the Western 
 States, who, astride of a very bad horse, 
 was riding around the country in a very in- 
 deiinite manner, and he thought it would be 
 a long time before he would overtake the 
 Lord in that way. It occurred to me that 
 that incident might have been applied a 
 good deal nearer home, and not so very 
 long ago. I remember when there was an 
 enormous activity in political circles ; I re- 
 member when this Government was hasten- 
 ing the preparation of the voters' lists of 
 this Dominion, and circulars were sent out 
 to the revising otticers to get their worlc done 
 at the appointed time. An extra staff of prin- 
 ters were employed in the department for 
 . the purpose of hastening on the preparation 
 of these voters' lists, and have them all 
 ready. For what purpose ? Presumably 
 for an appeal to the people. Every other 
 kind of business was suspended, but sud- 
 denly there came an Order in Council to 
 call us together here in session ; and the Sec- 
 retary of State has presented a Bill *o the 
 House to make these voters' lists good and 
 valid for the current j'ear, so that we need 
 not take the trouble to revise them during 
 this summer. Was all that gone through 
 to enable the Minister to introduce this 
 Bill ? Did it not look very like as if hon. gen- 
 tlemen opposite were mounted on that very 
 scaly horse, and were meandering about in 
 such fashion that tbey did not know where 
 they were going ? But, finally, instead of 
 going to the people, they suddenly made up 
 their mind it was not safe to trust the 
 people, tuat they had better face the peo- 
 ple's representatives once more in session. 
 Now, Sir, I want to draAV attention to one 
 or two statements that were made by the 
 Controller of Customs to his address to the 
 House the other day. I do it because na- 
 turally the utterances of an hon. gentleman 
 occupying his position, who controls the 
 Customs, the one large revenue-pajing 
 branch, are likely to attract attention and 
 receive consideraton ai the liands of the 
 people. What do v;e find that hon. gentle- 
 man said with respect to the expenditure 
 of the Mackenzie Government, as com- 
 pared with the expenditure on public affairs 
 to-day V I read from the otticial report : 
 
 The total expenditure of 1872-73 was $19,174,000. 
 When the Reform party came into power in 1874, 
 that expenditure jumped up to |24,448,000, or an 
 increase of $5,318,000 in one year, in spite of their 
 professions of economy. 
 
 Then the hon. gentleman goes on to moral- 
 ize and prophesy. He said : 
 
 And I think it would require no prophet to 
 assure us that, if they should come into power 
 to-morrow, we would find history repeating Itself. 
 
 Turning to the Public Accounts issued 
 for the fiscal year ended 30th June. 
 1894— what do I find ? I find that the quota- 
 tion made by tlie hon. gentleman does not 
 quite agree with the official statement in 
 the Public Accounts. The hon. gentleman 
 said the expenOiture in 1872-73 was so and 
 so. So it was. But it so happened that 
 the whole of the year 1872-73 was passed be- 
 fore the Mackenzie Government came into 
 powei, and four months of 1873-74, and 
 that the Estimates for 1873-74 were passed 
 by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. 
 Sir Leonard Tilley was Finance Minister, 
 and one-third of the year had passed. 
 The Controller of Customs concealed the fact 
 that between those two periods we had added 
 ai: other province to confederation, and that 
 the whole of the expenditure for Prince Ed- 
 ward Island was added to the expenses of 
 the country. I am not surprised that the 
 hon. the Controller has got himself into 
 trouble in this House. I am not surprised 
 that when the Minister of Railways and 
 Canals was confronted with his campaign 
 speeches during last fall, he found himself 
 compelled to repudiate not only the state- 
 ments o? gentlemen who heard him make 
 the statements attributed to him, but also 
 the statements of his own official repoiter. 
 Let me draw the attention of the 
 House to one more statement : That 
 taking the whole of 1873-74, the Esti- 
 mates for which were furnished by hon. 
 gentlemen opposite, and in regard to which 
 the preceding Government had expended 
 four months of the revenue out of the 
 twelve before Mr. Mackenzie came into 
 office, during that year the total expenditure 
 under the Mackenzie Government was only 
 $23,316,000, and when that Government went 
 out in 1878, after administering public af- 
 fairs during five years, the expenditui-e had 
 only risen to $23,503,000. The last year's 
 expenditure of hon. gentlemen opposite has 
 risen to the enormous sum of $37.585.0<)<.>. 
 and yet the Controller of Customs has the 
 cheek to come and tell this House about 
 liis economy as compared with the Adminis- 
 tration of the Mackenzie Government. The 
 debt statements are another example. We 
 assumed in 1873 along with the ad- 
 ministration of Prince Edward Island, a 
 debt of $4,700,000, which came into the ac- 
 counts for the first time during the first 
 year of Mr. Mackenzie's Government. Yet 
 the Ooncroller of Customs wa«J not fair 
 enought to make that statement. 
 
 But let me take another method with 
 which hon. gentlemen oppo^site deal with the 
 finances. "SV'e have heard considerable to- 
 day from the hon. member for Grey (Mr. 
 Sproule) with respect to certain expenditures 
 
in Quebec, and we heard a beautiful fairy 
 tale about ?oO,(XK) which was being coa- 1 
 tributed for some Liberal annexation fund j 
 from the American side. I thinli the hon. | 
 gentleman should have listened to the state- j 
 ments of the Finance Minister the other i 
 ■day. when he told the House that the credit 
 of * the American Union was so low that 
 while we could borrow money in England 
 at ic per cent, the United States had to pay 
 3% per cent; and yet the hon. member for 
 Grev makes himself believe that they would 
 spend $.50,000 for the purpose of annexing 
 €anada to the United States. 
 
 ^Ir. SPROULE. That is why they are so 
 -anxious to get us annexed. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). I admire the 
 abiding faith of the hon. member for East 
 Grev. If he can accept that, it is clear that 
 his 'faith could remove mountains if neces- 
 sary to make an impression in a political 
 campaign. But I come back for a moment 
 to the statement made by the Controller of 
 Customs with respect to provincial expendi- 
 ture. He gave tho House a table showing 
 increased expei^diture of various provinces, 
 and then he held up his hand in horror, and 
 said. Look how these Grit Governments 
 have increased the expeuf'.i lures in the vari- 
 ous provinces of the Dominion. The $9,132,- 
 000 it took in 1894 to collect the revenue of 
 the Dominion is the best answer to that 
 statement ; but he did not go so far as my 
 respected friend, the member for King's (Mr. 
 Macdonald), who told the House that Ontario 
 had a debt of about $1,500,000. 
 
 Mr. MONTAGUE. Has it any debts V 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Do you say it has ? 
 
 Mr. IVES. They have been selling secu- 
 rities. 
 
 Mr. MONTAGUE. Hr,s it any debts ? 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). Yesterday there 
 was fiu election in North Brant to fill a 
 vacancy, and so low had the political 
 strength of the party with which the hon. 
 gentleman is allied sunk, that they did not 
 put a man in the field to contest the elec- 
 tion, and allowed a supporter of Sir Oliver 
 Mowat to be elected by acclamation. 
 
 Mr. MONTAGUE. I think I may rise and 
 say that that answer is not only disingen- 
 uous, but very unfair. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER. Order. - '- 
 
 Mr. MONTAGUE. The hon. gentleman 
 gave way. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER. The dignity of Parlia- 
 ment is not preserved by these interrup- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. MONTAGUE. I trust the same ruling 
 will be applied 
 
 Mr. S »EAKER. Order. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentwoith>. The Secretary of 
 State must admit that I am not guilty of 
 interrupting hon. members across the tloor 
 of the House. What are the facts with re- 
 spect to provincial debts— how does it tally 
 with the political record of Ontario for the 
 last 22 years ? Sir Oliver MoTvat has been 
 Premier and administered the affairs of 
 the province for 22 years. What is the 
 strength of the Conservative party in that 
 province to-day compared with the strength 
 in its early history ? Take the last session 
 of the legislature, and on two occasions they 
 succeeded on mustering, on a party vote, 
 23 and 25 respectively, out of a division list 
 of G2 and 66 against them. 
 
 Mr. IVES. Let me ask the hon. gentle- 
 man : Did the proportion represent the popu- 
 lar vote of Ontario V How about the geri'j'- 
 mander ? 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). I shall have a 
 word to say about the gerrymander, if the 
 hon. member for Texas will wait till a lictle 
 later. 
 
 Mr. SPEAKER. Order, order. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). Has any one 
 ever seen the Premier of Ontario go to Lon- 
 don to borrow a dollar V Has there ever been 
 a prospectus of the province of Ontario pre- 
 sented on the markets of the world to bor- 
 row money, as the Finance Minister of this 
 Dominion has been doing at intervals of 
 two years in succession lately ?— and he 
 will have to go there again before two years 
 are over. That is the best answer. There 
 is no province in the world of this broad 
 Donunion that can present so fair a record 
 in that respect as the province of Ontario. 
 Let me presfit to hon. gentlemen opposite 
 two short extracts from the two last 
 budget speeches made by the Provin- 
 cial Treasurer of Ontario. I presume, 
 that no gentleman here will deny that 
 ihe Provincial Treasurer knows about 
 the affairs of that province, probably 
 quite as well as the Controller of Customs 
 here or the member for King's. P.E.I., (Mr. 
 ^Macdonald). The Hon. Mr. Harcourt says 
 in his budget speech of 1894 : 
 
 Since confederation up to the close of 1893, our 
 total grants to railways amount to $5,959,000. 
 The present value of our annuities outstanding 
 Is $1,319,775, and at this very hour we have at 
 our credit in the banks hard cash to the amount 
 of $1,550,000. 
 
 That is the province that these gentlemen 
 tell us is in debt. 
 
 Mr. INGRAM. How did they get it ? 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). They did not get 
 it by going over to England and borrowing 
 money as the Finance Minister whom my 
 hon. friends support has been in the habit 
 of doing, at intervals of every two years. 
 Here is a quotation from the budget speech 
 of the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario, de- 
 
livered on the 28th Febriiarj% this year, and 
 I will read it for the benefit of hon. gentle- 
 men opposite : 
 
 All tcld, deducting present liabilities from our 
 schedule of assets, we had at the end of last year 
 a comfortable surplus of $5,269,000. 
 
 That is the record of the province of Onta- 
 rio. That is the record of twenty-two years 
 of Liberal Administration under Sir Oliver 
 Mowat ; and where to-day is the political 
 party that opposed him in that province ? I 
 have not a word of disrespect to say to my 
 Conservative friends in Ontario, but I point 
 to this : That after a prolonged siege, ad- 
 vancing the interests of that party, their 
 last leader— and he was a gentleman of irre- 
 proachable personal character, and a firsv 
 class lawyer— retired on the Bench. He was 
 succeeded by another gentleman at the last 
 session of Parliament which met in Feb- 
 ruary last, and I see it stated in the papers 
 of the day that that gentleman is now anx- 
 ious to be relieved from the cares of this 
 little fragment of a political party up in the 
 province of Ontario. Is not that the best 
 evidence that the people of Ontario are 
 satisfied that the Administration of Sir 
 Oliver Mowat and his Liberal friends has 
 been in the interest of the province V 
 
 Just about the time we assembled for the 
 opening of Parliament, there was an elec- 
 tion in the county of Haldimand. There 
 was a revolt in the Orange order in 
 Canada of which the Controller of 
 Customs As the Grand Master. There 
 was som" trouble in the family because 
 there was a section who were in open re- 
 volt and put a candidate in the field against 
 the present Secretarj- of State. Where was 
 the Grand Master of that organization ? In 
 that hour of trial for his friends and for the 
 asf.ociation of which he was the presiding 
 ofAcer, where was he ? Was he on the field 
 of battle to counsel and guide and advise 
 those gentlemen who had given him an 
 oftioe of high trust, and made him for the 
 time being their commander-in-chief ? No, 
 Sir. he tells us himself, that of all places on 
 this earth, he was away down at Washing- 
 ton. I do not know whether he made that 
 trip in the Government car " Jamaica," that 
 is said now to be gone to California with 
 another ex-member of the Cabinet, or not ; 
 but at all events the Controller of Customs 
 tells us, that he was down in ¥^ashington. 
 If a Grit goes down there, there is trouble 
 at once ; he is declared to be plotting for the 
 ruin of his country, but it appears that 
 when the Controller of Customs goes there 
 he is not open to that charge. Well, Sir, 
 I want to draw attention to the statement 
 made by the Minister of Finance respecting 
 the United States loan. After telling us 
 that he had placed his Canadian loan on 
 the market at such favourable terms, that 
 after deducting all the costs and expenses, 
 and all the other charges in connection with 
 the loan over in London, he placed it at 
 8% pv?r cent. Then be goes on to say : I 
 
 A short time after that the United States put 
 an issue of bonds upon the market, and the rate 
 of interest which those bear and which the 
 United States have to pay, is within a fraction, 
 in fact I think it is absolutely, 3% per cent, 
 while the Canadian loan went on the British 
 market at 3% per cent. 
 
