fiottse of C0mmons jBetiates FIFTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT SPEECHES OF» SIR RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. M.R ON THE BUDGET OTTAWA, r.ED AND 7th xMAY, 1895 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I thiuk every hon. gentleman who has had a seat In this House for a period of three years and upwards must have been very mucli struck by an extraordinary and unpre- cedented omission In the speech of the hon. gentleman. For the first time, certainly for the first time since he has been in the House and occupied his present position— I may say for the first time for the last six- teen years — a speech has been made on the Budget, and it has contained no laudation of the National Policy whatever. The poor, old fetish has been laid on the shelf, and none so low as to pay it reverence noAV. And I do not wonder at it. Like some other things with which the hon. gentleman Is acquainted. It has served its turn, it has been the ladder by which the hon. gentle- man and certain other parties have climbed to preferment, and now. I suppose it is going to be ignomlniously kicked down. There is another very curious thing In the hon. gentlemaa's speoch. Heretofore, ever since Sir Leonard Tilley came to the rescue of Sir John Macdonald, their doctrine has been that they made the people rich by imposing taxes. But now, there is a new departure. A change has come over the spirit of the hon. gentleman's dream, and he takes great credit for making people rich by tak- ing tnxes off. And there is a vast deal more to be said for his latter than for his former doctrine. Then there is another very curious admission— curious to me, but not so curious to those who have not been as long in the House as I have— it is the involuntary admission wrung from the hon. gentleman by the necessity of making a case. According to the hon. gentleman, the present crisis is a mere trifle compared with that which prevailed from 1873 to 1878. He is not altogether wrong about that. But it Is passing strange that the distinguished gentleman who preceded him and surround- ed him did not discover it before. It is true that the position, not of Canada, by^ any manner of means, but the position of the commercial world, notably the United States, was infinitely worse fro?Ti 1873 to 1878, than it Is to-day. So far, I agree with the hon. getleman. We had an Infinitely worse storm to weather, and we did weather ' Mr. FOSTER. What I did do was to give it without creating anything lilie the deficit the savings each year from 1890 to 1895. which the hon. gentleman has created. ; gj^. richard CAPTWRIGHT. And An hon. MEMBER. Oh; oh. . | you made that $4,900,000. r sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. The hon. gentleman had better wait until he hears what I have to say. Probably he does not know much of the financial historj' of Canada for the last twenty-five years, but before I have done he will have gained some information. Sir, during those three years of financial crisis which the hon. gen- tleman now tells us was worse than the one we are now passing through, our total deficit amounted to $4,500,000, whereas, this afternoon, the hon. gentleman has inform- ed the House that he expects to have that Identical sum as his deficit for the one year. There is another circumstance which it may be worth while to recall to the hon. gentleman. The whole of that deficit of $4,500,000, we extracted out of tne pockets of our neighbours on the other side of the line ; and let m& further tell the hon. gen- tleman that there is every reason to be- lieve that had he and his colleagues con- ducted the negotiations which were so ably conducted by Sir Albert Smith, with the aid of my hon. friend beside me, the chances are that Canada would not have received any of that four and a half million dollars, but, as happened in another transac- tion, would have had the pleasure of paying her own costs. Of these matters, I may have a little to say hereafter, as also concerning one statement which it would be un- parliamentary to call impudent, but which is undoubtedly a most absurd and mislead- ing statement, and that is tlae statement that these men, whose very creed and doc- ti'iue was that the way to make the peo- ple rich was by piling taxes on them, had materially lessened the burdens of taxa- tion. Before this debate is through I in- tend to prove— and if I were not to under- take it, there are fifty goo(. men and ■true on this side of the House able and willing to do so— that the actual taxation taken out of the pockets of the people is $00,000,000 a year, as agauist $20,000,00Q per year, which was all we ever exacted. The hon. gentleman boasts that he lessened the sugar duties. Well, if he did, it was not because of any goodwill of his or his colleagues to the people of Canada, but at the dictation of Mr. McKinley, and because the American Government had abolished them altogether. And, Sir, I noticed one curious fact. The hon. gentleman stated that he had made a saving of $4,900,000 a year on the sugar duties from 1890. ' ikir. FOSTER, I did not make any state- ment of that kind. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Then I will have to wait until we got " Hansard," bat I think every man here understood him to claim thut saving. Mr. FOSTER. I do not remember what the average was. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. That is what the hon. gentleman will find he said when he reads the report of his speech, un- less he has occasion to revise it. I find in the Trade and Navigation Returns of 1890, that all the duty we got was $2,- 800,000. If that be the case, there is a marked difference between the computa- tion of the hon. gentleman and tlie actual results. I am not going into minute cal- culations until I get the details of his new taxes before me, but I observe that the hon. gentleman is constant, in this respect, at any rate, to his old love, that in the matter of sugar he proposes to take $3,000,000 a year out of the pockets of the people, and only allow $1,200,- 000 to go into the treasury. The hon. gentleman boasted that in these five years the savings of the people had increased $41,000,000. It is not always a good sign, let me tell him, to find that the savings of the people have accumulated in banks. It is sometimes an evidence that the people find themselves so deprived of legitimate opportunities for investment that they are glad to take three to three and a half per cent rather than put their money into » legitimate enterprises. The hon. gen- tleman took good care to say nothing of the reduction of $200,000,000, and up- wards, which has taken place in the last few years in the value of farm property in Ontario alone. If he had been actively con- cerned in these matters from 1873 to 1878, he would have remembered that whatever might be the distress that prevailed in those years, whenever there was a farm in the market for sale, in the greater part of the province of Ontario, at any rate, there were a half a dozen buyers. To-day, the re- verse holds, there are too often half a dozen farms for sale and not one buyer, and al- though there may be millions lying idle in th j savings banks and other banks, the owners cannot be persuaded to invest their money in tlie purchase of farm property. However, I am not here for the purpose of bandying charges with the hon. gentleman. I desire to llscuss, and to discuss at length, a much more serious qusetion, the present position of this country. I do not care to recall the Jeers of hon. gentlemen opposite at deficits in times past. I do not think we will hear so much of these either on the hustings or In the House for some time to come. But I have this to say to the hon. gentleman, that there are now two distinct and separate subjects for discussion. I propose to deal with those apart. One of those concerns the existing financial situation, and the methods of dealing with it. The other is the fiscal policy of the Government, and its results. Now, I have never contended, and the hon. gentleman was perfectly right in that, that it was in the power of any Government, by adopting a particular fiscal policy, to avert disaster. Disaster may come whether you have a free trade policy or a protective policy ; but I always con- tended that while a Government could not, by its legislative action, avert disaster, a Government might, and very often does, to an enormous extent, intensify it. Sir, the fiscal and administrative policy of the Government, I will admit, are not neces- sarily connected together. The one may be good and the other may be bad. And the reverse may occur. But, generally, you find that the two go together. A wise fiscal policy usually means a prudent administra- tion ; an unwise fiscal policy usually means directly the reverse. Nobody who has watched the affairs of Canada for some time back will suppose that there is any marked difference between the fiscal policy and the administrative policy of Canada. At present they are unlovely in their lives, and I trust they will not be divided in their approaching death. No policy could well be more flagrantly unjust than that of which the hon. gentleman has often been the exponent, nor could any administration of public affairs be more deliberately or purposely corrupt than we know, too well, has been the administration of the Government of which the hon. gentleman is a member. And now. Sir, first of all, I desire to ascer- tain what is our real position ? What is the deficit ? The hon. gentleman admitted under stress of circuiUstJ'nccs that the de- ficit amounted, he thought, to about four millions and a half. That is to say. Sir, if things go well, if the ho)i. geutlomaa gets as much in the next two months as he did in the same months of 1894, if he does not spend as much in the ne'Jit two mouths as he himself estimated he would be likely to spend, and particularly if he gei;s a little money out of his new taxation, why then possibly the deficit may not exceed $4,500,000. Well, Sir, that is a possibility. I do not know whether he will succeed Jn anticipated a little revenue ; I do not know whether he will succeed in pushing off a few payments until next year ; but what I do know is that the hon. gentleman's estimates, even without the additional estimates which he has not yet given us, are $922,000 more than the sum actually expended in 1893-94. We all know that we wound up the year 1893-94 with a deiicit of $i,::10,000; and we know that the failuri' in revenue down to the 1st of May, which the hon. gentleman did not give, amounts to $2,838,- 788, while our expenditure up to 1st May ex- ceeded our expenditure for the last year by $705,413. Now, Sir, these figures- and this is at least as good as the hou. gentle- si u 11 c U man's hypothesis— show that there is to-day an actual ascertained deficit of $4,754,520. However, Sir, I am not very greatly con- cerned about that, whether tlie deficit be four millions and a half, as he says it will be, or whether it be four millions and three-quar- ters, as the public returns would seem to indicate it is. Whether it may be one or two, or three hundred thousand dollars, more or less, by the 1st of .Inly, is not a matter of very great moment. It is sulll- cient for us, to know that .jy tlie hon. gentleman's own admission— and he certain- ly did not exaggerate the chances - the deficit amounts to four and one lialf millions. Now, Sir, I want to call attention to what has become of the last loan. I am not going, at this moment, to discuss the loan itself. I think the hon. gentleman made a g<.000,000— if I recollect aright -were liabili- ties in the shape of subsidies current which the estimates would provide for L-acU year, as they have done in past years. That is, they would be met out of consolidated re- venue. Then there were the subsidies and expenditures that have not been so provided fov, railway subsidies and others ; making nine millions odd to be met from capital. There are six million dollars in round num- bers, that run over appropriations that are made in the Estimates each year, and have been running for the past three or four years, and they mature between this and 1908. Then for capital expe diture, ther'j are nine million dollars. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. And we have not been paying out of our ordinary revenue any such sum during the lasc two years, we have not been paying r.ny of these sums which ordinarily go to capital account out of our ordinarj' expenc'iture. Mr. FOSTER. Steamship subsidies do not go to capital account. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. What steamship companies ? Mr. FOSTER. The Australian steamship subsidy, the China and Japan steamship subsidy. Sir RICHARD CARTVvRIQHT. Oh, those are the things which make U] the six 'nillions ? Mr. FOSTER. Those iud some others. Sir RICIJARD CARTWRIGHT. Then I will just give the hoa. gentleman's state- ment as I make it, fujd he can correct it. The ilinister of Railways, in reply to me the other day gave the total railway sub- sidies which we had to provide for at $8,- 729,000. That, I presume, is correct. The hon. Minister gave the estimated cost of St. Lawrence Canals ; those are clearly a capital charge. Mr. FOSTER. Yes. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I think it may be a qaestiou whether railway sub- sidies ought to go to capital account. The St. Lawrence canals are to consume, at least, ^0,000,000. The hon. gentleman will see that has nothing to do with mail subsidies or any- thing like that. Now, I assume, judging from The past— and that is the only way we can judge— that the capital expenditure on the Interc'jlonial Railway account is likely, in the next year or two, to run up to about a million dollars. I shall be very glad if they do not. but looking to the past, I am afraid we have little ground for hoping to escape with less than $1,000,0(X». Then the hon. i gentleman has entirely omitted an import- i ant factor, he has omitted the fa?t that there is a certain Trent Valley Canal now again \ put under contract. It was asserted a year i or so ago that this was likely to cost $5,000,- i 000. Are we to understand that is elimin- ated from his programme? I do not so under- stand the Minister of Railways, who, the other evening told us that one contract for $500,000 bad been let on account ; and if those figures of mine are correct, then, apart, from the $6,000,000 which the hon. gentle- man 'ipoke about— there is about $20,729,- 000 to be provided foi-— unless, of course, as I say, the Trent Valley Canal is entirely abandoned. If it be, let us understand it ^o. But that was not the 5^tatement made by the Ministei- of Railways, that was not the statement made to us lasit year, that was not the belief entertained by the in- habitants of several constituencies through which the canal passes. Nor did the hon. gentleman, so far as I understand him, say anything to us at all about such enterprises as the Chiguecto road. Am I to understand that is abandoned, or does that remain a liability pending ? Mr. FOSTER. I presume that is no lia- bility. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGI^T. Then does the hon. gentleman intend it shall be- come a liability at any future time ? Mr. FOSTER. Don't ask too much, now. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I think now we have a right to know. Now is the time when we ought to know, when we ought to be informed as to all these con- tingent liabilities. What about the Chig- necto road ? What is it to cost ? $80,000 a year, or $ia),000 a year, or $120,000 a year ? Mr. BOWERS. $170,500. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Is that a contingent liability or not ? The hon. gen- tleman says it is not a liability now, but Ave have a right to know whether he in- tends to exorcise the ghost and get rid of it altogether, or is it to rise up again in judg- ment against us, either before or after the next general election ? Mr. FOSTER. Don't invoke it. '\ Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I under- stand there are parties here now anxiously inquiring about the Chignecto road, and we ought to know. Nor did the hon. gentleman, who came here having promised to make a full and a nple statement, so far as I notice, say one word abont a certain statutory lia- bility of $750,OC a year for the Atlantic Fast Service. What of that ? Is that a liability, present or contingent ? What has tlie hou. gentleman got to say about that ? Mr. FOSTER. It is not a present liability, certainly. Sir RICHAKD CARTWRIGHT. Well, the hon. gentleman had better take it off the statute-book, or it may bee< lue one, and he had better do it quickly. The hon. gentle- man had. no doubt, a difficult task this evening, axid. therefore, I am not surprised that tliese little trifles of Ti-ert Valley Can- als, Cliignecto Roads and Atlantic Fast Ser- vices, which, after all said and done, do not mean more than one and a half millions added to our annual expenditure at the out- side—I am not surprised that they have not attracted his attention as much as they have onrs. But there are other things that we have a right to know about. What has the hon. gentleman to tell us about the contribution to the Hudson Bay Railway ? Is that a contingent liability ? Is that a liability which is to accrue ? Are we to pay that or are we not ? Surely the hon. gentleman will see the propriety, when we fire estimating our liabilities, of letting us know. What has the hon. gentleman to say about that Hudson Bay Road ? Is it a lia- bility contingent ? Is it a present liability, or u future liability, or a deferred liability ? ]Mr. FOSTER. I do not wish to interrupt the hou, gentleman's speech. Let him go on. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Well, it is pertinent to the proposition. The hon. gentleman told us he Avould make a full, free and frank statement— those were his words— within a very few days. Now I ask for a full, free and frank statement, and particularly on so important a question as a grant which mpy ultimately come to in- volve ten times the amount, as he knows. What lias he to say about the Hudson Bay Railway ? Mr. FOSTER. That will be for Parlia- ment to determine. ". Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. And the leader of the House cannot tell. Does not the hon, gentleman know that Parliament can vote no money grants, except at the in- stance of the Crown, on a statement con- veyed to us here by a minister of the Crown ? Now, I think, in all conscience, after the pledge which the hon. gentleman gave us, he can hope to gain nothing by invoking— I won't say invoking— but he can hope to gain nothing by concealing their in- tentions. Surely we have a right to know, when we are here in debate on the financial state of the country, what our liabilities are. It is very evident that if the statement be correct, if the Chignecto Road be not en- tirely removed, if the Atlantic service be still a statutory obligation, and If we have got the Hudson Bay road to provide for— I say it is very evident indeed that the hou. gentleman has enormously underst^^ted the existing present liabilities of the country. Well, Sir, I will give the hon. gentleman time. I hope that with reflection Mr. FOSTER. All will come out in time. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT— the pro- ix>r time to acquaint the Parliament of Can- ada with all the liabilities which Canada owes, is when the Minister of Finance makes bis financial statement. Mr. FOSTER. If the hou. gentleman puts it in that way, so far as that railway is con- cerned, the hon. gentlemaui and the House have been informed of all the liabilities, and he knows perfectly well what liabilities have been incurred. If any other measures are to be brought down by the Government in the course of the session, the hon. gentle- man will then become acquainted with them; but the hon. gentleman has no right to stand up in his place to-night and, because he is discussing the Budget, want to know before hand all the measures that the Gov- ernment are going to bring down. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I am in my right, the House is in its right, the Op- position is in its right, in demanding that the Government should not conceal things from us, in demanding that the Government should tell us what the obligations are. The hon. gentleman, Sir, .made a formal pledge here three or four days ago that he would make a full and honest statement of all the obligations of the country at this time, Mr. FOSTER, You have got it. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Now. on a question which involves two millions and a half directly, and which may involve $25,000,000 for ought we know, the hon. gen- tleman has not a word to say. Well, Sir, the country will judge who has kept his promise to the country and to the House. Now, what is the general result/ The general result is that we have a deficit ranging from ^^4,500.000 to $5,000,000 ; that our cash in hand is barely adequate to meet our current needs, and hardly that, remembering, as I pointed out the other night, that over and above bills payable, we have in addition some $40,000,000 borrowed at call, from the people of Canada, for which we ought to keep a respectable reserve. It is very clear that instead of having $9,000,000 of ascertained liabilities, and a number of items scattered here and there which are to be paid within the next half dozen years, our ascertained liabilities are som ithing like $20,000,000, not including those statu- tory charges to whicU I have alluded, and which would amount to very nearly a mil- lion dollars a year more added to our fixed charges for many years. Now, Sir, the Min- ister proposes two things, he proposes to make certain additions to the taxation, with which I will deal at a later period. He pro- poses certain retrenchments, a few of which, perhaps, may be good as far as they go, but which I am afraid we must characterize rather as sham retrenchments than real ones. One thing at any rate is certain, and it is worth noting, one of those points which, as tho hon. gentleman said, it is well the House should bear in mind. There are seme increases and there are some reduc- tions, but the increases have most unques- tionably coine to stay, while as to the re- ductions, I fear they ave essentially of a temporary chai-acter. Why, Sir, I look at the Public Works, m\<\ I Irsok at Militia, and I And that of his $1,600,000 of reduction, $1,325,000 occur in these two branches alone. Well, we have had sorael experience in the past as to the value of the hon. gentleman's promises of retrenchment and economy, and as to the extent to which his colleagues al- low him to carry out his promises. But who Is there to tell us that next year we won't see huge supplementary estimates broughl down, and that we won't see all these things very much as they wei'e before ? Sir, the hon. gentleman, in talking of these Esti- mates, took occasion to say that there was not much fear, he thought, of their being equalled. Now, Sir, that may be true, possibly, ia a certain sense. It may be true enough that the total volume of the Estimates after the Supplementary Estimates have been added, are not exceeded during the current year. But I have here the original Estimates for 1893-94, and it is worth while calling the attention of the House to them. They amounted to $36,- 560,000. That was the original estimate, which he says is rarely spent. I think the Public Accounts will show that while the estimate was $36,500,000, he spent some- thing like $37,500,000. I think the expendi- ture of last year, unless my memory is wholly at fault, was not less than that sum. Mr. FOSTER. It was less than the esti- mate. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. No. I do not mean to say, however, that it was not less than the ultimate estimate. We are not dealing with that question. The pre- sent question is, can the hon. gentleman's original and main Estimate be depended on ? Here is one sample : Estimates amounting to $36,500,000, and an actual expenditure of one million more than the hon. gentleman's main estimate. Mr. FOSTER. But it was a great deal less than the total Estimates. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. It may be less than the aggregate Estimates, be- \ cause the hon. gentleman had the very bad pi*actice, which he has promised he is not going to repeat, but which I am afraid will require some strong collateral guarantee to be produced here to ensure that he will keep his promise in the long run, of having his main Estimates largely below his ultimate Estimates for a given year. Then another grave question on which we may have a great deal more to say before the session closes, is as to what is the condition of the Intercolonial Railway. We know perfectly well that it is possible always in conducting a railway so to manage it as to appear to make both ends meet, but at the expense of materially injuring the permanent char- acter of the work. We have had a rather bitter experience on the Intercolonial Rail- way as to its capacity for sinking more capital from time to time, and while I shall make no positive statement, not having the knowledge myself, I am bound to tell the House, and I have it on authority which I do not think it entirely safe to disregard, that there is very great danger that a lar amount of capital may be required frca before we are c ay years older to the Intercolonial Kailway in as good ■ u- dition as it was a few years ago. at I point out is this : To all appeara. js the funds are out, to all appearances the hon. gentleman must borrow again, to all appear- ances the hon. gentleman's loan must be repeated, either in the shape of a temporary loan, which I suppose he could make, of a few millions in England, or in the shape of a permanent loan, and that before he is twelve months older. Sir, the hon. gentle- man did me the honour to contrast the de- ficits of 1876, 1877 and 1878. with the de- ficits which now exist. But he took ex- tremely good care not to tell the House the reasons why those deficits existed at all. I will tell the House. Those deficits of 1876-- 77 and 1878 existed because, in opposition to our strenuous protests, in opposition to the most vigorous dennnciatio:is we could make, the Government of the late Sir John Macdonald in 1873, under very peculiar cir- cumstances, which I will not wring the feel- ings of hon. gentlemen opposite further by alluding to, increased the public expenditure by $4,000,000, not providing one cent of tax- ation to meet it ; and because at the same time (and it was admitted by Sir Leonard Tilley in his Budget speech, which I have under my band), they further added $60,000,000 to the public liabilities, for t.io greater part of which we had to provide and for which they made no provision what- ever. The hon, gentleman talks of ilie fact that the net debt increased under our Ad- ministration. When you inherit liabilities of $60,000,000 which your predecessors inflicted on the country and for which they made no provision, how is a succeeding Administra- tion, I should like to know, to avoid adding six or eight millions annually for some years to come to the existing debt ? Now, Mr. Speaker, as to one expectation on which the hon. gentleman laid great stress, and that is as to the expectation of better times. Well, Sir, I hope, and every mem- ber in this House will hope, for pri- vate reasons if not for public ones, that this expectation may be realized. But allow me to tell the hon. Firance Min- ister that there are no very solid grounds on which he can base his financial calcu- lations in this regard. The immediate pros- pects, I am afraid, are very uncertain in- deed. They wiil depend on causes whoUj- beyond the hon. gentleman's control. They will depend, in the first place, and he knows it well, on the trade conditions in the United States ; and it is worth while observing how ready those hon. gentlemen are now to ad- mit that the prosperity of Canada is most intimately connected with the prosperity of the United States, that it is very hard in- deed for Canada to prosper when the United States are depressed, that if a wave of de- pression sweeps over the United States it almost invariably within a short space of time sweep>! over Canada too, and which, perhaps, the hon. gentleman has not seen quite as clearly as he should have done, and that, although such a wave maj' not over- take us quite as soon as the United States, it is very apt to remain a little longer with us. That is one cause over which the hon. gentleman can exercise no control. Another cause is this. The prosperity of Canada, which is chiefly an agricultural country, de- pends, as everybody knows, largely on the prices of food products, meats and cereals. Those will be regulated by competition, over which we have no control. We have had to face the competition of India, and the competition of the Argentine Republic ; we are now threatened with the competition of Australasia, and by a refinement of gener- osity the Government of Canada are con- templating making considerable grants for the purpose of enabling Australian farmers to compete more favourably at our expense in the great markets of the world and with Canadian products. I desire to be on friendly terms, heaven knows, not merely with all our brother and sister colonies, but for the matter of that, in trade matters with the whole world, if I could ; but it is not part of the policy of the Liberal party to tax the people of Canada for the purpose of benefiting people whose products enter into direct competition with oui-s. Now, Sir, one thins is very ciM-t;un, altbon-ih the hon. gen- tleman does not appear to understand It, but I think that some of his financial advisers should, and I think they ouL'ht to have made him awai'e of the fact. We have heard a great deal of the surpluses the hon. gen- tleman has possessed in times past — on that point I shall have a word or two to say pre- sentl.y— but it is clear that for many years back the people of Canada have been, to a very great extent, living on capital, and the hon. gentleman— and this ran all through his speech— has mistaken, as many others have done, the results of spending huge sums of bcrrowetl money for increase in our legitimate income. Sir, the two things are very widely distinct. The hon. gentle- I man boasts, boasts very loudly of all the i former surpluses that he has had. i He seems I to think that the existence of a surplus half i a dozen years ago is ample warrant for har- i ing a deficit taday. Well, the hon. gentle- 1 man, no doubt, being a professor of litera- I ture, is a student of Shakespeare. Let me I remind him of a certain passage there : i Oh, who Is there can hold a fire in his hand I By thinking on the frosty Caucasues, Or wallow naked in December's snow By dreaming of fantastic simmer's heat,. Or cloy the hungry edge o> .ppetite By bare imagination of a feast ? Or to bring it down nearer to the level of the Minister of Finance. Who is there — Can to a surplus turn a deficit By saying : Some poor clerk had thus it writ. as the Minister of Finance did in the " Offt- cial Gazette" a little while ago. Nov, Sir, how are these sui-pl'ises obtained. Ihat is a question to ask the House, and that is a question my friends had better ask the electors, too. They were obtained in two ways. They were obtained partly, at least the surplus revenues were obtained by the outrageous taxation imposed by the Govern- ment ; taxation which always took two dol- lars for one, which often took ten dollars for one, out of the pockets of the people ; and they were obtained also partly by a system of perpetual loans. That is a very important factor in our position. The hon. gentleman has talked largely and loudly of the In- creased deposits, but not a word out of the hon. gentleman's mouth, not a whisper from the hon. gentleman's lips about the vastly inci'eased indebtedness of Canada as com- pared with the period between 1873 and 1S79. The hon. gentleman has now and heretofore wholly ignored that most import- ant fact What is the present indebtedness ; and, mind you, by the indebtedness of Can- ada, I do not mean barely and solely the indebtedness owed by Canada in her Fede- ral capacity ; I mean our Federal debt, I mean our provincial debt, I mean our muni- cipal debt, I mean nur private debt due abroad, and I mean also the sam due by us for railway bonds and obligations. Now, I have been at some pains to find out as correctly a.s I could— the statistics do not allow of my doing it altogether— what that amounts to, and I venture to say to the House that if you take into account railway- bonds and stocks as well, that the total pre- sent indebtedness of Canada, the collective ndebtedness to parties abroad, must be some- where in the neighbourhood of $800,000,000 tc^ $1,000,000,000, and the annual amount interest S2.").000,000 or .$80,000,000 a yescr. That is a very important fact, indeed i it is a fact which the Finance Minister has wholly ignored, but it is a fact which I am afraid in the future we will not find it quite so easy to ignore. Then tlie hon. gen- tleman, in another part of his speech, tells us that we are so veiy much better oft r than other people. Well, if it be true that we are vejry much better off than other peo- ple, it Is ia very ixwr consolation for us to find oui-selves in the position we are now In. However, I have grave doubts that the hon. gentleman's statement is correct. I know quite well that there are many parts of Cana'Jfi, possessing great natural re- sources, where the people possess vci-y con- sidei-able amounts of accumulated wealth, and I kuow perfectly well that in tiioso parts the pressure of hard times and the consequences of the depression has not been felt as much as it has elsewhere. But, Sir, taking it as a whole, I know two things. I know that the great mass of the people of Canada, and notably the agriculturists, were vastly better off between the years 1873 and 1878 than between the yeai-s 1890 and 189.5 ; and I have the strongest grounds for believing that were a fair and honest account struck, were you to place on one side all the evidences that the lion, gentle- man has given of accumxilated wealth, and on the other the inciease of our debt, to which I have alluded, and the shrinkage in the valutj of our farms and town properties, it is clear that Canada would come out hun- dreds of millions of dollars the worse, on an honest calculation as a result of the last twelve years. Sir. one thing is true. Canada does possess and always has pos- sessed a considerably better banking system than our neighbours, and that enables* Can- ada to 1 '^ar or break the force of the blow at first. But. Sir. the real difference is this : The one case is chronic and the other is acute, and we have been slowlv bleeding away for years and years. In the case of the United States, when a crisis comes it i- very shan). I grant you, but it lasts for a comparatively short time. Now, Sir, to my mind, the case really lies in a nutshell. Two processes have been going on for these many years. One of these processes has been a huge expenditure of borrowed money dur- ing the past 12 or l."