 Subsequent to that we had a little discussion 
 with the Controller of Customs over the same 
 question, and he confirmed the statement 
 that our lo.an was made at the net value of 
 3%, the loan made by the United States 
 bearing 4 per cent interest on the 30 years 
 coin bonds for which $65,000,000 was ob- 
 taiii4?d. Now, whatever the hon. gentleman 
 (Mr. Wallace) went down to Washington 
 for, he certninly did not secure much infor- 
 mation about that loan. Sir, what were the 
 facts ? Twice in 1894 the Secretary of the 
 Treasury issued bonds, but in November, at 
 that particular period referred to by both 
 the Finance Minister and the Controller of 
 Customs, those 30-year old 4 per cent bonds 
 were issued. The bonds that were placed 
 on the market then, were bonds that ran 
 for only a little over nine years, that bore 
 5 per cent interest on the face, and were 
 sold for gold at a rate that netted a little 
 under 3 per cent to the banks that pur- 
 chased them, and the loan of February was 
 selling then on the market currently, paying 
 2% per cent to purchasers. What led to the 
 diiliculti3S ? It was simply this : That in 
 the United States Congress there was a sec- 
 tion of members who were determined to 
 make the payments of the United States 
 silver equivalent to gold, at the rate of 15^2 
 to 1, when that coin on the market was 
 only worth 33 to 1. The gold was flowing 
 out of the United States treasury as rapidly 
 as it came in until on the 28th of January, 
 when the President sent his message to Con- 
 gress, there was not enough of gold in the 
 treasury available for three days' draft at 
 the rate at which it had been gc:'ng out of 
 the treasury for the ten days previous. It 
 was becoming a crisis in the United States. 
 A contract was then made, after a great 
 deal of negotiation, with not only the New 
 York bankers! but also the Rothschilds of 
 London, for the delivery of 3,500.000 ounces 
 of standard gold coin of the United States, 
 at the cost of the parties tendering, to the 
 United States Treasury. It is true, those 
 bonds were thirty j'ears 4 per cent bonds, 
 and they were sold to the bankers to j-ield 
 3% per cent, because the bankers took the 
 risk of not being able to prevent the draft 
 on the treasury, and they were bound 
 to import half the gold required. Here 
 is an important factor in that transaction 
 which both hon. gentlemen omitted to men- 
 tion. Why did they not tell us that the pro- 
 position stood upen for ten days, whic}i was 
 made to Congress by these very same bank- 
 ers, that instead of leaving the word *' coin " 
 in the contract, as it was gold they were 
 supplying, they would take a 3 per c?Qt gold 
 bond at par in place of those very bonds ? 
 What did the New York "Tribune" of the 
 
10th of February say about the refusal of 
 Congress to endorse that proposition when 
 it was laid before them by President Cleve- 
 land ? It said this : . 
 
 The President has made the necessary pro- 
 posals to banks, but most judiciously has left ten 
 days' time in which Congress, if it has the need- 
 ful wisdom, can save the country $14,000,000 by 
 passing; a proper Bond Bill. Pass some Bill 
 with the proviso that the Secretary of the Trea- 
 sury shall contract to pay the same kind of 
 money that the Government asks from lenders. 
 If it wants to borrow silver, let it pay silver. It 
 it wants to borrow gold, let it be honourable 
 enough, and also shrewd enough, to pay gold. 
 Why net authorize the payment of the same kind 
 of money that the Government actually borrows, 
 with 3 per cent interest ? Nothing but blind ani 
 stupid partisanship, it must be admitted, pre- 
 vents this. 
 
 And yet, for the purpose of making the 
 people of Canada believe that our credit 
 was so much better than that of the United 
 States, the Finance Minister was either mis- 
 led by those who made up that statement, or 
 he suppressed what was essential in a fair 
 statement of the facts to the public. Sir, 
 I have as much attachment to my country as 
 the Finance Minister or any one else ; I have 
 lived in the riding I represent as long as I 
 can remember ; the whole of mj^ interests 
 are in this country ; I take no back sear to 
 any man in this House for attachment to my 
 country and its institutions ; but I have not 
 seen the day when I would stoop so low as 
 to misrepresent a neighbour for the purpose 
 of advancing the interests of my own coun- 
 try. Hon. gentlemen opposite talked to us 
 very freely about railway transactions in 
 which the Liberal party have figured dis- 
 creditably in the province of Quebec. I have 
 nothing to do with the local financial affairs 
 of the province of Quebec ; but I want to 
 remind the House that the gentlemen who 
 shout so loudly about that transaction took 
 the Hon. Mr. Mercier into court and endea- 
 voured to establish the charges which they 
 made against him so freely, and they sig- 
 nally failed. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON (Leeds and Grenville). 
 The grand jury gave the verdict, that is, 
 the people, 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). Yes, we appealed 
 to the people of Antigonish the other day, 
 and we saw the result; 
 
 Now. I wish to draw the attention of 
 the House ^or a few moments to a 
 case that was before the courts of 
 Montreal only a few days ago, and 
 I will quote from "the Montreal " Gazette " 
 of the 14th of May,, 1895, a statement made 
 by Judge Desnoyers upon the application 
 of the Solicitor General with respect to the 
 suit against the contractor on the Curran 
 bridge for a refund of money which the 
 Solicitor General claimed he had got unfairly 
 from this Government. Let me call atten- 
 tion to some of the details of that transac- 
 tion. It related to two bridges across the 
 
 Lachine Canal and the Grand Trunk Rail- 
 way. The Government engineer's first es- 
 timate of the cost of completing those 
 bridges was $160,000. .But they proposed to 
 make certain changes, to enable them to 
 deepen the canal and improve the works, 
 and the highest figure which the Govern- 
 ment's own engineer gave as the cost of 
 the work was $223,000. Although the work 
 was within two or three hours run by rail 
 of the headquarters of the Government at 
 Ottawa, what did they do ? They paid 
 $394,000 for that work which their own engi- 
 neer had estimated would cost $223,000, and 
 then they instituted a suit against their own 
 contractors to try to get $170,000 out of him. 
 Let me make a few quotations from the 
 statement of the judge upon the evidence 
 placed before him with respect to the terms 
 of the contract made by the department with 
 the contractor, Mr. St. Louis. Here is a 
 specimen of the wages which this precious 
 economical Government contracted to pay 
 to that contractor : A stonecutter foreman 
 was allowed $4 a day for day time and $6 
 for night time, $S a day for Sunday, and $12 
 a day for Sunday overtime. 
 
 Mr. STEVENSON. You need to take 
 breath after that. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). You will need to 
 draw your breath when you tell the peo- 
 ple of Peterboro' that you contracted to 
 pay a superintendent $12 a day for Sunday 
 work. A double team got $5 a day, and. 
 when religiously at work on Sunday, it got 
 $10. What else do we find ? We find that a 
 derrick was worth $2.75 in the daytime, but 
 the same instrument was worth $3.75 at 
 night, and it was a religious derrick, be- 
 cause when it had to work on Sunday its 
 conscience had to be appeaseu by giving it 
 $7.50. That was the contract made under 
 the supervision of the Minister richt here 
 in this House. I am not speaking of what 
 occurred outside, but of the contract that 
 these gentlemen made with Mr. St. Louis. 
 He went to work to carry out that con- 
 tract What does the judge say in addi- 
 tion ? He says : 
 
 And on the same scale for stonemasons, stone- 
 setters and skilled labourers, Mr. St. Louis' bills 
 must have been tremendous, when it is remem- 
 bered the job lasted four months, and that at 
 times there were 2,000 men at work in the day- 
 time and 1,500 men at work at night. The men 
 were paid alternately every week. Mr. Michaud 
 tells us that some of the pays amounted to |34.- 
 000, some $10,000, some $15,00f» and some $20,000. 
 
 And yet that went on for four months, al- 
 thov.gh all that time the Minister and his 
 responsible subordinates could have left 
 this House and run down to the work any 
 afternoon, inspected what was going on, 
 and made things right. That went on un- 
 til, instead of paying out $233,000, the Gov- 
 ernment paid nearly $400,000, and yet they 
 ask us to believe that they did not know 
 anything about it, and that the whole thing 
 
.6 
 
 was economically administered. Let any 
 bon. gentleman go to Ontario and present 
 those figures to the electorate and try to 
 make them believe that this expenditure 
 was a really honest, just and fair expendi- 
 ture of public monoy. When we find that 
 the contractor destroyed his books because 
 his safe was not big enough to hold them 
 after he got through, and when we find him 
 declaring under oath that he had given con- 
 tributions to aid the party in power, need 
 we go any further to find a reason why 
 this extravagance was allowed to go on un- 
 checked ? What did the judge say ? Did 
 he instruct Mr. St. Louis to pay back this 
 money ? No ; he goes on to say : 
 
 There was no proper surveillance by the officen 
 of the Government on two vi the jobs at least, 
 viz., the Grand Trunk bridge and lock No. 1 of 
 the Lachine Canal. The time-keeping on the 
 two latter jobs seems to have been left to take 
 care of itself, as far as th? Government officers 
 were concerned, so much to that two prominent 
 public officers, high in office, lost their situation 
 on that account. Mr. St. Louis procured fill the 
 workmen that were asked of him. He did not 
 keep time personally, he had several clerki? to do 
 it, and one of them stuffed the lists. This was 
 sworn to by himself, to his own disgrace ; an.i 
 when these lists were sij made and cooked, they 
 were certified blindly and as a matter of form 
 by the officers of the Government. 
 
 And yet this is the Government which un- 
 dertakes to tell us that they are administer- 
 ing the affairs of the country carefully. 
 The judge thus sums up : 
 
 In my opinion, the main causes of all the trouble 
 In this matter are v 
 
 1st. The extortionate prices stipulated for labour 
 In Mr. St. Louis' contract, and, 2nd. the almost 
 unlimited number of men on the said works, so 
 numerous that they were in one another's way, 
 and Mr. St. Louis cannot be held criminally re- 
 sponsible for these causes. 
 
 And the judge ruled that St. Louis had only 
 worked up to the contract of the Govern- 
 ment, and declined to order him to pay back 
 the money. I ask if you can parallel that 
 record in Ontario, or any other province of 
 this Dominion under the administration of 
 the Liberal party ? 
 
 But hon. gentlemen opposite have un- 
 dertaken to show that the policy of 
 the Opposition is unfavourable to the 
 farmer. They have told us that protec- 
 tion has been a blessing to the farmer. I 
 wish to glance at that statement for a mo- 
 ment. You remember. Sir, that when the 
 National Policy was inaugurated, we were 
 told that it was to create a home market 
 which would consume our farm products 
 raised at home. Hon. gentlemen opposite 
 ' declared that to be the best market, and 
 "•' they said further that, in consequence of 
 the stimulus afforded by the National Policy 
 our manufacturers would be able to manu- 
 facture what we wanted at home. In short, 
 we were to put an end to our foreign trade 
 by consuming our farm products at home. 
 The enormous population of operatives, 
 
 which the National Policy was to place Id 
 our midst, would consume our farm pro- 
 ducts, and, then we would be under noi 
 necessity to import from abroad because we 
 would make everything at home. What are 
 the facts ? Last year we exported nearly 
 $50,000,000 worth of farm products after we 
 had fed all the operatives which the National 
 Policy had brought into Canada. I ask you. 
 Sir. as a business man, how long it will be 
 before, at the present rate, we will have 
 sufficient consuming population established 
 in the country to overtake the production of 
 our farmers, even supposing our farmers 
 stood still and did not increase their pro- 
 duction at all V What are the facts 
 with respect to the protective policy 
 as it affects the farmer ? These hon. 
 gentlemen talk to us about taking off 
 the duties and allowing the Canadian market 
 to be flooded with American agricultural pro- 
 ducts. Do these hon. gentlemen know that 
 to-day beef is being shipped from Torouta 
 to the market of Buffalo to meet the wants 
 of the people on that side of the river ? 
 People do not ship products into a lower 
 market from a higher and pay a heavy duty 
 besides. All winter long the hog market, 
 about which they make much fuss, ha^ been 
 higher in Buffalo, has been higher even in 
 Chicago, than it has been in Toronto. And 
 yet these hon. gentlemen, in the face of 
 tliese facts, will maintain that the National 
 Policy protects the farmer. Sir, I was amus- 
 ed when the hon. member for East Hastings 
 (Mr. Northrup) made that beautiful f;tate- 
 ment of his. with respect to how the National 
 Policy operated to protect the farmers of 
 Canada. He said : ^ ;;r >v ^^ 
 
 One way is by grinding down the wages of em- 
 ployees and the profits of capitalists, so that we 
 can produce more cheaply in thi.« coxintry than 
 any other country in the world ; that is the way 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite. Another way is to 
 put up a tariff which will make outsiders who 
 wish to come into this market, pay something for 
 the privilege ; that is the Conservative way — 
 the way in ^^?hich we propose to keep our market 
 for our own people. 
 
 Sir, how do they tax those who wish to ob- 
 tain access to our markets, so far as the 
 farmer is concerned, when this is the posi- 
 tion of affairs to-day ? What is the 
 use of telling us that there is protec- 
 tion in It for the farmers ? Why, Sir, the 
 fact is that these hon. gentlemen are deal- 
 ing with a condition of things that, if it 
 ever existed under the National Policy, ex- 
 isted long ago. and the fact is that the hon. 
 gentleman has got far behind the times and 
 is entirely astray from the facts as they 
 apply to us to-day. So far as the farmers 
 of to-day are concerned, the effect is all in 
 the other direction. Here is what a farmer 
 says with respect to the influence of the 
 National Policy upon one industry, that is 
 the butter and cheese industry. During the 
 last session of the Ontario Parliament, Mr. 
 MacPherson, of Glengarry, spoke thus : 
 
A careful study of the expenditure and returns 
 of the business shows that the price of raaf*>'<"ery 
 ard other modern appliances for butter-making 
 has been inci'eased by the Federal tariff suffi- 
 ciently to raise the cost of producing cutter from 
 1 to 2 cents per pound, and ventured the opinion, 
 that, with improved methods and reduced taxa- 
 tion, butter in a few years could be produced in 
 Ontario at from S to 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Did he believe that the National Policy was 
 good for the farmer ? Did he believe that 
 the protection that was afforded to them 
 was any benefit to them ? Certainly not ; 
 and every intelligent farmer will share his 
 opinion. The fact stajids out fair and plain 
 that in the year 1894 nearly $00,000,000 of a 
 surplus had to be shipped out of Canada 
 after providing for the wants of our own 
 population. 
 
 But they tell us that the price of wheat 
 has gone up to-day. Yes. Mr. Speaker, 
 it has gone up ; but what are the cir- 
 cumstances under which it has gone up ? 
 Sir. I supposed that when we developed our 
 railway system in the North-west and gave 
 sixty-two and a half millions of Canada's 
 hard coin to construct the Cania,dian Pacific 
 Railway, we should have had a great high- 
 way that would liave brought our western 
 produce down within our own borders and 
 brought it to our own seaboard, sliipping 
 it entirely over Canadian territory. But 
 what are the facts ? Every one knows that 
 the bulk of the wheat of the North-west went 
 out of the hands of the farmers last fall at 
 from 38 to 40 cents per bushel of 60 pounds, 
 of the finest grade of hard wheat that is 
 raised anywhere on the face of the earth, 
 and that, so far as the Ontario farmer is 
 concerned, the bulk of his crop was marketed 
 at about 50 cents per bushel. A large pro- 
 portion of the surplus of our North-west 
 grain found its way down on the American 
 side from Duiuth. And why ? Simply be- 
 cause American bottoms gave cheaper rates 
 to outside markets than our own lines would 
 give, though they had been bonussed so 
 freely by Canadian money. What was the 
 result ? Two large milling companies, tho 
 Lake of the Woods Company and the Ogilvie 
 Company proceeded to corral all the surplus 
 wheat in the North-west that rliey could 
 lay their hands on. Meantime, the farmers 
 in the older provinces, with wheat below a 
 cent a pound, fed it freely to their stock 
 and used it up in various ways, making the 
 most economical use they could make of it. 
 To-day the price of wheat is high because 
 the companies I speak of have cornered the 
 market and the stock is not in the hands 
 of the farmers. Is that a benefit to tho farm- 
 ers ? Is that a benefit to the consumers ? 
 I venture to say that the only parties bene- 
 fited by it are these speculators and a few 
 small holders of grain scattered throughout 
 the province of Ontario. With the latter I 
 have sympathy, with the former I have none. 
 These are the facts as to the National Policy 
 zi applied to the prices of grain to-day. 
 
 Our friends opposite are never tired of tell- 
 ing us about the relative position of the farm- 
 er in Canada and the farmer in England. 
 My hoa. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) 
 told us to-day that the English farmer was 
 in a difficult position, that he was being 
 taxed right and left, and he and the Con- 
 troller of Customs and the hon. member for 
 East Hastings quoted to us long paragi*aph8 
 to show that the Brttish farmer was demand- 
 ing protection. What is the position as be- 
 tween the Canadian farmer and the English 
 farmer ? All that we ask is to be placed 
 on the same level as the English farmer 
 to-day, and we do not ask any better pro- 
 tection than they have at the present 
 moment, nor will we be satisfied with any- 
 thing less. The English farmer to-day buys 
 everything he consumes at the lowest pos- 
 sible rate. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite 
 will admit that. But the Canadian farmer 
 finds rhat his agricultaral implements, such 
 as reapers, mowers and binders are taxed 
 20 per cent ; and the small tools he requires, 
 such as scythes, forks, rakes, and the whole 
 catalogue of smaller implements used on the 
 farm are taxed 35 per cent. And taxes col- 
 lected from the Canadian farmer are not 
 for the benefit of the treasury. The Con- 
 troller of Customs admitted the other day 
 that when the question arose as to the value 
 that should be placed upon these implements 
 for duty wljien they were imported for the 
 use of the Canadian people, he did not refer 
 the matter to independent officers but to 
 the manager of the combine in Canada that 
 controls the works that manufacture these 
 very implements. If any evidence were 
 wanted to show that this Government is not 
 an independent government of the people, 
 but the servant of the combinations, we have 
 it in that one simple fact. Take, for in- 
 stance, the sugar that the British f-irraoi con- 
 sumes to-day, and what do we find ? Accord- 
 ing to the London quotations to-day the 
 sugar that cost 4V2 cents a pound here is 
 sold in Ejgland at 3 cents, and it is as good 
 to the farmer there who buys it as if he 
 paid 41/^ cents per pound for all he con- 
 sumed. And so with all the articles that he 
 uses, he buys them at the lowest possible 
 rates for he is in the market of the world 
 where eveiything is sold at its fair value. 
 And the only article he pays an increased 
 price upon is his tea. which is dutiable at 
 fourpence a pound, and his coffee, which pays 
 14 shillings a hundred, or 1% pence a pound. 
 The average consumption of tea in Eng- 
 land is about 614 pounds per head ; and. 
 allowing the consumption of coffee to be 
 one-third additional, the English farmer 
 does not pay more than 75 cents per year 
 duty on these articles more than the Cana- 
 dian farmer pays, who has those articles 
 free. I say that under these circumstances, 
 all we ask 'is that the burdens shall be taken 
 off the back of the Canadian farmer, and 
 that nothing more shall be placed upon him 
 than his fair and legitimate share of the 
 
8 
 
 necessary expenditures In connection with 
 the economical administration of the public 
 affairs of this country ; and that the extra 
 taxes that are rolled upon him for the main- 
 tenance of these combinations under this 
 tariff, and of these various other protective 
 Institutions, shall be removed from his baclv, 
 and that he shall be given the same kind of 
 fair-play that the British farmer receives. 
 
 Let me say one word further as to the plea 
 these gentlemen are making that the Brit- 
 ish farmers are asking for protection. Sir, 
 it will be a sorry day for the National 
 Policy in Canada if the British fanners sue 
 ceed in getting protection imposed. I would 
 like to see the faces of hon. gentlemen op- 
 posite w^ho are telling us that the British 
 farmer wants protection ; I would like to 
 see them go to the people, after their policy 
 had been adopted in England, and tell the 
 people that Canada's cheese was taxed 4 
 cents per pound to get into the British mar- 
 ket ; that Canada's beef was taxed 20 or 30 
 per cent to find its way into the British 
 market ; that Canada's wheat was taxed 15 
 cents per bushel to get there. Where would 
 the shouting be about the protection that 
 the National Policy gave our people ? Do 
 they believe that when Great Britain inaug- 
 urates the policy oi protection, as they 
 would lead us to believe, she is going to 
 protect Canada ? Won't she protect Great 
 Britain first ? And won't these protective 
 taxes be imposed for the benefit of the 
 British public, and not for the benefit of 
 Canadian farmers? Then our friends oppo- 
 site and their policy will be wiped out, and 
 they will find just where their arguments 
 have landed them. 
 
 But, Sir, hon. gentlemen opposite are never 
 tired telling us about the effect of the Na- 
 tioal Policy in building up our industries. 
 Now, I do not propose to deal with the broad 
 Gtatements about what has been done. I 
 think it is wiser to start the machine, and see 
 how it operates, where you know the facts. 
 These gentlemen forget, when they make 
 th^e statements, that there were active, en- 
 ergetic, and successful manufacturing indus- 
 tries in Canada long before the National 
 Policy was inaugurated. Sir, I remember 
 in my own town that in 1873. just at the 
 time the Mackenzie Government was called 
 to take power, we had a cotton mill, one of 
 the earliest cotton mills started in this Do- 
 minion. It had been operated since 1859, 
 and it had gradually grown up and develop- 
 ed with the country. At that time, the 
 former proprietor died, and it was deemed 
 necessary to enlarge the enterprise, and the 
 public were appealed to take stock in it. 
 The stock T^-as extended then to $400,000 ; 
 and this is the statement that was made as 
 to the result of the operation of that cotton 
 mill in previous years : 
 
 The mills, with their present capacity, are now 
 earning upwards of 12% per cent, or more than 
 8 per cent upon the proposed capital of $400,000. 
 
 That was in 1873, under a 15 and a 17% per 
 cent tariff. Well, Sir, the National Policy 
 came into operation, and what is the result 
 to-day ? That cotton mill has been closed 
 for several years, the $400,000 capital has 
 been dissipated, and not one dollar of it has 
 been returned to the original investors. To- 
 day, the men who, on the faith of the 
 National Policy, and the development con- 
 nected with it, invested their little sav- 
 ings In that town in building little homes 
 for their future comfort, have had to sell 
 these at a sacrifice, and, in the majority of 
 cases, have left the country to secure em- 
 ployment and earn a livelihood for them- 
 selves and their families. vVhat was the 
 position of the Ontario Cotton Mill at Ham- 
 ilton ? I speak of what I know. A friend 
 of mine, a gentleman that I know person- 
 ally, lost $20,000 in that venture out of $30,- 
 000 he invested, and he was only one man. 
 Another gentleman that I know had a 
 couple of thousand dollars in another mill. 
 We have heard a good deal about whit 
 these mills are doing lor the employment 
 of operatives. If you go back to the census 
 of 1891, you will find there is a cotton mill 
 in a town about twenty or thirty miles west , 
 of where I live, which is returned as em- 
 ploying 180 hands, and as paying out $42,- 
 
 000 a year in wages. When you divide that 
 up amongst the hands, it comes to the mag- 
 nificent figures of $4.25 each, per week. 
 Last year, under the benign influences cf 
 the National Policy, even that pittance of 
 wages was twice reduced, under the bless- 
 ings of the administration of this cotton 
 ring that now controls that mill. Do you 
 call that a blessing to the operatives of 
 Canada ? Is that the way the National Pol- 
 icy wsa, to give employment and develop the ; 
 country? In the same town there is a wincey 
 
 mill that figures in the census of 1891 as 
 employing 100 hands and paymg in wages, 
 $20,000. It has been standing idle, and is 
 closed. The $20,000 is no longer paid, and 
 the operatives are scattered to find a living 
 as best they can. But this mill figures ■ ; * 
 regularly in the returns of the industries ^ • 
 that the National Policy has brought into > 
 existence. Now, let me draw your atten- ^i , 
 tion to another result of the National Policy. V 
 as applied to the cotton industry. Our .- 
 
 cotton mills in Dundas, so far as my .. 
 recollection goes, went under the control ^ s 
 of the Dominion Cotton Company, and 
 
 1 think their annual report of two 
 years ago shows that the company con- 
 trolled ten mills, scattered throughout 
 this Dominion. What is the effect of 
 that centralization of the cotton industries 
 on the operatives in these various mills ''' I 
 can speak again from personal observation. 
 One mill, after running four days in the 
 week for two or three years, finally ceased 
 to run altogether, under the blessings of the 
 National Policy, the operatives had to seek 
 employment elsewhere, and they went to 
 another mill under the control of this com- 
 
9 
 
 pany. They left their families in their little 
 homes in my town and went there to worlj. 
 They tried It for a month or two. and what 
 was the statement they made ? They said, 
 the wages are so miserably low that by the 
 time we| have paid for board, we have no- 
 thin? left with which to maintain our fami- 
 lies awaj' from us, and to meet the increased 
 cost due to the different membLn-s of the 
 family not living in one household. What 
 became of them ? They had either to ac- 
 cept the pittance offered, or to tal^e the other 
 alternative and leave *his country and go 
 ^ to a foreign land to earn the bread that 
 the National Policy denied them. What has 
 been the result as applied to the Dominion 
 Cotton Company ? They simply closed down 
 the mills and regulated the output accord- 
 ing to tlie consumption. But they exercised 
 mighty good care to have the benefit of the 
 full protection that the National Policy 
 gi.vQ them. What is the amount of their 
 last dividend ? Here is a quotation from 
 one of the Montreal papers of only last 
 month : 
 
 In spite of the bad year, the Dominion Cotton 
 Coinpaay has earned $320,000. or 10% per cent 
 nearly, on their full capital of $3,000,000. When 
 It is remembered that at least half of this capital 
 is watered, the actual earnings are very large. 
 