> years. Take it alto- gether, and bearing it in mind that T am speaking of the collective expenditure. I am speaking of the expenditure on railways and by municipalities, I am speaking of the money which has been borrowed and brought into the country by loan compan- ies, and I am speaking of the moneys bor- rowed by private persons and corporations, and I say. taking it altogether, there is very strong ground for believing that it was on an average about $30,000,000 a year. Now. that no doubt did cause large importations of dutiable goods. As every one knows, when money is borrowed it is hot sent over to Canada in hard coin, but It is sent over in money's worth in the shape of goods, and usually dutiable goods, and no doubt for years and years that brought a large revenue. To-day wa arr called upon t*^ ^ay the interest, and the 10 or 12 million dollars a year, which we have to pay through the medium of the GJovern- ment, is only a small part, only a part, at any rate, of the total sum ,t interest which Canada has to pay. Sir, had we got value for our money, had that money been in- vested in works which were really useful and which really added to the productive powers of Canada, the case would not have been so bad. If it would have been pos- sible for us to have bormwed $800,000,000 or $1,000,000,000, if you will, and we sliould have been able to pay the interest largely out of the profits arising from tiose works. But it is only too well known to any one who knows anything of Canada, that an enormous amount of money which was borrowed has been wasted, aye and worse than wasted, for a very consid- erable part of it has gone to debauch and corrupt the people of Canj„da, Now, I was pleased to hear the hon. gentleman— it is a matter in which I am entirely in accord with him— I was pleased to hear the hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech, ex- press himself in high approbation of that very i-eliable and conservative newspaper, the London " Economist." I want to call his attention to a very late issue of that reliable and highly Conservative newspaper, under date 23rd ]Nfarch, 189.">, and here is one item which he would do well to note as one among the many proofs of the great general prosperit^'^ which Canada is now ex- periencing and has experienced from 1890 to 1895. Curiously enough. Sir. this ai*ticle, which relates to the deprecia- tion of North and South American securities, starts from 1890 and comes down to the present day ; and this is what is says : That a careful examina- tion, comparing the mai'ket values of to-day with those of five years ago, shows that the loss to English investors in Canadian rail- way securities amounts to £16,750.000 sterling. Rather more than $80,000,000 loss, according to the London " Economist," that reliable and conservative newspaper, accrued to the holders of Canadian railway securities within five years— the five years which the hon. gentleman chose to select as having shown how well Canada had prospered : and here. Sir, is a little sentence to which he and his f rends would do well to pay attention : . , ;• r,i Moreover, and this is not pleasant to say, the Canadians have not been overscrupulous in their dealings with the mother country. A number of " wildcat " railway schemes have been exploitod at our expense, while in some cases investors have suffered from the fact that the undertak- ings in which they have placed their capital were regarded as aliens, entitled neither to considera- tion nor fair management. Surely, Sir. the London " Economist " can- not have been listening to the statements of the Opposition as to the Caraquet railway and a great m.any other roads of a similar character, here and there, which have con- tributed to make our railway p'-curities stand far less well in the London market r li. than we desa'e to see them. Then, Sir, there is another cause which has contributed very considerably, and that is tlie great waste which has undoubtedly occurred under the operation of the National Policy. At the direct instigation, if not of the hon. gentle- man, at all events of his predecessors, a number of unfortunate men in this country were induced to put their all into enter- prises which it was belived would enrich themselves as well as the public. We know too well that there is scarely a town in On- tario which cannot to-day point to two or three monumental ruins where some $100,- 000, $200,000, or $300,000, of capital are emtombed, never, I fear to be resur- rected. That was one process which was going on, and notably during the time when the hon. gentleman thought we were doing exceedingly well. Then, there was another process to which I thought ao would have alluded to-day, as it would have af- forded him a fair reason for some of the things he had to justify or excuse. Simul- taneously with the borrowing of these enor- mous sums of money on which we have to pay interest, there was a great fall in the ."ncome of our agriculturists. Scarcely a single farm product, except perhaps cheese, bi'ings anything like as good a price to-day as it did in 1878. Many of them bear scarcely half the value in the market that they did then. My computation is that the loss in the income of our agriculturists to- day is fully $20,000,000 a year as compared with their income of a few years ago. I will not go back even so far as 1878. Why, Sir, every man knows that wheat of the very best quality, not to speak of barley and other grains, has to be sold in our markets for scarcely half the price which was freely obtained fifteen or sixteen years ago ; and, while that may not be entirely the fault of hon. gentlemen opposite, still it must be borne in mind that, while on all occasions they are ready to take credit to themselves for every cheapness, no matter how" obtain- ed, in manufactured articles, they wholly and entirely decline to be responsible for any reduction in the price of grain. Let them be Just, Sir ; and if they claim to he the authors of this increased cheapness of other commodities, let them stand before agricultural audiences and admit, as they are in honour bound to do, that they are equally responsible for the enormous fall in the prices of agricultural products. And here. Sir, I may pause to say a word or two with respect to this matter of surpluses. In the first place, I have never admitted, and I do not now admit, that the hon. gentlemen's book-keeping has been such as to entitle them to claim credit for anything like the amount of the suri)luses which they have put down. But it is a very remarkable fact that all the time that these surpluses were piling up, our debt was likewise increasing very fast. I will go back a little further than the hon. gentleman did, and take the period of 1880. I find that our net debt in- creased in that year $9,500,000 ; in 1881, $3,- 000,000 ; in 1S83. $4,800,000 ; in 1884, $^^.- 700,000 ; in 1885. $14,000,000 ; in 1886, | 700,000 ; in 1887, $4,000,000 ; in 1888, *.,- 000,000, and then it came down to a mild $3,000,000 in 1889. It is almost juggling with words, Mr. Speaker, to say that the ^on. gentlemen opposite ai-e entitled to any great credit for the increasing suipluses, while all the time— surpluses to the contrary notwith- standing, and making all allowances for the sum that went into the sinking fund— our net debt went oii increasing at such a rate that iu ten years it was $90,000,000 more than it was when I left office. Now, I am not disposed at present to raise the question of the amount of additional taxation which has been taken from the people over and above what goes into the treasury. That may be more fittingly disposed of later on. But a point which I have to make— and I think it is well worthy of our conslvlera- tion— is that when the hon. gentleman talks su glibly of the certainty of better times, he forgets to inform the House of three im- portant facts— first, that he has a large amount of undischarged liabilities ; next, that the country collectively has a great deal more to pay than it had f- few years ago ; and, unfortunatelj', that the collect- ive income of the country is very much less than it was. The hon. gentleman looks for a quick rally. Well, I would be very glad to believe that he is right. It is very mucli to our interest that there should be a quick rally ; but I would like to know if he ex- pects an immediate rally in the prices of food and grain, and if so, why ? If he does, I could understand the reason on which he bases his expectation of better times. I did not hear him assign one solitary reason for expecting that there would be any great improvement in the prices of our agricul- tural products. If the hon. gentleman does expect any such improvement, I would like to hear him say— and I will give him the fioor with pleasure for that pui-pose- why he does expect it. Does the hon. gentleman expect to see new sources of wealth de- velop, and, if so, where ? It is possible, in a countrj' so large and so imperfectly ex- plored as ours, that new sources of wealth may be discovered, from which we may re- ceive considerable additions to our national income ; but, if the hon. gentleman has dis- covered such new sources, he has given us no more information about them than he has given about his intention with regard to the Hudson Bay Railway. My counsel to the hon. gentleman is this, that he had better not prophesy unless he knows ; he had better accept the situation as it is ; he had better not c^^nnt too fast or too surely on any great a ount of betterment. He had better take ihings as they are revealed :•' the Public Accounts to-day. I can hardly think the hon. gentleman justi- fied in predicting an immediate recovery as 10 probable, and I would just call the bon. geiDtleman's attention to this. The hon. gentleman alluded, and it was natural that he i should, to the period of deficits whi(!h existed under our Administration, Now it is \5rorth while to observe that within the lasti thirty years there have been several perjods of deficits in Canada, I took oc- casion the other evening to mention the fact In reply to my hon. friend beside me, that although he was literally correct in saying that the Finance Minister had achiev- ed the biggest absolute deficit, he had by no means achieved the biggest comparative de- ficit that has been known in old Canada. I have here a statement of the deficits whicli prevailed in old Canada from 1858 to 1S65. In 1858— and I suppose the hon. gentleman knows who was Premier in 1858 ? An hon, MEMBER, Who supported him ? Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I had not the honour of being in Parliament in 1858, and I have no objection to tell my hon. friend opposite that I had the honour of being elected to Parliament, as an independ- ent member, in 18(33, nor had I given any adhesion whatever to Sir John Macdonald. On the contrary, all I said in his favour was this, that he was too clever a man to be absolutely proscribed. However, we will come to 1863 presently. In 1858, there was a deficit of $3,375,000 on a total income of $5,270,000, being a deficit of just Go per cent in said income, so that I was pretty well justified in stating that the Finance Minister might take comfort from illustrious example. In 1859, the same distinguished geniloman had a deficit of $1,500,000, which was equivalent to exactly 22 per cent. In 1860, there was a deficit of $1,- 973,000, l)eing equivalent of 20 per cent. He kept up the 26 per cent to 1861, and raised it to 28 per cent in 1862. It fell to 10 per cent in 1863, under the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald, and thereafter gradually diminished. The point I wish specially to call the attention of the hon, gentleman to Is this, that he had better not conclude too hastily that all these deficits Avill disappear at once. That has not been our past experience. On the con- trary, deficits have usually lasted for a con- siderable period of time, and I would not advise him to depend on any betterment or to be content with the somewhat inade- quate provision which he seems to think sufficient for present purposes. Therefore, I think that the hon. gentleman is doubly bound —bound by his own promise, bound by the condition in which the country is to-day,— to give this House a most full and complete statement of the liabilities for which he ex- pects to have to provide. That, Sir, I must again formally demand. I say, and I leave the matter for his calm reflection, that be- foi'e this debate closes, we should in all conscience know what is the total amount cf our liabilities, what are his intentions ■\vith regard to such projects as the Chig- necto Ship Railwa y. the Fast Atlantic Steam Service, and the lj.iidson Bay Railway, As I understand, he is pledged not to bring down any railway subsidies this year. He does not propose to engage in any Govern- ment works other than those of which we have had notice. If he does, all I can say is that he is trifling with the Jouse, and 1 think with his own character and reputation. If, after the statement he has made, he allows this Budget debate to close without giving us full information on those points, he is now deliberately misleading the House. As I said before, the Opposition in this matter are in their clear right ; and I am bound to say that if the Opposition deserves censure, they deserve it for having in past times allowed the Government to bring down, at the very fag end of the session, Estimates involving large appropriations of money which had not been referred to in the financial statement, and for having allowed those subsidies to go through the House without proper discussion. Such practice was wholly in defianv^e of all sound principle, English precedent, and constituti- onal rule. Now, I have never declared, and my hon, friends have never declared, that we were disposed to oppose all grants because the Government propose them. But I do say that the hon, gentleman is bound, in every possible form and shape, to tell us before this debate closes, absolutely and exactly what are the financial liabilities of the coun- try and for what sums the Government in- tend to ask the concurrence of Parliament. Now, as I am aware that the hon. gentle- man must get his motion through, and at any rate as we have not had yet an oppor- tunity of inspecting his proposals— I have not even seen them but only heard them read- 1 do not feel disposed to discuss the proposals at present. And therefore, par- ticularly as the House has listened with ex- treme indulu'once to me and has had a very long and interesting discourse from the hon, gentleman, lasting two hours and a half, I would prefer to move the adjournment of the debate rather than proceed with the somewhat voluminous remarks which I fear I will have to Inflict on him with respect to the enlarged duties. 11 OTTAWA. TUESDAY, Trn MAY, 18-J5. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Under other circumstances, I would probably feel it my duty to apologize for the length of time which I have already occupied, or may possibly have to occupy, in dealing with the hon. gentleman's speech on Friday last As it happens the hon. gentleman on that occasion introduced a great deal of irrelevant matter— in point of fact the hon. gentleman seems to have mistaken the oc- casion of the Budget statement for an oppor- tunity to make a campaign speech— and he has, therefore, only himself to thank if, on the present .occasion, the debate goes ovei' rather wider limits and occupies a long- er time than might otherwise be requisite. Now, I do not at all dispute the fact that it was very natural for a Finance Minister situated as the hon. gentleman is sitr ted, to attempt a diversion. It has been the un- happy fate of the hon. gentleman, in con- nection with his late attempt at revision of the tariff, and also in connection with his present large deficit, to have been obliged to consume an enormous amount of crow ; and consequently it is not unnatural that the hon. gentleman should think that it might be as well to take every opportunity that presented itself to divert atten- tion from those matters that ought more particularly to engage our attention to-day. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman came before us on Friday— to do what ? It was his duty, in the first place, to explain to us the cause of the biggest deficit that has ever existed in our financial history since confederation, with the solitary exception of the deficit caused by the North-west rebellion. It was likewise his duty to in- form us fully and fairly of our present posi- tion and to make a full statement of all the liabilities of Canada, present and con- tingent, a thing which the House and the country has a right to expect at his hands at this time. Tliat is what I conceive the lion, gentleman ought to have done. What the hon. gentleman in point of fact did was this— deducting the padding, of which I do not «com plain, because it is always cus- tomary for the Finance Minister to review a number of facts which are already lieforo the House through the medium of the Public Accounts and the Trade and Navi- gation Returns— but, deducting the pad- ding, three-quarters of the hon. gentle- man's speech were devoted to a series of garbled and misleading assertions— I cannot call them Statements— touching deficits which occurred nearly twenty years ago. Sir, the object was plain. As I said, under tlie circumstances it was quite an object for the hon. gentleman to divert at- tention from his umk'u deficit and liabilities. I am obliged to pay a little more attention to those statements for the sin^ple reason that I am aware that all over the country j^ statements made by the Finance Minister j in his Budget speech are accepted by those I among his followers who have not the op- I portunity of hearing the reply as a good deal j more authentic than ordinary statem^ents • made by Ministers here or elsewljere. Rightly or wrongly. Sir, the Budget speech has come to be looked to as a sort of state paper, and, therefore, I regret that the hon. gentleman on this occasion shoxild have im- ported into it a number of statements of, to say the least, a very dubious and doubtful character. Sir, I have noticed, and I think that many members of this Hoiise have noticed, that while the hon. gentleman has a good memory and is fairly accurate in his statements as regards those events that have occurred in his own recollection, his knowledge of the past financial history of this country, and the past commercial his- tory of this country, is of the most perfunc- tory character. What is contained within the four corners of the hon. gentleman's brief he is quite competent to deal with ; but he has shown on this, as on other occa- sions, that he possesses an extremely super- ficial knowledge of things that occurred prior to his appearance in this House, as was extremely well shown on the occasion of his last Budget speech, by my hon. friend from King's, N.S. (Mr. Borden), who sits behind me. Now, as not unfrequently happens, the hon. gentleman on this occasion overreached himself. He has proved what I suspect he did not at all intend to prove : what I fanuy his friends will not thank him particularly for p^.-oving. But, first I would like to asic a few questions of the hon. gentleman, anti if he is disposed to answer them, I will give him every opportunity. I would like to know (after listening to his Budget speech of Friday last), whether he is prepared to allege that the Mackenzie Administration in general, or I myself in particular, was responsible for the distress existing in the United States from 1873 to 1878. I would like to know. Sir. whether the hon. gentle- man thinks that the Mackenzie Administra- tion, or I myself, was responsible for the dis- tress which notoriously existed in the ease of our other gi-eatest customer. Groat Bri- tain, about the same time. I would like to know, in the light of his speech of Friday last, whether the hon. gentleman holds that we were responsible for tlie shrinkage in values and for the diminished imports from 1875 to 1870. I would like to know whether the hon. gentleman, like some of his prede- cessors, holds that the Grit Administration were responsible for thu three .suecejisive bad harvests of 1870, 1877 and 1878. I would like to know whether the hon. gentle- man thinks that we were responsible for tlie fact that Sir John Macdonald and his col- leagues—or ought I say, ids co-conspirators ? —deliberately added $4,(XK),0(K) to our w 12 ai^nual expenditure, without providing for a penny of it, and likewise handed over to sU8 liabilities— also unprovided for— to tho turie of $60,000,000, which would have i-e- qulifced a further fixed charge added to our annual expenditure of $3,000,000 more. And, lastij', I would lilie to ask whether the hoij'. gentleman or any of his friends behind liim will to-day rise in the House and say that a policy of low taxation is likely to be responsible for diminished imports, or that it was probable, had we had a be- neficent tariff like his own, ranjring from 30 to 100 per cent, from 1870 to 1878, that the imports would have been less diminished than under a 17^^^ per cent tariff. If the hou. gentleman has no objec- tion, I would like, if he desires to answer these questions, that he answer them now. Mr. FOSTER. I would not like to break in on your speech. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Why, Sir, the House will recollect that the hon. gentleman made a great point of the dimin- ished imports which occui ted from 1870 to 1878. Sir, until now I have always thought, and I think tlie House has thought, that it was the special glory and .object of the National Policy to diminish the im- ports of manufactured goods, and thereby to afford a larger market to our own manu- facturers ; but, waiving that point, the hon. gentleman has proved— and there, for once, I think the hon. gentleman has done some service — the hon. gentleman has proved con- clusively in more than one passage in his si^eecli, to which I refer the House, that the crisis which occurred between 1875 and 1879 was vastly more severe than the pre- sent crisis ; and by inference and by conse- quence, that the fiscal policy and the admin- istrative policy which prevailed from 1875-7G to 1878-79, were vastly superior to the pre- sent policy. Let me ask the House, and let me again ask the ^Minister, where he would have been had he been called upon to fare conditions such as existed from 1874-75 to 1878-79 ? Sir, let us judge the hon. gentle- man, as I always like to judge hon. gentle- men, from his own raoutli and his own statements. He attributes his present defi- cit t<» three causes. I quote from his pwn speech ; First of all, I had to contend with a shrinkage of T'-i per cent, I had to contend v/lth reduced imports of 10 per cent, I had to contend with a depresBlon In the United States lasting well nigh eighteen months. All true. Sir. fancy the position of the hon. gentleman if he liall had to contend not only with a shrinkage of 25 per cent, which was about tlie figure that took place between 1875 and 1870, as ascertained by a careful report made l)y my late esteemed colleague, Mr. Isaac Burpee, who, at my instance, made a special Investigatiou of flint" 5. as against the taxation which existed in 1878. Sir, by an extremelv shallow artific to a graver subject yet, and that is the quea- m ians of taxes which do not touch the poor | tion of the loss of population, for which the m in at all, such as stamp dues, income tax | National Policy is so largely responsible and death duties. Those do not touch the j Now, Sir, I desire to call your attention to pK>rer classes at all. Another third