 And that amount is wrung out of the opera- 
 tives because they simply have to take the 
 alternative of accepting the wages this 
 combination chooses to give them or leaving 
 the country, because if they leave the mill 
 and go to any other mill in this country 
 they are* confronted with the same control. 
 That is one of the blessings of the National 
 ■ Policy as applied to the cotton industry of 
 this country, and that isf one of the things 
 for which we are aslied to bow down and be 
 thankful. 
 
 . Sir, let me draw attention to one 
 other institution, an institution organized in 
 Toronto at the time the National Policy was 
 brought into existence for the purpose of 
 presenting to the people the great blessings 
 the National Policy was going to confer on 
 them. I quote from the Toronto " World," 
 an orthodox journal on that side of the 
 
 . House : , . 
 
 This institution started in with a paid-up stock 
 of $200,000. They got from various friends in 
 addition $100,000 more. Under the pretense of 
 giving business men an equivalent for their 
 money, they obtained $200,000 more, which alto- 
 gether amounted to about $500,000. 
 
 The institution did not prosper— it could not 
 meet expenses. Last November a fresh syn- 
 dicate took hold of the institution, and did 
 they offer its old stockholders 100 cents on 
 the dollar for their investment ? Not at all. 
 They asked them to hand over their stock 
 without receiving one cent, and in return 
 the new syndicate was to rejuvenate the 
 concern and put it on a paying basis. They 
 started in November to put this establish- 
 ment on a paying basis. They operated it 
 
 for some weeks, and what became of it ? It 
 died a natural death. 
 
 An hon. MEMBER. Unnatural death. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). Yes, it was stran- 
 gled. Nobody would furnish money any 
 longer to run it, it could not earn enough 
 to run itself and pay the management. 
 What did they do ? They superannuated 
 one public officer in Toronto and api)ointed 
 the manager in his place at $3,000 a year, 
 and on 6th February, in the middle of the 
 cold winter, they opened their doors and 
 turned out all the operatives and left them 
 on the street to shift for themselves. That 
 is the history of the " Empire " journal, the 
 great organ of the political party opposite. 
 
 What is the history of the National Policy 
 as applied to the agricultural implement in- 
 dustry ? You can scarcely go into a town 
 or village of any importance throughout 
 western Ontario but you will find an estab- 
 lisliment lying idle, the whole capital In- 
 vested lost and the proprietors doing— what ? 
 Either going into other lines, or acting as 
 agents for the great central combination 
 which controls that industry. Has that been 
 a blessing to the people of Ontario ? Has it 
 been a blessing that the various establish- 
 ments scattered over the country should be 
 closed and the business centralized at two 
 or three points ? I think the majority of the 
 people of western Ontario will agree with 
 me in saying it has not. You cannot go into 
 a town or village of any importance in the 
 west but you will find one of these dormant 
 industi'ies. The chimney will be standing 
 there all right, the building will be there 
 but the operatives have gone and the capi- 
 tal—where is it ? Just a few months ago 
 I had occasion to visit an active town in the 
 centre of a good agricultural district in the 
 county represented by the Secretary of 
 State, old Haldimand. I happened to walk 
 inti, a large brick building, and I said to 
 the gentleman in possession : For what pur- 
 pose was this establishment erected ? His 
 answer was, this was erecred for a shoe 
 factory. I asked, how much capital was 
 put into it ? He replied, about $25,000. I 
 asked, did they) make any money ? Hq re- 
 plied, no ; we did not make any money, the 
 capital is all gone, and 1 have rented the 
 building for $70 a year as a place in which 
 to carry on my little. business. That is the 
 revenue arising from the investment of $25,- 
 000. I do not select this as a special ex- 
 ample, because all over the province there 
 are such examples. I venture to say that 
 more capital is locked up in dormant indas- 
 tries in Ontar +han was ever locked up in 
 any other en^ -cept one enterprise 
 
 promoted at an e**. te by this Govern- 
 
 ment in connection w ,a the North-west, and 
 that was when they started that great boom 
 that was going to make everybody rich— 
 the Colonization Companies. Sir, there are 
 thousands of Ontario people to-day who are 
 
10 
 
 pfiyl ng interest on money that was invested 
 in those companies, who have a lively recol- 
 lection of the wild goose chase led them by 
 bon. gentlemen opposite when booming these 
 enterprises. There never was a time in the 
 history of Canada as last winter when the 
 banks were so crowded with money, not 
 seeking employment, but gathered in from 
 active industry until the bankers were 
 driven almost to despair to know what to 
 do with it, and yet parallel with this is tlie 
 fact that there never was a time in the his- 
 tory of Canada when so many men hon- 
 estly seeking for labour on the street were 
 denied such labour and thereby their daily 
 bread. This is another proof of tlie effect of 
 the National Policy as applied to-day. 
 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite are never tired of 
 telling us about the development of the trade 
 which is being secured to us outside of Cana- 
 da, and the benefits that accrue to us in conse- 
 quence of the development of that trade. 
 What are they doing on that agricultural 
 implement manufacturing industry to-day ? 
 Only a few months ago the Government 
 passed an Order in Council providing that 
 when a manufacturer exported one of these 
 implements outside of Canada, and sold 
 it to the competitors of the Canadian far- 
 mers in the United States, the Argentine 
 Republic, Great Britain, or anywhere else, 
 the manufacturer should get back 99 per 
 cent of the duties that he paid upon the 
 raw material that entered into the produc- 
 tion of that implement. How did the Gov- 
 ernment treat the Canadian farmer with 
 respect to that implement ? Let me quote 
 to you on that matter, a few words from 
 the organs of the Patrons of Industry. 
 
 Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). Do hon. gentle- 
 men opposite think that the Patrons are not 
 farmers ? Do you think that they have not 
 got intelligence the SL.me as we have ? I 
 heard one gentleman on that side of the 
 House use the term " illiterate Patrons, if 
 there are any." You did not hear it from 
 this side of the House, but he qualifies it ; 
 illiterate Patrons. " if there are any." Sir, I 
 say it is an insult to the agricultural popu- 
 latioii of this country. It is an insult to 
 the Patrons of this country. What is the 
 reason thatj the Patron institution is in ex- 
 istence to-day ? It is simply as a protest 
 against the burdens that this Government 
 have imposed upon the farming community, 
 They feel that things are out of joint, that 
 they are not getting fair-play under the 
 present administration of public affairs. 
 and like everybody else they band them- 
 selves together for the purpose of advancing 
 their own interests. Sir, I remember when 
 gentlemen opposite cultivated that organiza- 
 tion very carefully, just a little less than a 
 year ago. All the nice things they could 
 think of were said about the Patrons and 
 their policy ; but for how long ? Just while 
 
 they tried to use them for the purpose of 
 defeating the Ontario Government, and 
 when gentlemen opposite did not succeed in 
 making the Patrons a tool for that purpose, 
 then they turned around, and now they 
 call them " illiterate Piitrons." I point to the 
 existence of that organization as an evidence 
 of the feeling of unrest that is abroad to-day, 
 because of the conditions induced by hon. 
 ge itleraen opposite and their policy as ap- 
 plied to the country. Now, this is what the 
 Patron organ said on the 1st of May, so 
 that it applies to the present time, and it 
 is none of your seventeen-year old fairy tales 
 such as we have heard from that side of the 
 House : 
 
 The low tariff makes it more profitable for 
 England to trade with them than with Canada. 
 It is obvious the Canadian farmer, taxed Dy 
 the tariff and combines till bis back is sore, Is 
 in no position to compete with Argentina. Not 
 content with imposing those drawbacks on our- 
 selves, we have recently ordered that the Can- 
 adian manufacturer of implements, who imports 
 his pig iron, coal, steel, &c., and pays high duties 
 thereon, shall be allowed a remission of 99 per 
 cent of the duty when the finished goods are des- 
 tin«^d for Argentina, Australia, United States, or 
 any other foreign competitor, but shall pay the 
 whole amount of duty and charge it to the Cana- 
 dian consumer, with interest and profit added, 
 \.hen the machine is sold here at home. To 
 "promote Canadian industry : keep Canada for 
 the Canadians." 
 
 And this is to promote Canadian industry 
 and to keep Canada for the Canadians. I 
 recommend hon. gentlemen opposite to wres- 
 tle with these facts, and I ask them if they 
 are not literally true? The pig iron that 
 goes into these implements has been' taxed 
 at the rate of $4 a ton, and if it is Canadian 
 iron there is $2, a ton bounty added to en- 
 able the Canadian manufacturer to produce 
 it. All his other articles are taxed in the 
 same ratio from $10 to $13 a ton on the 
 other various grades of iron that enter into 
 the manufacturing of these implements. 
 Everything is taxed for the benefit of some- 
 body else, and just as the paper I have 
 quoted from says : If that implement is 
 sold to the Canadian farmer, he has to pay 
 every cent of that duty, whereas if it sold 
 to his competitor down in Argentina he 
 gets every cent off. Do you: call that keep- 
 ing Canada for the Canadians ? 
 
 Now, just let me look for a moment at the 
 competition the Canadian farmers have to 
 face. We have to find a market outside of Ca- 
 nada for $50,000,000 worth of our Canadian 
 products, and who do we compete with ? We 
 compete with Argentina, for example, that 
 last year, according to the British official re- 
 turns, sent 13.000,000 cwts. of wheat to the 
 British market, sent 30,000 live cattle, and 
 sent one and a half million carcasses of 
 frozen mutton. Under what conditions do 
 the people of the Argentine Republic ship 
 these products to the British market ? The 
 River La Platte is navigable for 2,000 miles 
 
11 
 
 for large vessels up into those great plains 
 of Argentina. They raise that wheat and 
 those cattle almost in sight of the ocean 
 steamer that takes those goods on board and 
 delivers thom into the English marliet where 
 they meet us on exactly even terms. What 
 is oui' position in Canada ? We gave $02,- 
 500,000 to build the Canadian Pacific Rail- 
 way to carry our products from the great 
 plains of the North-west down to the ocean, 
 ard we have cnarged such high rates on that 
 railway that the bulk of that wheat last fall 
 found its w^ay through American channels 
 down to the seaboard. We have to meet the 
 Argentine farmers in that open market of 
 England under those conditions, and, Mr. 
 Speaker, do the Government call that keep- 
 ing Canada for the Canadians ? In addi- 
 tion to that, these gentlemen in Argentina 
 have this advantage, that while we are 
 taxed at from .30 to 35 per cent on what 
 we buy and consume, their duties run from 
 5 per cent on cottons up to 10 and 15 per 
 cent on other goods. They do not pay half 
 the duty that we pay to begin with, and 
 they sell goods against us in the world's 
 markets on even terms. And yet gentlemen 
 opposite tell us that the National Policy 
 is a blessing to Canada, when we have to 
 sell in face of that competition, and when 
 we have that competition more intensified 
 by the action of this very Government in 
 giving the Argentine farmers their imple- 
 ments at a rate of duty cheaper than what 
 is imposed on the raw material that enters 
 into our implements. Sir, let me quote to 
 you one statement made by an American 
 as to the energy and development of that 
 country as our competitor. He said : 
 
 Before long Argentina will yet eclipse Chicago 
 as the meat-packing centre of the world. 
 
 Think of it, Mr. Speaker, and we are selling 
 those men implements cheaper to-day than 
 we sell them to our own people, and our 
 Government calls that protecting the Cana- 
 dian farmer. Let me draw^ your attention, 
 Sir, to another advantage that the farmers 
 of Argentina have over us. I quote from 
 an Englishman who is an ardent advocate 
 of the policy of hon. gantlemen opposite, as 
 applied to England. I quote from Mr. 
 Howard Vincent, wMth whom we are all 
 familiar. He speaks of the internal eco- 
 nomy of Argentina, and he says : 
 
 A paper money now depreciated between 200 
 and 300 per ceni,, now secures nearly as much 
 labour and food as it did when it was at or 
 nearly par. The premium on gold is of the 
 greatest advantage to the agriculturists. They 
 pay for their labour, food, and indeed for their 
 holdings, in depreciated paper, and they receive 
 gold for their exported herds and crops. Its re- 
 duction will be firmly resisted by them by all 
 possible means, and, if sudden or violent, would 
 entail serious disaster. To the merchant it is 
 different. He has to pay gold for what he Im- 
 ports, and can with difficulty obtain its equiva- 
 lent in paper when he sells, and people cannot 
 understands why he wants so much more " na- 
 
 tional " money for his goods than before, and 
 buy sparingly or dispense with the article. 
 
 And this is the kind of competition that our 
 Government is encouraging to-day by taking 
 the duty off the implements that we sell to 
 them and putting it on the Canadian farmer 
 who has to compete with them. 
 
 In connection with that matter let me 
 draw attention to the methods tbie Gov- 
 ernment have adopted for the increase 
 of our trade. Sir Charles Tupper, in 
 1888, foreshadowed the ^ idea of stimu- 
 lating our West India' trade by sub- 
 sidizing a line of steamers for that purpose, 
 and in 1890 our present Minister of Finance 
 took a trip down to the West Indies with 
 the aid of his private secretary, and at the 
 cost of nearly .$1^00 spied out the land to 
 see how the trade was. In the following 
 season the Jamaica exhibition was opened 
 and we spent .?22,000 in pushing 
 our products before the people of Jamaica. 
 We sent, as our commissioner, our old 
 friend, whom we all remember and whom 
 we liked to see so well for his genial ways, 
 Mr. Adam Brown, of Hamilton, and spent 
 some $5,000 for his services and expenses 
 as our agent. In addition to that, we sub- 
 sidized a line of steamers to develop that 
 trade, to the extert of from .$73,000 to $97,- 
 000 a year for the last four years. What 
 has been the result of all this labour, and 
 this liberal expenditure ? Let us compare 
 the trade with the West Indies in the fire 
 years from 1874 to 1878. with the trade 
 which has been developed under this 
 National Policy boom from 1890 to 1894. 
 For the first five years, our average ex- 
 ports were .$3,720,000 per year, whereas, in 
 the latter five years they were $3,195,000 a 
 year. So that, notwithstanding these sub- 
 sidies of about $90,000 a year, we have not 
 created much of a market for Canadian pro- 
 duct* in the West Indies. But what does 
 the comparison show with regard to our 
 imports from the West Indies V During the 
 five years from 1874 to 1878. our average 
 imports Mere $1,678,000 per year, and dur- 
 ing the five years from 1890 to 1894, they 
 were $3,660,000 per year. That was a mag- 
 nificent development, was it not ? We had 
 increased our imports to more than double. 
 But let me draw your attention to a little 
 event that intervened in the interim. We 
 had taken the duty off raw sugar alto- 
 gether ; and if you examine our trade in 
 detail, you will find that great development 
 to be due to that fact, and not to the sub- 
 sidies given to the line of steamships. 
 
 Mr. WELSH. Free trade. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). It was free trade 
 '■■ as they have it in England applied to sugar 
 —that, free trade which hon. gentlemen op- 
 posite are so worried over, and which they 
 are so anxious to ascertain the meaning of. 
 On these imports the average duty per 
 year collected, in the first period, was $646.- 
 000 ; and in the last period, .$687,000 ; but 
 
12 
 
 the average of the last three years, after 
 the duty had been taken off, was only $293,- 
 
 000 ; showing that the increased trade was 
 not due to the subsidies, but to the fact 
 that we afforded the West Indies a better 
 market for their sugar by removing the 
 duty. As a result, we have sacrificed about 
 $400,000 a year of revenue, besides the sub- 
 sidies' of $90,000, without succeeding in 
 getting a market for one dollar's worth more 
 of Canadian products. What are we doing 
 in regard to the Australian trade that we 
 have heard so milch about— another mode 
 in which it is proposed to protect Canada 
 for the Canadians ? 
 
 The Prime Minister inaugurated the efforts 
 of the Government to develop a trade 
 with Australia by going * out there and 
 travelling around on a pleasure trip, 
 which cost us $2,745. We have also 
 sent an agent to Australia. This Gov- 
 ernment, it appears, can do nothing to de- 
 velop a trade anywhere without sending 
 out an agent, and we have Mr. I.arke out 
 there, at a salary of $3,000 and expenses, 
 to look after our interests and develop 
 our business. In addition to that, we are 
 paying $121,000 a year by way of subsidy 
 for nine trips of steamers between Canada 
 and that country. As a result of these 
 efforts, we are developing a trade with Aus- 
 tralia without doubt r but we are not going 
 to be able to send any cotton goods there, 
 if we are to judge by last year's exports of 
 our highly protected cotton combine, because 
 
 1 find that they sent just $8 worth of cotton 
 goods to the whole of Australia. Whatever 
 goods we do send to Australia will be agri- 
 cultural implements and machinery, on 
 w^hich our people have to pay the full tax 
 under the National Policy, while it will all 
 be taken off to enable the Australians to 
 get cheaper machinery than our own peo- 
 ple. Now, what does Australia send to us? 
 Everybody knows that it is a great wool- 
 producing and mutton-producing country. 
 Let us look at the goods we got from Aus- 
 tralia last year. They do not amount to 
 very much ; but the chief imports I will 
 mention. We got $0,250 worth of green 
 apples. Now, we raise apples in Canada, 
 and we consider them pretty good ones. 
 We imi)orted from Australia, also, 59,000 
 pounds of butver, valued at $10,421. I do 
 not think we need to bring butter into Can- 
 ada from Australia, and to subsidize steam- 
 ers in order to do so. Of lard, bacon, salt 
 beef. &c.. we brought in $1,300 worth, and 
 we brought in 61,200 pounds of mutton, 
 valued at $1,797. I think it will be admitted 
 by all hon. gentlemen on the other side of 
 the House that these are not articles which 
 we should spend money in order to bring 
 into Canada ; and yet these are the chief im- 
 ports that came to us last year from Aus- 
 tralia. Now. how does the National Policy 
 protect the farmer in the matter of wool ? 
 It carefully puts a duty on such wool as 
 
 we produce a surplus of in Canada ; but it 
 does not charge one farthing upon the wool 
 which the Australians send into Canada ; 
 that comes in free. Now, what does the 
 Dominion Grange think of this attempt to 
 promote trade with Australia ? Hon. gen- 
 tlemen opposite sneered a little while ago 
 at the name of the Patrons of Industry, 
 when they were mentioned in this House ; 
 let them sneer at the Dominion Grange. 
 I can only say that that organization was 
 brought into existence because of the pres- 
 sure of circumstances that drove together 
 men who felt that they were being un- 
 fairly treated under the policy of the Gov- 
 ernment ; and what do they say ? This is 
 not the history of seventeen years ago, but 
 the history of to-day, dealing with the live 
 issues of the moment : 
 
 We desire to enter our most strenuous protest 
 against subsidizing a line of steamships to Aus- 
 tralia. As the products of that country are 
 similar to the agricultural products of Canada, 
 but are produced at a very much less cost, this • 
 would be a blow at our home market, and taxing 
 ourselves to destroy our interests. 
 
 I think the majority of thinking men will 
 say that is a fair estimate of the efforts the 
 Government are making to develop trade 
 by taking money out of the pockets of the 
 Canadian farmers to subsidize lines of 
 steamships to bring into Canada goods to 
 compete with the products of our own peo- 
 ple of which we have alreadj^ a surplus. 
 Under these circumstances, it would be a 
 wonder if organizations of this kind had 
 not grown up in our midst, and if they did 
 not feel that the pressure was more than 
 they were willing to endure. 
 
 But, Sir, I want, for a moment to glance 
 at the process by which the Govern- 
 ment are now working out the de- 
 tails of thf National Policy. They told 
 us that they proposed to tax the goods 
 of those people who want to find their 
 way into the Canadian market, and they 
 proposed to do this for the purpose of keep- 
 ing Canada for the Canadians. That might 
 have been true some years ago. Is it true 
 to-day ? What is the history of the changes 
 of taxation as developed under the admin- 
 istration of the present Government V Let 
 us look for a moment at the mode in which 
 they have developed our taxation. When 
 the Finance Minister first entered on his 
 office this is the statement which he made 
 on the 27th March, 1890 : 
 
 I stated last year, that, looking at the condition 
 of the country and looKing at the munificent con- 
 tributions which have been given by this country 
 for her public works— it seems to me that we 
 ought not, after the close of the year 1889, to in- 
 crease the public debt. That we ought not to 
 increase the public expenditure for ordinary pur- 
 poses, and that it was possible to meet the capi- 
 tal obligations we had already assumed, and to 
 go to the year 1892 without adding to our net 
 debt. After that we might consider whether or • 
 
13 
 
 not we could not gradually decrease the debt 
 which we have assumed and placed on ourselves. 
 
 He was tJien referring to the year 1SS9, and 
 he repeated and emphasized that state- 
 ment. He said : 
 
 Now, Sir, ' am here to-day, one year after the 
 time of making that statement, to <af*\rm with 
 equal truth to-day, $36,500,000 of ordinary ex- 
 penditure from our Consolidated Revenue Fund 
 is sufficient to carry our debt, pay our interest, 
 pay all our ordinary expenditures, and leave 
 $2,000,000 in the hands of the Minister of Public 
 Works each year to build new and necessary 
 public works. 
 
 To carry her present burdens Canada is amply 
 sufficient, but for any further increase I believe 
 good reasons are demanded and good reasons 
 must be given. 
 
 Did he confine the expenditure to that ^3G,- 
 500.000 V Look at the Estimates for 1895 of 
 $38.517,0<X) and judge for j'ourself. 
 
 He boasts to us of the expenditure made 
 on our public works. Look, he said, at our 
 railways, at our canals, see the development 
 of our\-esources by these means. What are 
 the returns that they present to us ? The 
 expenditure on these public works was some- 
 where about $149,000,000, as the hon. gentle- 
 man correctly stated. On the Intercolonial, 
 the expenditure was $44,966,424. On our 
 canals the expenditure was $44,709,038 ; on 
 the Canadim Pacific Railway our expendi- 
 ture on capital amounted to $62,601,535, 
 making altogether $149,000,000. Now, these 
 are in the investments about which the hon. 
 Minister is so proud. Let us see what reven- 
 ues flow into the ti'easury from those various 
 investments. Look, at the Intercolonial of 
 last year. Our revenue was $2,987,000, and 
 the working expenses $2,981,000, so that 
 we had a net revenue of $5,832. But on the 
 expenditure of the $44,900,000, where does 
 the country mise the money to pay the 
 interest ? The Government take it out of 
 the taxpayers of the Dominion. Even the 
 small pittance of a revenue from the Inter- 
 colonial is not left us, because in operating 
 the Prince Edward Island Railway we are 
 $66,000 short of revenue to meet the current 
 expenses ; and that is an improvement for 
 which I give the Minister of Railways credit. 
 What is the revenue from our other great 
 works ? Take the canals upon which we 
 spent nearly $42,000,000, and on which v.e 
 are still spending millions of dollars for 
 the year 1894, our revenue was $387,000. 
 The expenses of maintaining the canal staff 
 and making the repairs necessary to keep 
 the canals in working order, without pro- 
 viding for the renewals or improvements, 
 was $534,000, leaving a net deficit of $147.- 
 000. And besides we have to pay every 
 cent of interest on the original $149,000,000, 
 the cost of the construction of those works. 
 How does the case stand in connection with 
 the Canadian Pacific Railway, upon which 
 we have expended $62,500,000 ? Who owns 
 that road ? Does Canada own it or control 
 it ? Has Canada anything to say in the ad- 
 
 ministration of that great public work ? No, 
 Sir, that $62,600,000 belongs to a distinct 
 and independent company. 
 
 It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the 
 Chair. 
 
 After Recess. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). When you left 
 the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I was reminding the - 
 House that a few years ago we on tiiis side 
 of the House were accused of not desiring 
 a through line of railway upon Canadian 
 territoiy, and we were continually lectured 
 upon the disloyalty of a system that made 
 connections with the North-west Territory 
 through the United States. I referred to 
 the fact that we had contributed $62,600,- 
 
 000 of good solid Canadian money to 
 the Canadian Pacific Railway and that the 
 line was now the property of the company. 
 