is ex- i the extent to which that loss has gone— be- t.acted by heavy duties on liquor and to I cause I am aware that a number of hon lacco, which undoubtedly touch the poor gentlemen, either by deliberately shutting their eyes, or by refusing to examine into the question, or listen to the discussion of it, are gravely in error as to the extent of that loss. Sir, I find, in the first place, that in the older provinces of Canada, In Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec, according to the census returns, the total growth in the last ten years amounted to barely 325,- f,ndl heavily, too, but which hon. gentlemen opposite have all along contended are purely ^ 'oluntary taxes, and therefore, do not count. Then there remain the customs taxes. What ire they ? Remember they are the only ;ax which the English wage-earner Is com- pelled to pay, according to this argument. They aggregate about £20,000,000 ster- ling. Of those, fully £15,000,000 are taxes on wines, spirits and tobacco, which | OOO souls— a growth. Sir, of about 7% ner come under the same category as excise, There is no tax levied on the poor man In England, except some utterly trifling and insignificant taxes on certain liinds of fruit bringing in a very small revenue, and the tax on tea. And that tax on tea, subdivi- ded among the people in England, would show that the total tax which the English cent. I find that of that growth, poor and meagre at it was, one hundred thousand or more were due to immigration, as shown clearly in certain of the census returns which deal with that question. Now, the result of all that is this : That during the last ten years the absolute growth of the native population in these five provinces artizan is compelled to pay would barely i amounted to barely 225,000 souls, on a dodu «^„„i r.r.^^*^^r.^i^*h r.o.f r.f +ho^ Tx,h?«h +>,^ IslHou, iu 1881, of 4,150,000. That is to ^y, Mr. Speaker, In these old provinces, amply capable of supporting a population treble that they now contain, the total growth in ten years had sunk to 5% per cent, exclusive of immigration. Now, Sir, if the House wants to know, further, what that means, I will tell them. At a very moderate com- putation, our annual increase of population ajways before amounted to— and still would if our younger people had stayed here- to about 2 1-5 per cent per annum. The truth of the matter Is this, that our annual growth was just one-fourth part of what It ought to, have been. How grave a matter this Is may be learned from two facts. As everybody knows, during these ten years, there was considerable Immigra- tion Into Canada, though Infinitely less than the Government stated ; and, as everybody knows, or everybody ought to know, there was, during these years, a large emigra- tion from the parent country. I have look- ed up the growth of population of England and Wales for these ten years, and I find that while the five old provinces of Canada, apart from Immigrants, increased 5% per cent In ten years, the increase of popula- tion of England and Wales, after supply- ing a large number of emigrants to other countries, was 11*65 per cent So we have come to this in Canada — our natural growth, apart from the immigration, in our older provinces, is less than one-half that of England and Wales, after supplying emi- grants to half the known world. And if a further indication is wanted, I will call the attention of the House to this further fact— that iu the United States, during a equal one-twentieth part of that which the Canadian artizan or wage-earner must pay on every single article he requires to use for the benefit of his family, with the soli- tary exceptions of anthracite coal and tea. Everything elsp is taxed. His shoes, his books, his tools, the clothes he wears, the nails and iron he uses in his daily avocations— all are heavily taxed under this tariff. I have computed the average taxation of every family in the Dominion at about $60. Deducting $10 for the excise, there remains $50 per family, and on that I base my statement that the taxation amounts to nearly $10 per head. On that, also, I base my statement that the absolute taxation which the Canadian wage- earner has to pay is twenty-fold greater than the taxation which his brother artizan in England is compelled to pay under the English system of taxation and customs duty. Now, my third statement is self-evi- dent It is clear as daylight that if I am correct hi saying that $1,000,000,000 have been exacted from the people of Canada within the last sixteen or seventeen years, $400,000,000 or thereabouts would have been ample for all the requirements of government ; and I merely mention this to show the huge sacrifices which have been inflicted on our people In the attempt to carry out this experiment of the National Policy. Could our people have been induced to submit, under a revenue tariff, to a Mke taxation, they might have paid off every atom of the ftideral and provincial debt and municipal debt, and a huge cantle of their private debt besides. Or the money might have been Invested for them, and the 19 period when their population corresponded with ours, from 1790 to 1800, and from 1800 to 1810, and downwards, their average nat- ural growth of population appears to have been rather more than 3^4 per cent. Their growth was 3Vi per cent per annum from 1791 to 1820, without any assistance from immigration. Our growth ap- pears to be about one-half of one per cent, or thereabouts. Now, Sir, if there is any sane man in this House who thinks that these facts can be ignored, I should like to hear from him. If there is any saae man in Canada who will tell the people that all this indicates prosperity, I should like him to state the reason why. Sir, 1 regard the true wealth of a nation as mainly concentrated in the number of healthy, vigorous, intelligent men and wo- men that nation possesses. These I regard as an item of wealth infinitely more valu- able than savings bank deposits, infinitely more valuable than anything indicated by circulation or mileage returns. Sir, the true test of prosperity, in my judgment, is that the people that come to Canada should be glad to come, and glad to stay, and that the people who are in Canada should be glad to remain, and not look for opportuni- ties to go away. Now, Sir, I have accepted, up to this point, these same census returns as being truthful. But we have the strong- est grounds for accepting as correct the statements made by my hon. friend from King's. N.S. (Mr. Borden), that, in certain of the maritime provinces, at any rate, very gross frauds have been com- mitted for the purpose of swelling tMe ap- parent population. And, if I have mis- stated the case, if I have imputed wrong to the department which did not exist, the conduct of the department itself is the answer. When the charge was made on the floor of this House, and the proof was given by my hon. friend in a manner which no man could gainsay, and no man could contradict, what did we find the de- partment doing ? Putting every obstacle in my hon. friend's way, and in the way of other hon. members who wished to investi- gate the matter— deliberately refusing to give the names of people who had been re- turned in certain districts, refusing on the flimsiest and most ridiculous of pretexts. The indications are that, if the proportions shown by my hon. friend in the figures he gave, hold for other districts, instead of an increase of 225,000 for these provinces, I fear we should have a bare 200,000. It is to be hoped that my hon. friend, and other hon. gentlemen will prosecute the inquiry into this matter, and ascertain, if possible, to what extent these frauds have gone. Now, Sir, with reference to the returns of population, the conduct of the dei)artment, and the conduct of those charged vrith mak- ing the census returns is open to the gravest suspicion. In other respects, it is open to no suspicion at all. Sir, I have here a volume called " Census of Canada for the years 1890-91. vol. 3," to which I wish to attract the attention of this House. I do not object to men defending their cause by any honest arguments, but I do object, and I think the country will object, and I hope the whole House will sustain me in objecting, to seeing our census returns made the means of disgraceful fraud. As to the returns of population, I have indicat- ed what I think. But now we come to the proofs which these census returns offer us of the huge increase in industrial establish- ments, and of people employed therein un- der the National Policy. These census re- turns declare that 25,000— only think, 25,000 —new industrial establishments blossomed into existence between 1881 and 1889 and that 112,000 people were employed in these establishments, who, presumably, would not have been employed at all but for them. I have taken the trouble to analyse these statements. I am not going to deal with the matter fully, my friends must help me to bring before the country the results to be learned from the analysis of the re- turns with regard to these figures, 25,000 new industries. First, I come to what appears to be a wholly new industry, be- cause I find no reference to it in the similar volume of the census of 1881, which, also, I have in my hand. This is the industry of knitting factories. You will find them nar- rated on page 195. The House will be delighted to hear that there are now, or were, in 1891, 223 industrial establishments in the shape of knitting factories in Can- ada. Where is the Minister of Militia ? Is he here just now ? or is there no Nova Sco- tia Minister representing that province ? Some hon. MEMBERS. No. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Well, I I am very sorry, because I was about to con- ! gratulate him. Nova Scotia is specially I privileged. Of the 223 knitting factories, 99 were developed in Nova Scotia. And more than that, of the 99 developed In Nova Scotia, 93 were developed in the county of Shelburne. I find on further examination that the 93 industrial establishments in the shape of knitting factoriesi in the county of Shelburne, employed collectively 126 hands. I find further,on the same page of the census, that they earned in that year, $1,833, being at the rate of $14.55 per year for each hand, or 28 cents a week, and 4^^ cents a day. I find that in Quebec, in the county of L'As- somption, there were 12 industrial estab- lishments known as knitting factories, em- ploying collectively 12 hands, earning an average of $63 a year, being nt the rate of $1.20 per week, wherewith, I suppose, to discharge the wages of superintendents, the cost of finding power, and dividends to the company. Portnenf is equally favoured. It has 12 establishments, which average $90 per year in wages, or $1.60 per week. Now, I find here that the value of machinery 20 and tools employed In each factory are given ; and it may interest the hon. member for Shelburne (Mr. White) to know that the 93 knitting factories in Shelburne actually employed for machinery and tools to the value of $623, being at the rate of $7 per factory for machinery. Now, I want to call the attention of the House to this fact. We are told there were 25,000 now establishments ; I have shown you what some of those consist of. I have analysed these further, and I find that out of the 223 knitting factories, there may possibly be 30 that deserve the name by a f.tretch of courtesy. Those 30 pay $288,0(X) In wages out of a total of $322,000. The remaining 193 pay an average of $200 a year for all purposes. But, Sir, great as the knitting factory is, fine as the work which the National Policy has got in there, finer still is the work which the Census Commissioners got in there, it pales before tlie industry of carpet-making. The House will be glad to know, I was glad to