 1 want to draw your attention. Sir, to the 
 developments that have taken place since 
 these early days of the Canadian Pacific 
 Railway system. That road covers a dis- 
 tance between Montreal on the east, to 
 Vancouver on the Pacific Ocean, of a little 
 over 2,900 miles over Canadian soil. What 
 do we find to-day in addition to that ? We 
 find that what is known as the " Soo '* 
 branch of that I'ailway runs from the main 
 line to American territory at the foot of 
 Lake Superior, where a connection is made 
 with an American system of railway. From 
 that point we find two railway systems run- 
 ning westward controlled and operated by 
 the Canadian Pacific Railway, one system 
 known as the Duluth, South Shore and 
 Atlantic, operating, a-'cording to the last 
 report, 584 miles of i »ad, and the St. Paul, 
 Minneapolis and Sau.t Ste. Marie system 
 operating 1,167 miles, or a total of 1,751 miles 
 of this grand national Canadian railway 
 system operating on American territory. 
 And we find in addition that the security of - 
 this grand enterprise that Canada has so 
 liberally bonussed in order to put it on a 
 sound financial footing is pledged for the 
 payment of the bonds of these systems. 
 According to Poor's Manual of Railroads, 
 the most recent issue of which I was able 
 to consult was that of 1893, I find that the 
 bonds of these two companies for which the 
 revenues of this system of ours are pledged, 
 amount to no less a sum than $53,000,000. 
 And what further do we find ? We find 
 this Canadian system giving connection from 
 Montreal by way of Sault Ste. Marie and/^ 
 St. Paul and west through the great Ameri- 
 can state of Dakota and noi*thward until it 
 strikes the Canadian Pacific main line west 
 of Regina at a small junction ; and we find 
 them running their through Pullman cars 
 over American territory and giv^ing \Jiat ter- 
 ritory exactly the same railway facilities 
 that they give to Canadians on our main 
 line towards which we have contributed so 
 much. And the men who have sustained 
 
u 
 
 and endorsed that system are the men 
 who call themselves patriotic Canadians 
 and who are very fond of crying *' an- 
 nexation " against gentlemen on this side 
 of the House who decline to be bound 
 by such expressions of sentiment. 
 
 Now let nie turn for a moment as a matter 
 of comparison, and ascertain what are the 
 revenues derived by some of our sister 
 colonies from the railways which they built 
 and which thev own and control. I showed 
 before six o'clock that the $149,000,000 that 
 we have invested in our Intercolonial Rail- 
 way, in our canal system and in the Can- 
 adian Pacific Railway did not yield us one 
 dollar towards payment of interest, so that 
 every year tlie tax-payei*s of the Dominion 
 have to feel in th^ir pockets for the interest 
 upon these great expenditures. I pointed 
 .out, Mr. Speaker, that on the canal system 
 alone, in the payment for care and mainten- 
 ance, we were $147,000 out of pocket. I turn 
 to the Australian Goveniment railv/ays and 
 in their Year-Book for 1894. giving their re- 
 turns for the year 1893, the last returns avail- 
 able, I find some figures that should be inter- 
 esting to Canadians. We find that in New 
 -South Wales the government owns and 
 operates 2,351 miles of railway, constructed 
 at a capital cost of £34,657,000 sterling. The 
 gross revenues of that system for the year 
 1893 were £2,927,000, which, after paying 
 all expenses left net earnings of £1,188,000, 
 or over 3 per cent on the total investment 
 for the construction of those railways. Lest 
 it should be said that this is an isolated ex- 
 ample, I turn to the sister colony of New 
 Zealand, the figures for whose railways for 
 the year ending 31st March, 1893, the latest 
 available returns, are before me. The govern- 
 ment in that year operated 1.886 miles of 
 railway, the total cost of which for con- 
 struction was £14,733,000 sterling. 'J'he net 
 earnings, after paying working expenses, 
 were £449,380, or a return upon the capital 
 invested of over 3 per cent For another ex- 
 ample I turn to the colony of Victoria. That 
 colony owns 2,975 miles of railway. These 
 railways are reported upon in four divisions. 
 The northern divisjou has a mileage of 836. 
 The net revenue of this system after paying 
 working expenses was sutficient to yield a 
 return of 2-97 per cent on the capital cost. The 
 north-east division, covering 603 miles of 
 road, earned a net dividend of over 4^ per 
 cent. The eastern section of 500 miles was 
 operated at a slight loss. The western sec- 
 tion of 1,018 miles yielded a net dividend of 
 over 3 per cent, and the balance, the Hud- 
 ^49on Bay Railway, 4% per cent on cost. 
 And let me draw your attention, ]Mr. 
 Speaker, to the further fact that the 
 year for which these figures are given 
 was the year of the great financial crisis in 
 the Australian colonies, and tlie reports of 
 the Victoria system speak of decreased 
 freight and passenger tratfic. while they 
 state that the regular equipment which was 
 «ufficient to transact the ordinary business 
 
 had been maintained. Mr. Speaker, I point 
 to the position of our sister colonies as com- 
 pared with that of this Dominion, and I ask, 
 in all fairness, whether the producing popu- 
 lation of Canada to-day are receiving returns 
 from these investments compared with the 
 burdens that are placed upon them thereby. 
 The fact that we are receiving no revenue 
 from so large an expenditure is not credit- 
 able to the administration of public affairs 
 here, as compared with that in these sister 
 colonies. 
 
 Now, Sir, let me turn for a few 
 moments to some of the statements made 
 by the Finance Minister with respect to the 
 taxation that he said he had taken off the 
 shoulders of the tax-payers of this country, 
 and as to our financial position to-day. You 
 remember. Sir, when, in 1891, the hon. 
 gentleman came down to the House and inti- 
 mated to us that he had decided to take three 
 and a half millions of taxation off the backs 
 of the Canadian tax-payers. That was an 
 exceedingly liberal proposition on the face 
 of it, to be presented in one session to any 
 legislative assembly such as we have here. 
 But. Mr. Speaker, how was it that the hon. 
 gentleman became suddenly so generous to 
 the tax-payers of the Dominion of Canada ? 
 I do not think we need to go very far to 
 ascertain the reason. On the American side, 
 for reasons best known to themselves, sugar 
 was made free, and it was an object lesson 
 in taxation that no Government could stand 
 very long, to see a staple article of consump- 
 tion like sugar sold just across an imaginary 
 line at 4 cents per pound, while here it was 
 Qh^ cents. The Minister of Finance made 
 a virtue of necessity, and took off $3,500,000 
 of duty from the tax-payers of Canada. 
 Here is how he announces it in his Budget 
 speech of 1891 : 
 
 Sugar has always been looked upon in Canada 
 as a large producer of revenue. Sugar in one 
 respect is one of the best articles possible for 
 distributing taxation. The rich and the poor 
 use it largely in proportion to their means, and 
 there is, possibly, no article upon which a part 
 of the revenue of the country can be more equit- 
 ably placed. The Government, has come to the 
 conclusion to sweep away from the burdens of 
 the great mass of the people, with one stroke of 
 the pen, $3,500,000 of taxation, 
 
 " Of taxation." Those of us who were in 
 this House previous to that time, remember 
 the pitched battles that used to be indulged 
 in across the floor of this House as to who 
 bore the burden of this taxation. This time 
 there was no hesitation on the part of the 
 Minister of Finance in announcing that this 
 was a burden of taxation, not upon the peo- 
 ple outside of Canada who wanted to sell us 
 sugar, but upon the consuming population 
 of Canada who bought and used that sugar. 
 But there is this remarkable feature in the 
 matter to which I wish to draw attention, 
 that the Minister always stops .n his Budget 
 speech at this point in his quotation. Now, 
 I want to extend the quotation a little fur- 
 
u 
 
 ther down in that same speech. The next 
 paragraph goes ou to say : 
 
 We propose to ask the House to allow us to 
 put on $1,500,000, and the question is where to 
 put it on. 
 
 And he proceeded to put on taxes thus : he 
 5.1ded 1 cent per pound additional on 
 malt, and he estimated the yield would be 
 $500,000 revenue. He added 20 cents per 
 gallon excise duty on whisky, which he 
 estimated would yield $600,000 ; and he add- 
 ed o cents per pound more on tobacco, and 
 he estimated the revenue from that at $400,- 
 OuO, making, in all, $1,500,000 of taxes that 
 he immediately imposed, at the same time 
 that he took off $3,500,0<J0. Now% Mr. 
 Speaker. I may be a little obtuse, but it does 
 strike me that when a man tr.kes credit for 
 taking off $3,500,000 of taxation, and, at 
 the same time, puts on $1,500,000 on other 
 necessaries or luxuries that our people are 
 consuming, it is not a very brilliant stroke 
 of policy. I do not think it takes a very 
 large-sized statesman to accomplish an op- 
 eration like that, and I do not think it jus- 
 tities the statement that at one sweep he 
 had relieved the people of taxes to the ex- 
 tent of $3,500,00, T^'hen he immediately put 
 on $1,500,000 without giving the people one 
 breathing moment to realize what it meant 
 to be relieved of $3,500,000. And, Mr. 
 Speaker, there is more than that, he got 
 the additional taxes that were imposed, for 
 that year when he was making his Budget 
 statement, the inland revenue made a re- 
 turn of $6,825,000 ; for the next year, 1S92. 
 it had risen to $8,007,000 ; in 1893 it re- 
 mained at $8,444,000. But then he took 1 
 cent per pound off the malt duty, relieving 
 that article of $50,000 of taxation, and 
 the next season, 1894, his collections from 
 inland revenue were still $8,364,000 ; show- 
 ing conciusively that instead of taking $3,- 
 500.000 of taxes off the back of the Canadian 
 tax-payer, he only took $2,000,000 to begin 
 with. 
 
 But, Sir, how do they set at defiance 
 the principles of the National Policy in the 
 present session as applied to their mode of 
 providing for the present condition of 
 things ? Sir, I heard the Minister of Fi- 
 nance making merry at the deficits that ex- 
 isted when my hon. friend from South Ox- 
 ford was Minis^ter of Unance under the 
 Mackenzie Administration ; and he rejoiced 
 at the idea of my hon. friend from South 
 Oxford warming himself at a deficit of less 
 than $2,000,000. But the hon. Minister of 
 Finance tried to warm himself last vear by 
 admitting that he had a deficit of $1,;^00,00(), 
 but it did not seem to warm him up worth 
 a cent ; and this year, after figuring very 
 carefully, he comes down to the House with 
 this humiliating announcement that he has 
 a deficit of $4,500,000 in prospect for the 
 current year. P^ancy if you can, Mr. Speak- 
 er, the condition of things if the two parties 
 in this House were to exchange places, and 
 
 we were to present a deficit of $4,500,000. 
 Why, Sir, there would not be metaphors 
 enough in the English language to 
 express their indignation at the Minister of 
 Finance who had so far forgotten himself 
 and his country as to allow such an event 
 to transpire. Now, the hon. gentleman turns 
 around and he wanus himself at a $4,500.- 
 000 deficit. I should think it ought to make 
 him comfortable if he thought my hon. 
 friend rejoiced in one that did not come half 
 way up to it. 
 
 But we listened to the hon. member for 
 East Hastings (Mr. Xorthrup) tlie other 
 day telling us about the Conservative pro- 
 cess of providing for a revenue. And 
 what was it ? After sneering at what 
 he calls the way of hon. gentlemen on the 
 Liberal side of the House, he says one way 
 is by grinding down the wages of the em- 
 ployees, and the profits of capitalists, 
 so that we can produce more cheaply in this 
 country than in any other country in the 
 world. That is the way the Liberal party 
 raise their revenue. Another way is to 
 put up the tariff so as to make outsiders 
 who wish to come into this market, pay 
 something for the privilege. That is the 
 way the Conservative partj' propose to keep 
 our markets for our own pe<^)ple. Is that 
 the Conservative way to-day ? Sir. that is 
 ancient history : tliat does not apply to the 
 Conservative party to-day ; that is not their 
 policy, as expounded by the Mini-ster of Fi- 
 nance from his chair across the floor of 
 this House. I sometimes think that the 
 dominant political party in this Dominion 
 has fallen on evil times, that it has fallen 
 into the hands of men who do not realize 
 the capacity and fidelity that characterized 
 their predecessors. If my hon. friend from 
 East Hastings is an authority on this ques- 
 tion. I think we must conclude that the 
 Minister of Finance co-day has sadly fallen 
 from grace, according to that principle of 
 the Conservative party expounded by my 
 hon. friend from East Hastings. 
 