know, that there are now 537 industrial estab- lishments for making carpets in the Do- minion of Canada. I find by a reference to the census returns of 1881, that there were only 11 then in existence ; we have therefore an increase of 546, which is something like- how many thousands per cent ? Is it 5,000, or 50,000 per cent ? Some of those hon. gentlemen who are good at it, may occupy their leisure time in making the calcula- tion. Well, Sir, of these 557, 51 are in New Brunswick under the fostering care of the Minister ; and they employ 51 hands, mostly old women. Their collective wages are $1,792 ; so that each of them earns $36 per year, or 70 cents per week. Nova Scotia possesses 106 factories for carpet making, employing 117 hands, who earn $62 a year, or $1.10 per week, according to the census. Prince Edward Island, I am happy to in-' form my hon. friend, averages $100 per year. Assiniboia has one factory for carpet mak- ing, paying $15 per year in wages. Now, I may remark that of the 213 knitting fac- tories in all the provinces except Ontario, not one appears to average $100 a year in i wages, or to employ 2 men. The total wages paid in these 213 factories amount to $14,- 827, which is not quite $70 per year each. ! Of hosiery factories, I find there are 58. Of ' these, 18 paid $124,000 in wages ; and 40 ' paid $7,000, being an average of $170 a year apiece. Now, Sir, what I want to point out is the absolute worthlessness of the industrial statistics which have cost Canada $550,000, ! according to onr public accounts, and which are being paraded in every newspaper these gentlemen control, which are paraded in our Year-Book,, which are quoted by gentlemen who desire to discourse on statistical matters, as evidence that after all the National Policy did a great deal, that it es- tablished 25.000 new industrial establish- ments, which employ 112,000 hands— but how many of them at wages of 4^^ cents per day ? Sir, I take the case of the boot and shoe industry, a valuable industry, an industry which has many large manufac- tories. Let me take the case of Quebec, which is reported to have had 1,905 indus- trial establishments for making boots and shoes. Now, 320 of these paid $2,400,000 in wages out of $2,900,000. They employ nearly all women and children, and 5,200 men out of a total of 7,445. The remaining 1,600 industrial establishments employ 2,245 men among them, being an average of one man and one-third of an apprentice to each industrial establishment. Sir, take the case of blacksmiths. They supply 9,432 industrial establishments, which employ 11,761 men. Well, the result is that 7,000 of these establishments are operated by one industrious artisan, and 2,400 employ one man and one boy. I will take another case. I will take the case of one or two of our cities, and al- though I have given this before, It will bear repeating. We will take the case of the good town of Port Hope. During the last ten years unhappily Port Hope lost 539 in population, besides tho natural increase ; but while the people decreased, the indus- trial establishments multiplied. There are now 147 industrial establishments in Port Hope ; 63 of these employ one man, or one woman, one boy, or one girl ; 20 of them employ two men, or two women, two boys, or two girls ; 33 of them employ three men, women, boys or girls ; 116 establishments employ 219 people, or equal to one man or woman to each industrial establishment, and three-quarters of a boy or girl. Sir, does the House want to know anything more about the value of these census returns ? Here is the volume, it is a mine, and I pre- sent it to my hon. friends. For every case I have given 50 more can be presented, whenever the hon. Minister of Finance de- sires them. And here I may make a re- mark or two on the new taxes that have been imposed. As the hon. gentleman knows, I had no opportunity of inspecting these proposed changes on Friday night, but since then, of course, they have beon placed in my hands. As regards the taxes on spirits, none of us will raise any objec- tion to the increase, the Finance Minister is welcome to get all he can out of spirits and liquors. The only question is whether he has raised the taxes to a point which may possibly provoke further smuggling or illicit distillation. A good deal of smuggling has taken place in the past, and I am in- clined to believe that the hon. gentleman has got perilously near the point at which that smuggling will be largely Increased. i\s rog-rr;s sugar and the collateral industries affected, I do not know that I am .aoing to say mor.i at the pre- sent time than this : They afford a most admirable object lesson' of the gen- eral truth 1 stated, that for every dollar 2i ^he hon. gentleman pays into the public chest he is safe to exact at least two dollars from the people. We are going to pay one dollar and fourteen hundreths on all sugar from this time out, as nearly as the re- finers can get to it ; we shall get about $1,200,000, and the people* will be taxed to the tune of about $2,000,000, provided our consumption equals the amount expected by the Finance Minister, namely, 250,000,- 000 pounds. As to how the other industries may be affected or interfered with, it is im- possible to say. I observe the hon. gentle- man has raised the tax in some cases on other articles to something nke 50 per cent on the original value, as in the case of Jams and jellies, and I find he gives enormous protection in the case of certain syrups and molasses. I do not know exactly how many pounds go to make a gallon of ordinary cane syrup ; but if I followed the hon. gen- tleman rightly, the tax now imposed is likely to give 70 or 80 per cent protection to any party who embarks in the manu- facture of cane syrup, a protection hugely out of proportion to any benefit that will accrue to the treasury. Although it may be that some parties have to suffer from this excessive protection, it is an ill wind that blows nobody gOod, and the House will be glad to know there are worthy parties, some not altogether unknown to us, who are sup- posed to benefit largely by the imposition ofl this tax. A very strange statement has been made and publicly circulated, which 1 mention, not that I am going to pledge myself to its literal truth, but which I deem to be a matter that will bear some investigation and inquiry. In a despatch from Halifax it is stated that the levying of a duty of one-half cent a pound on raw pusar will prove a bonanza to the Acadia Sugar Refining Company ; that they have a stock in hand of raw sugar admitted free ■which in view of the imposition of the new duty will represent a profit of $335,000, not to speak of the general increase in the price of sugar. If that be the case, those worthy gentlemen must have accumulated about 34,000 tons of sugar within a very recent period. Mr. HAGGART. Sixty thousand tons. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. No, 34,- 000 tons. 67,000,000 pounds of sugar, I beg to inform the hon. gentleman, will yield at one-half cent per pound an amount of duty equal to $335,000, and 67,000,000 pounds represents 34,000 tons. The hon. gentleman can revise this calculation at his leisure. 1 should like to know, and I dare say many other people would like to know, who are the proprietors of the Acadia Sugar Re- fining Company. Why should the pro- prietors of the Acadia Sugar Refin- ing Company, if these statements be cor- rect, receive a gift of $335,000 at the public expense, which is practically what is being done? I remember long ago an occasion when the case was reversed. When the duty was taken off tea, if my memory serves me, Sir Francis Hincks compensated the holders of tea. It is a poor rule that does not work both ways, and the Acadia Sugar Refining Company might hand $335,000 over to Canada, and they might do this not unjustly. Tha hon. Finance Minister may not assent to this, but the cases are practically Iden- tical. These corporations have been very highly favoured in the past, and a very fair ground for argument might be made out for assuming the position that while no Injury should be done to them, one of such corporations should not be allowed to pocket $335,000 at the present moment for their own personal benefit. I do not know, but I rather suspect that other refiners may not have been all equally provident. If they have been, there is going to be a very heavy discount on our new taxes. However, I have put certain questions on the Order paper, to which I hope to receive full and fair replies, which will enable us to ascertain ia some detail how and in what fashion those bene- fits have accrued to those lucky individuals, the proprietors of the Acadia Sugar Re- fining Company. Sir, in this connection I may refer to certain specific cases of in- justice committed by the tariflf. I have often pointed out that while this tariff discrimi- nated very heavily, in our judgment, against the whole producing classes, it was almost equally unjust to certain classes of manu- factures, and that is in the nature of a pro- tective tariff. What is one man's finished product is another man's raw material, and the consequence is that when you impose taxation in that fashion, you are very apt to hurt one manufac- turer proportionately as you assist another. Now. Sir, that has been very notably the case of late years with respect to certain very important classes of manufacturers ; all those who work in iron. I do not hesi- tate to say that they have been very un- justly treated, indeed, under this present tariff. I can see no just reason whatever why the iron worker should be compelled to pay 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 per cent per- haps, on his raw material, while the cot- ton manufacturer or the woollen manufac- turer gets his raw material free. Let us have some fair-play, let us have some jus- tice, let us have some reason iu these mat- ters, and if you are going to allow your cotton manufacturers and your woollen manufacturers and other manufacturers free materials, why in heaven's name discrimi- nate against the iron manufacturers. They employ full-grown men with families de- pendent upon them, and it is well known that in the textile industries a large num- ber of employees are only women and c^ail- dren. Sir. the manufacturers of Canada will do well to understand that, while the Reform p^^rty do not profess to favour 22 them specially, neither do they wish, nor if they can will they permit injustice to be done to one class of manufacturers for the benefit of another. As to our agriculturists, everybody knows that tuey are at present exposed to intense competition from the whole world. Every one knows that the prices of their products are not fixed by Government, but are fixed by the prices for which the productions of India, Argentina, Australia, and other countries can be sold in the home market. The Government are hopeless and helpless to aid, but they are very potent to injure, and we find that things which are in the strictest sense the raw materials and the tools of the agri- culturists, are constantly and repeatedly subject to very unjust taxation for no earth- ly reason except the benefit and advantage of a very small number of protected manu- facturers. I notice one thing more. The hon, gentleman (Mr. Foster) descanted largely on his free list, and T have a word or two to say as to that free list. The hon. gentleman is right in saying that a very great number of articles have been put on the free list. They range in our tariff from No. 482 to No. 778. There are 296 items on the free list, and of the 296, by actual count, I make it that there are three items which may fairly be considered as likely to benefit the public at large. The remaln- iug 293 items are almost all for the benefit of certain special