 Isow. what are the resolutions that are pend- 
 ing to-day in co nection with this matter ? 
 Is it proposed to make outsiders who wish to 
 come into this market, pay for the privilege 
 of getting in here. Let us see how he has 
 set about to provide for it. He puts an- 
 other half cent per pound on sugar, and he 
 goes back to his great sheet anchor, whis- 
 ky, that has stood him good stead time and 
 again, and has been more valuable to him 
 than any other commodity he ever touched, 
 either in his political or social career. Sir, it 
 was the whisky question that brought him 
 before the public, and gave him his position 
 in the House to-day. The whisky ques- 
 tion is the great sheet anchor of the Min- 
 ister of Finance, and the leader of this 
 House. To-day, after taxing sugar, what 
 does he do ? He goes back to whisky, 
 and he puts another 20 cents per gallon on 
 whisky. He expects to get $5oo.OO(J more 
 out of this whisky tax, and $1,250,000 out 
 
«16 
 
 of the sugar tax, or about $1,750,000 on 
 whisky and sugar. How does the ac- 
 count stand, after taking off $50,000 
 from malt last year ? He took $3,- 
 500,000 off the sugar in 1891, and he 
 re-imposed on sugar, whisky and tobacco, 
 $3,300,000 between then and now. That is 
 the way he carries out the Conservative po- 
 licy. I say. Sir, if the hon. member for East 
 Hastings (Mr. Northrup) is the correct expo- 
 nent of the Conservative policy, he ought to 
 hasten and take the Finance Minister in 
 hand and bring him back to the position 
 tJie party formerly occupied, for he has gut 
 altogether .away from the good old Conserva- 
 tive path. But the hou. gentleman has got 
 into the avenues of the people's pockets. I 
 remember hearing of a little boy who was 
 asked to write an essay on the natural his- 
 tory of man. He set about it after this fash- 
 ion : Man is a little animal that walks on 
 his hind legs and wears clothes ; he 
 is very quiet ; you can put your hand 
 on him anywhere and he won't kick, 
 but you must not touch his pocket. 
 Sir, when it came to the hour of necessity, 
 with an ugly visaged deficit of $4,500,000 
 haunting the dreams of the Finance Minister, 
 and dogging him day and night, he did not 
 take the National Policy mode of securing a 
 revenue, by taxing outsiders who wished 
 to bring something into the country. Oh, 
 no ; he went straight for the pockets of the 
 Canadian consumers, and he placed half a 
 cent on sugar that he knew they could not 
 escape, and when they take a drink of whis- 
 ky they have to contribute another 20 per 
 cent to the purpose of creating this revenue. 
 
 Mr. JEANXOTTE. That is not enough. 
 
 Mr. BAIN (Wentworth). I have no ob- 
 jection to the whisky men contributing it 
 But I have to draw your attention, Mr. 
 Speaker, to tliis, that if the principles ex- 
 pounded by the Finance Minister in the 
 early and callow years of his political life 
 were correct, we are making it more and 
 more difficult every year for the people of 
 the Dominion to reach that point which the 
 hon. gentlemaL; formerly said meant the well- 
 being of the people, wiping out this revenue 
 from liquor and prohibiting its consumption 
 in our midst. That is the direction in which 
 we are drifting. 
 
 rut this does not cover the whole 
 of the question. I want to draw at- 
 tention to the difference between the policy 
 of the Liberals and the National Pol- 
 icy, and I think the sugar question will 
 illustrate it about as effectively as anything 
 I can present to the House. The Americans 
 under the McKinley Act of 1891, struck off 
 the duty on raw sugar and sugars up to 
 No. 16 butch standard, and left the duty of 
 half a cent per pound on refined sugar for 
 the benefit of the American sugar trust. 
 At one operation they took $60,000,000 of 
 taxes off their people. What is the position 
 
 to-day of the sugar tariff here in Canada ? 
 Does the half cent a pound goiag into the 
 treasury represent the amount of duty that 
 the people of this country pay for their re- 
 fined sugar. ? No. We have another tax, and 
 it does not come out of the Americans either, 
 it comes out of the consumers of sugar in 
 Canada— it is a tax of 64 ' jnts additional on 
 e\ery 100 pounds. For the protection of 
 whom ? The Canadian consumer ? No — the 
 Canadian refiner of sugar. Let us apply 
 that to the sugar imports of last season, 
 and see how it will operate. We imported 
 in round numbers a little over 300.000.000 
 pounds of raw sugar in 1894. Say that 50,- 
 000,000 went direct into family consumption 
 for ordinary purposes, and that 250,000,000 
 of that importation passed through the hands 
 of the refiners. What is the result of tiie 
 application of this system of protection to- 
 day ? Why, Sir, the McKinley tariff, as an 
 engine for securing revenue for the sugar 
 trust, is nowhere, it is not in it ; and I will 
 show you why. Take 250,000,000 pounds of 
 raw sugar imported into Canada last year. 
 The' protection to the refiner on that sugar 
 ui'der the American tariff would have been 
 $1,250,000. What is it under the tariff we 
 are operating here to-day ? No less than 
 $1,600,000. Last summer when the fight was 
 on in Washington with the sugar trust, and 
 it took all summer to settle the question, the 
 difficultj" was over the amount of protection 
 the Americans would give the sugar refin- 
 eries ; and at the close of that contest where 
 w ere the sugar refineries placed ? They were 
 given one-eighth of one per cent of duty extra 
 on refined sugar imposed for their protec- 
 tion ; instead of 64 cents per 100 pounds 
 given in Canada, they were only allowing 
 li-'i/- cents per 100 pounds. We sometimes 
 reach results better by comparison. For the 
 I If: St three months the dividend of the Ame- 
 rican sugar trust, with that protection of 
 12^4 cents per 100 pounds, was 3 per cent in 
 j the quarter on a capital of $75,000,000, and 
 j e:.perts on the American side say the whole 
 ; of the sugar could be refined with a plant 
 \ not costing over $15,000,000. Yet one-eighth 
 I of one per cent gives a sufficient return 
 I to pay on this enormous capital 3 per cent 
 per quarter, or 12 per cent per annum, 
 I whereas our refiners are protected to nearly 
 I five times that amount, ai^d instead of get- 
 ! ting $312,500, as the American extra protec- 
 tion to the trust would give them on our im- 
 ports of sugar, they received $1,600,000 pro- 
 tection from this Government. There is a 
 line of cleavage between the policy repre- 
 sented on tills side of the House and the 
 policy represented by hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site. We do not? object to bearing the bur- 
 dens sufficient for the necessary mainten- 
 ance and for the expenditure of this country ; 
 we are willing to carry the burdens nee ^ 
 si'jy to pay interest on our public deot, 
 , heavy as it is ; we are willing to bear the 
 burdens imposed for the necessary working 
 
17 
 
 expenditure, but we are not willing to be- 
 come burden bearers for specially protected 
 industries after this ftishion. 
 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite say that free trade 
 as spoken of in Britain is impracticable here. 
 I, for myself, and I speak for myself, say we 
 are perfectly willing to bear the burdens im- 
 posed on our goods by a tariff, that will en- 
 able us to meet our cuirent expenditures , 
 but so long as I am in a position to protest 
 I will protest against being called on to 
 maintain industries that cannot stand on 
 their own legs. On this point I desire to 
 draw the attention of the House to an article 
 printed in the " Mail " a short time ago, an 
 organ that cannot be accused of leaning 
 towards popular sentiment, and this article 
 was printed after it became the organ of the 
 Government. It is as follows :— 
 
 The plea of those who want to locate new- 
 comers here at any cost is, that we cannot ex- 
 pect them to come unless inducements are offered. 
 This policy has been sufficiently illustrated in 
 Ontario. Again and again it has been necessary 
 for the legislature to do something to check tho 
 evil. 
 
 There have been peripatetic industries, the pro- 
 prietors of which looked out for a " good bonus," 
 started their mills, worked up the subsidy, and 
 then looked out " for fresh fields and pastures 
 new." 
 
 If the natural and commercial advantages of a 
 place are not sufficient to attract manufacturing 
 enterprises, it had better wait till they are. 
 
 It is no use trying to grow the plant of com- 
 merce by the_ aid of the expensive manure of 
 subsidies. It wastes the substance of the people 
 in uncertain speculstions. • 
 
 It wastes tlie subs^nce of our country to- 
 day in bol.-5tering np industries and support- 
 ing institutions that are not able to stand 
 upon their own limbs. 
 
 Sometimes, they tell us, that our Canadian 
 industries would not be able to take care 
 of themselves. Sir, I do not endorsi> 
 that doctrine. Let me quote one ex- 
 ample — and I have to aclvnowledge my in- 
 debtedness again to the Toronto " World '' 
 —to show what is done eveiy day 
 by Canadian industries which have never 
 asked the Government for drawbacks on 
 goods which they have exported, but who 
 honestly consume Canadian iron in their in- 
 dustry and pay the burdens that were im- 
 posed upon them, and sell their goods to 
 the community in open competition. Here 
 is what the Toronto " World," in the month 
 of March said with respect to one of these 
 industries. Speaking with the representa- 
 tive of a new establishment in Toronto that 
 was entering into the manufacture of bi- 
 cycles, it says : 
 
 I am every day becoming more firmly con- 
 vinced that we can manufacture bicycles and ma- 
 chinery just as well and cheaply in Canada as 
 in any other country in the world. In proof of 
 ^ his I may say that we have just received from 
 Messrs. Bertram & Co., of Dundas, a consign- 
 ment of lathes, special tools and formers for use 
 in the manufacture of our bicycles, which cost 
 us one-third tha figure tendered by some of 
 
 T B 2 
 
 the leading United States manufacturers. These 
 tools and machines were made from the models 
 of these in use by the Beeslon, Huraber Company, 
 of England, acknowledged to be the most accur- 
 ate and perfect in design, perhaps, in use at the 
 present time. I sent the same specifications that • 
 went to Bertram & Co. to the United States 
 firms, and the difference in the tenders sent in 
 fairly staggered me. I can tell you. We, of 
 course, then awarded the contract to the lowest 
 tenderers, and we are now more than pleased at 
 the manner in which the Dundas firm carried out 
 their work. 
 
 Here is an establishment that has not asked 
 to be bolstered up and protected. They are 
 friendly to the National Policy, staunch 
 supporters of it ; but. in the face of all those 
 facts, here is the evidence that they do 
 manufacture successfully to-day. and that 
 they put cheaper goods upon the market 
 than can be bought on the American side. 
 Those are men who have pluck sufficient 
 to attend to their business, and they do not 
 belong to that type of manufacturers who 
 have to go around and lean on this Govern- 
 ment for aid and support 
 
 Sir, with respect to the question of how 
 Canada should be developed and our in- 
 dustries advanced, I want to present the 
 House with a quotation from a journal 
 that has never been accused of being 
 Liberal in its political antecedents or 
 associations, and which has been known 
 as the organ of a section of this 
 community which has been solidly and 
 staunchly Conservative. Let me read from 
 that article briefly, for the information of 
 the House. I think it puts the question in 
 better form, and it answers the statements 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite much better than 
 I can do. It was dated the 14th March, 
 1895, and it says : 
 
 Canada ought to be one of th3 greatest and 
 most progressive nations of the world. The 
 Dominion covers one-fifteenth of the earth's sur- 
 face, embraces about 40 per cent of the British 
 Ejnpire, and is onlj' exceeded in extent by Russia, 
 and its resources are in keeping with its extent. 
 
 But it does not progress as it should. We are 
 supposed to have drawn 800,000 immigrants from 
 Europe in the ten y.3ars endin? 1890, yet our net 
 increase of populatior was only 500,000 as against 
 19 per cent in the previous docade. 
 
 There are several reasons, but the chief one 
 after all for the slow advancement of Canada is 
 found in the trade conditions that exist. 
 
 We want consumers for the products of our 
 fisheries, forests, mine.^- and I'arms far beyond the 
 i capacity of this country to supply. 
 
 This want could be supplied by the United 
 States to a certain extent, but their terms — free 
 trade with them and discrimination against the 
 mother country — are such as no loyal citizen of 
 the Empire could accept. 
 
 Across the sea, in the British Isles, is a market 
 for all, and more than all, that we can produce. 
 Why do we not furnish a larger portion of her 
 supplies ? Because it is a natural law of com- 
 merce that trade cannot flow all one way — one 
 nation cannot sell to another without buying 
 something in return. ' 
 
 And as we in Canada by an almost prohibitive / 
 tariff on British goods restrict our purchases in / 
 
18 
 
 Great Britain, we, by that very act, restrict our 
 faales to that country also. 
 
 What should be done, therefore, is to make a 
 sweeping reduction in the customs duties now- 
 levied on manufactured goods importf*d from the 
 • United Kingdom. The adoption of this policy 
 would vastly cheapen many articles that are used 
 daily by our people. It will, by increasing our 
 purchases in the mother country, add to our sales 
 there as well, and it will make the cities of Can- 
 ada the purchasing market for huudreds of thou- 
 sands living just across the border. 
 
 Two objections to this policy may be antici- 
 pated. The alleged iiflficulty in raising a rev- 
 enue and the interference with local manufactur- 
 ing enterprises. In reply to the first objection : 
 The increase in the consumption of British goods 
 would more than make for the national trea- 
 i-ury for the reduction in the rate of customs 
 taxation, besides reducing the expenses of the 
 Government. Canada is offering $750,000 of a 
 yearly subsidy for a fast steamship service on 
 the Atlantic, and the treasu^'y is now Deing 
 drawn upon for what is virtually a subsidy to in- 
 crease our butter exports to England. With- 
 draw the artificial barriers against trade with the 
 mother country erected by ourselves, and there 
 will be a sudden bound in the commercial inter- 
 course between us that will make both of the 
 above expedients unnecessary. 
 
 Sir, tbat is not ruj- language. That is the 
 language of the Orange " Sentinel," a 
 journal Avliich has never been accused of 
 Liberal proclivities. I commend it to the 
 gentlemen opposite who are wandering 
 around in the gloom and darkness of the 
 past by-gone years, wondeiing what free 
 tiade as they have it in Great Britain means. 
 Here is one of their own friends who has no 
 difficult^' in expounding the policy we are 
 advocating with respect to developing and 
 advancing the interests of our people in 
 Canada. 
 
 But, we are sometimes told that we are not 
 very consistent in our advocacj^ of trade rela- 
 tions, and that one time we talk reciprocity, 
 and continental free trade, and trade with 
 Great Britain, and lots of other statements 
 are made like tbat I want to give to you, Mr. 
 Speaker, an authority on the advantages to 
 our people of trade with the United States 
 that will not be disputed by even the Min- 
 ister of Finance himself, when I quote it. 
 It is the opinion of a gentleman who has 
 been in this House for many years, and this 
 is the statement he makes before his elec- 
 tors, gathered last summer for the purpose 
 of discussing the selection of a candidate for 
 his county. He said : 
 
 He had a duty to perform before leaving Par- 
 liament, and he had already induced the United 
 States Government to reduce the tariff on horses, 
 barley and coal, and he was still in communica- 
 tion with an agent of the United States Govern- 
 ment to bring about a further reduction in the 
 American tariff which would benefit the farmers. 
 He further stated that no person would be more 
 disappointed than Sir Mackenzie Bowell, if he 
 did no* receive the nomination. 
 
 Is that not rank heresy to proceed from 
 any gentleman who is a supporter of the 
 National Policy V Why, Sir. it is worthy of 
 
 a Grit of the deepest dye. He says that it 
 is a benefit to the Canadian farmer to have 
 the United States tariff reduced, and that 
 he is securing reductions on horses, barley, 
 and coal. Why, Sir, it was my respected 
 Triend from Cornwall (Mr. Bergin) who said 
 this ; and 1 am quoting from a report in 
 an organ of the Government of the day, 
 written by a friendly hand. 
 
 Sir, I have been grieved and ashamed 
 to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite de- 
 nouncing day in and day out the posi- 
 tion of the mother country— the country 
 tliat has never failed to stand by Canadian 
 interests, that has given us the shelter of 
 lier protection and the shelter of her name 
 through good report and evil report. Yes, 
 the.se men are never done telling us that in 
 free trade Britnin distress prevails every- 
 where, and that people are suffering and in 
 want, and are travelling towards a protec- 
 tive policy. 
 
 Mr. MILLS (Both well). They are preach- 
 ing blue ruin in England. 
 
 Mr. BAIX (Wentworth). Yes, preaching 
 blue ruin in England. They carefully quote 
 to us some of the Ciimpaign speeches of 
 ilie Conservative party in England, made 
 a year or two ago ; but they do not quote 
 to us the divisions of tlie House that have 
 recently taken place on any of those ques- 
 tions. It may do to go into the country and 
 tell the farmers that they are oppressed, 
 that competition from the outside is strain- 
 ing their resources and reducing the income 
 of their estates ; and ^ if you apply that 
 statement to the proprietors of those es- 
 tates, it is perfectly true ; but if you look 
 back through the historj- of England for a 
 few generations, j'ou will find that some of 
 those gentlemen gave very little, indeed, 
 for the estates from which they are draw- 
 ing lar^e revenues to-day. Suppose the 
 prices of the products of the farm were 
 doubled to-morrow, and kept so for a few 
 years, how much of the increase do hon. 
 gentlemen suppose would fall to the aver- 
 age tenant farmer ? Would not the aris- 
 tocracy who control their lands immediately 
 proceed to put up their rents to match V 
 
 But I want to call attention to another 
 (juotation, bearing on this very question, 
 from a journal which cannot be accused of 
 Grit proclivities or of being unfriendly to 
 the Government of the day ; and I com- 
 mend to hon. gentlemen opposite the sturdy 
 and vigorous language in which it charac- 
 terizes their conduct in thus belittling the 
 mother country that has done so much for 
 us. If they turn to the " Orange Sentinel " 
 of the 25th April last they will find this 
 paragraph, headed, " Distress in Great Bri- 
 tain " : 
 
 Many United States and some Canadian papers 
 are constantly telling us that great distress pre- 
 vails in Britain. The British Parliament ap- 
 pointed a Royal Commission to Inquire into the 
 condition of affairs. The inquiry included the 
 
19 
 
 period of the great storms in Britain, storms un- 
 pecedented for more than fifty years. In spite 
 of this terrible weather, the people of Great Bri- 
 tain suffered less actual distress and have been 
 more prosperous than those of any other country 
 under the sun. 
 
 The commission sent out inquiries to all lo- 
 calities in England, and received 1,194 replies 
 from districts representing over 20,000,000 of a 
 population, with these results : 569 localities, 
 with a population of nearly 7,000,000, report no 
 exceptional distress ; 454 localities, with a popu- 
 lation of over 10,000,000, report that there is ex- 
 ceptional distress, due solely to the severity of 
 the winter ; 144 localities, with a population of 
 3,700,000, report exceptional distress from want of 
 employment, due to slackness of trade, depression 
 in agriculture, or particular local or Industrial 
 causes. 
 
 Scotland, Wales and Ireland are dealt with 
 separately, and show that, apart from the sever- 
 ity of the weather, no exceptional distress pre- 
 vails. 
 
 The returns prove conclusively that the mass 
 of the British people are not suffering. Britain 
 iiolds her own in everything that tends to raalce 
 a people great, and lying telegrams to Yankee 
 papers are only sent to help the combines and 
 commercial thieves in the United States, who flud 
 it pays to abuse Britain. 
 
 We regret that any Canadian paper should re- 
 produce these lying despatches and try to bolster 
 up Canadian combines. 
 
 That, Sir, is no statement from my side of 
 the House. It is a statement from a journal 
 that has never staggered in its allegiance 
 to hon. gentlemen opposite ; but the force 
 of the truth compelled it manfully to ad- 
 minister this scathing rebuke to those of 
 hon. gentlemen opposite" who are pei-petual- 
 ly belittling the country which is the birth- 
 place of many of us and the land we are 
 all proud to be associated with. Sir, we 
 are sometimes told that the National Policy 
 has developed the country, has kept our 
 people from leaving us, and has built up 
 in our midst industries that ha^e been of 
 advantage to our people. 
 
 There is just one thing to which I wish 
 to draw the attention of the House before 
 I conclude, and which I think does not quite 
 correspond with this statement. I refer 
 to the redistributions that have tiiken place 
 in my own province of Ontario and through- 
 out the Dominion generally. You will re- 
 member, Sir, that after the^' census of 1881, 
 when there was a Redistribution Act passed 
 in 1882, Ontario had so far advanced in 
 population and development that she was 
 entitled to four additional members. x»^. ^*- 
 toba had also grown in the short neri 1 
 between that and the time she wj^ .v,ii- 
 stituted a separate province, and ^ a y,r'^ 
 membiir added to her representation, and the 
 confederacy was entitled, by increase of 
 population, to five additional representa- 
 tives in the House of Commons. Ten years 
 of the National Policy passed over the coun- 
 try. We took the census of 1891, and we 
 came to the redistribution )of 1892, and 
 what did we find ? We found that in the 
 premier province of Ontario our population 
 
 had not gained at all, but had simply kept 
 step with that of the province of Quebec, 
 which is the standard province of confedera- 
 tion, and that if we had not gone back. ■ t 
 any rate w'e had not gainetl. This showed 
 conclusively that Ontario had not retained 
 her natiu'ai increase of population during 
 the ten ^oars of the National Policy, from 
 1881 to 1891. What was the case in the 
 other provinces ? Manitoba had gained two 
 members, showing that notwithstanding the 
 v-ealth that we had freely poured out, and 
 the temptations we had held to Europeans 
 to cor.ie and settle on the broad prairies of 
 the North-west, Manitoba was only able In 
 ten years to gain two additional represen- 
 tatives, whereas in five years, under the 
 old regime,/ she had gained one. How was 
 it with the maritime provinces ? Nova 
 Scotia was not able to retain her popula- 
 tion, and her contingent will come back 
 after the next election one member less. 
 New Brunswick will have two members less, 
 and the tight little Island of Prince Edward 
 —the little gem that iies out in the gulf by 
 itself, and there is no finer agricultural coun- 
 try on the continent— will have to content 
 itself with a reduction of one member. This 
 shows that in the aggregate the eastern 
 provinces by the sea have 1 >st population, 
 since they are not able to rf lain the number 
 of members they formed, had. British 
 Columbia was entitled" to nv increase. 
 
 As regards the province of Ontario what 
 are tlie facts ? Hon. gen', emeu opposite 
 boast of the build: fig up of our population 
 by the National PoHey, and point with pride 
 to the growth of some of the larger cities. 
 But, Sir, Toronto has grown at the expense 
 of the smaller towns and villages, within 
 forty miles of it, and the only part of Ontario 
 where the population has increased is the 
 new district of Algoma, and there the in- 
 crease is due to the development of its min- 
 ing industry. What was then the action taken 
 by the Government. They were in the posi- 
 tion that they had to redis^tribute some of the 
 constituencies in order to equalize the re- 
 presentation, whereas if the National Policy 
 had done all they promised it would, In- 
 stead of diminishing they would have re- 
 quired to increase the representation. Not 
 only would th3 older constituencies have 
 retained their representlhion, but they would 
 have increased it. Two of the older con- 
 stituencies, however, in the Niagara penin- 
 sula, had to be blotted out, and their record, 
 dating back to the early history of the pro- 
 vince disappears. By the action the Gov- 
 ernment took they might just as well have 
 papsed an act declaring that the part of my 
 constituency attached to North Brant should 
 rot vote at all. For what reason ? 
 In the constituency to which they are 
 attached, candidates of the party oppo- 
 site, during the last two general elections, 
 lest in both cases their deposit ; and for fear 
 the Liberal element of that constituency 
 
20 
 
 sbculd not continue to do that sort of thing, 
 we rtnd the Government adding to it a 
 section of another riding, which gave 350 
 of a Liberal majority at the last general 
 election. They did this to enable the elec- 
 tors to still make sure that any candidate 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite who would have 
 the temerity to again test that constituency, 
 would again lose his deposit. They might 
 just as well have passed an act declaring 
 that Conservatives and Liberals alike added 
 from North Wentworth should be deprived 
 of tlie right to vote because they were put 
 where their votes could not be successfully 
 used. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, you may change 
 the outlines of a constituency, you may 
 readjust your boundaries,- but you can- 
 not control the free and independent 
 electors who reside within those boundaries. 
 The population of Ontario, be they Conser- 
 vatives or Liberals, have at least minds of 
 their own ; and I shall be very much mis- 
 taken if the Government do not find, that 
 their policy has done nothing to strengthen 
 them in the estimation of the best thinking 
 
 I 
 
 men of the Niagara peninsula. You may 
 change these boundaries and adjust these 
 schemes, but the experience of hon. 
 gentlemen opposite in 1882 indicates that 
 the people are free in their choice 
 and will suit themselves when the time 
 comes. 
 
 I apologize to the House for the time I have 
 taken, and I thank the House for the kind at- 
 tention It has given my remarks. We are will- 
 ing to bear all the necessary burdens in order 
 to pay our debts and maintain our credit 
 and good name. We are willing to bear 
 the taxation imposed upon us to meet the 
 necessary expenditure of this country ; we 
 are willing to give our native industries 
 every benefit of that protection up to that 
 extent ; but for myself I am not willing that 
 any man should deliberately put his hand 
 i into my pocket and take more or less money 
 i out in order to bolster an institution that 
 I has not backbone enough to stand on its 
 I own legs, and I shall be found voting for 
 i the amendment of the hon. member for South 
 ; Oxford.