classes, either manufac- turers or parties entitled to some privilege. On th-'t free list of which we have heard so much there are, as I have said, three arti- cles of general benefit, namely, anthracite coal, tea, and certain fruits. Almost all the rest of the articles are subject to duty and the art'cles that are admitted free are ad- mitted, as I have said, simply -And solely for the benefit of special Individuals or special classes. But, Sir, it may Intert. our farmers particularly to know what they are allowed to Import free. Should a far- mer desire to adorn the walls of his man- sion with pictures of the old masters, at a value of, perhaps, $20,000 each, he can Im- port them free ; but if he wants wall paper he has to pay from 40 to 100 per cent duty. If it pleases the farmer he can import ice free, but if he wants coal oil, he must pay 6 cents a gallon. By a wonderful dispensa- tion, leeches are allowed to be Imported free. I suppose the Finance Minister re- gards the leech as a totem of the National Policy, and entitled to special considera- tion. ^ All Indian tribes respect their totem, and I do not see why protectionists should not respect theirs. But, if the far- mer gets his leeches free, they take It out of him in tools, which are tax:ed 35 per cent. If the farmer greatly desires It, he Is allowed to Import ambergris free ; but If he -wants Indian com for his cattle, he has to pay a duty of 7% cents per bushel. If hf likes a cabinet of antxquities, the farmer can get them as free as he pleages ; but if he wants binding-twine, he has to pay 12% per cent ad valorem. He can get sand free, but saddlery is 30 per cent and barbed wire $15 per ton ; and that I think about comprises the list of articles which the farmer of Can- ada might Import free. I do not want at the present moment, I have hardly time in fact, to dwell at length on the im- mense corruption which is always conse- quent upon a tariff of this kind. Wher- ever you make it the Interest oi a number of people having a command of money to dictate to the Ministry of the day what shall be taxed or what shall not be taxed, you have provision for ever made while your tarifif lasts, for a permanent corruption fund. But I want to call attention to the extent to which our manufacturing friends, according to their own report, do dictate and did infiu- ence, not later than last year, the opera- tions of the Finance Minister. J shall quote from the report of the secretary of the Man- ufacturers' Association. Quoth that gen- tleman : It is but an a.rf of justice to the committee to direct attention to the large number of changes made in the tariff along the lines of their recom- mendations, and In many Instances the language used In both Is substantially Identical. No doubt it is. This is particularly noticeable as regards the Iron Industry, the duties on textiles, the duties on drugs, chemicals, alcoholic preparations, &c., as well as upon a large and extended list of mis- cellaneous articles, and most important additions to the list of non-dutiable articles. In many In- stances, where we suggested no changes, no changes were made. Sir, I don't doubt it. I do not doubt that the Minister of Finance, then as heretofore, has proved himself in all respecta the faith- ful servant and mouthpiece of the Manu- facturers' Association. Now, what Is the excuse that these men make : what is the excuse the Ministers make for their heavy taxes ? They are willing to tax us to death to keep out pauper-made goods, and then they are willing to take millions of these taxes to pay paupers to come here and de- prive our people of their livelihood. I have spoken of the enormous waste of capital that went on under the National Policy, and I emphasize it again for this reason : That in that waste of capital lies the chief apo- logy for the creation of those numerous . combines which now conspire together to raise the price of many articles of common trade and commerce, and which have been very ineffectually dealt with by certain mea- sures, promoted by the Government or by some members of It. Now, Sir, as to one silly taunt which I notice the hon. gentle- man (Mr. Foster) lately threw out with re- spect to the Opposition. The hon. gentle- man was good enough to taunt the Opposi- tion that we opposed the outlay for the construction of railways and other purposei intended to promote trade. Sir, the OpposI- 23 tlon opposed no outlay for the good of Can- ada ; but of what purpose is it to spend huge sums of money for facilitating trade, while your whole policy neutralizes the introduc- tion of trade ? Why should you cheapen transport and tax the things transported until they cannot be brought in ? Why should you turn the people of Canada away and pay immigrants to take their place ? Sir, I have given again and again the rea- sons why protection as a rule must fail ; but in Canada these reasons have special weight. I doubt if there ever was a coun- try so wholly and utterly unsuited to pro- tection as a country like Canada, lying as It does within the same parallels of latitude, having all through very nearly the same productions, having very little Indeed to ex- change with each other, where the several provinces are on the whole competitors rather than customers one of the other. Now, Sir, we have had very curious testi- mony lately given us as to the opinion the late chieftain of the Conservative party en- tertained with respect to that matter. We have the evidence of the hon. member for North SImcoe (Mr. McCarthy), than whom no man Is better qualified to speak, as to the way in which the protective campaign of J878 was inaugurated. We have the evi- dence of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) as to the difficulty with which the said chieftain was kicked on In the line of protection by himself and others, and how hard it was to keep him straight. We have the testimony of a gentleman of very high standing in Canada, Mr. Goldwin Smith, whose words I give as I read them the other day : Till the election of 1878 was over. Sir John Macdonald disclaimed protection, and described his commercial policy as readjustment of the tariff. I had a personal interview with him a few days before the election, and I learned from his own lips that he foresaw the evil conse- quences of an application of protection to a coun- try like Canada, as nearly as I think myself. I dare say that my hon. friends In the mari- time provinces will likewise recollect a cer- tain telegram addressed to a certain Senator Boyd, In which the late chieftain of the Conservacive party, a few days before the election, utterly repudiated the protectionist theory, and declared that all he wanted was a readjustment And now, Sir, one word or two as to another argument of the hon. gen- tleman. He pointed to the enormous ex- pansion of our trade and commerce In the last sixteen years. It had risen, he said, from $172,000,000 In 1878 to $240,000,000 In 1894. and, I suppose, to about $230,000,000 in 1895. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to call the atten- tion of the House to this fact, that the total advance in those seventeen years scarcely equals 2 per cent per annum. But I want to call the attention of the Finance Minister to a still more curious fact The advance in the ten years from 1868 to 1878, under a purely revenue tariff, and taking almost the worst of our years, was greater in proper^ tion than it was in the seventeen years the hon. gentleman quotes. Making all allow- ance for the admission of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, our Increase amounted to about $34,000,000 lu those ten years on an Importation of $130,000,000. That means that our importation from 1868 to 1878 increased considerajly more in pro- portion than it did from 1878 to 1894, and a very great deal more than it did from 1878 to 1895— and I may ask how much of the importation of the latter period was due to borrowing ? Now, I have not time to go ovei" certain of the silly fallacies or frauds which hon. gentlemen opposite have been insisting upon ; but I will just enumerate some of them. I think we are getting abouv to the end of the home market fraud, the desire for economy fraud, the sham loyalty fraud, whether it takes the shape of pro- clamations to the Indians of Haldimand or others, the desire for reciprocity fraud, the general prosperity fraud, and the reduction of prices by reason of high taxes fraud ; and if any hon. gentlemen on the other side are still unconverted, I ad- vise them to look at the "Farmers' Sun," where they will find a number of very ex- cellent articles, which they can read with considerable profit Very likely, hon. gen- tlemen opposite do not like my way of put- ting these things. Very likely, they think I have been too rough In these matters. It has been my misfortune, Sir, to know too much aboirt them and their predecessors. It has been my misfortune to know what have been the objects of some of the manufactur- ers who have urged an increase of taxation. It has been my misfortune to have learned, what has been confirmed of late, what would be the result of protection in Canada, as it has been in the United States and other countries. I knew that protection might help a few while It would hurt the mass of the people ; I knew that it meant intolerable corruption ; and I stand to every word of ray speechf as FInknce Minister in i878 and my speech In 1879, crlticlslug the proposals which my successor brought down. I admit one thing : I admit that I did not allow enough for the power of clap-trap or the inordinate greed of cer- tain parties ; nor did I, perhaps, allow enough for the great eflfect which the example of the United States has always had upon our people, or for the rather natural desire which many of them had to retaliate upon the United States in return for the extent to which that country had interfered with our trade and commerce. As you probably pretty well know, Mr. Speaker, for a long time I have been accused of being a most pessimistic individual ; but. Sir, the wheel has turned wonderfully. Why, Sir, I recol- lect when I was a«cused of the exact reverse in 1876, 1877 and 1878. Let hon. gentlemen read " Hansard " for those years ; let hon. gentlemen look at their own campaign liter- 24 ature for those years : they will find that I was then charged with being reckless, over- oonfldent, extravagant and utterly indiffer- ent to the position of the country. Now, Sir, that was just exactly what I have not been, either then or now. I had very good reason in 1878 for the confidence I then expressed that we were about to weather the storm and weather it successfully. I knew In 1878 that the great interests of the country were all sound. I knew that there was only one, the great lumber interest, which was suffer- ing under a temporary depression by reason of the depression existing at the time in the United States. It was perfectly true that the importers and tradesmen did suffer con- siderably in 1878, as it is impossible that they will not suffer at any time when there is a great and sudden shrinkage in the value of the goods they purchase. Men buying in a sinking market are very apt to suffer. But it was proved then, and subsequent events proved, that in 1878 and the years preceding, the manufacturers of Canada, as a whole, had done exceedingly well. Now, Sir, I knew that the revival was close at hand. I knew that the taxation we had, as subsequent events showed, was abundantly adequate in any ordinary year, when we had not a bad harvest, to produce all the rev- enue we required. And I knew another thing of great importance to this country : I knew that from 1872 to 1878 the farm pop- ulation of CSanada, notably that of the pro- vince of Ontario, was growing in a very re- spectable ratio— many times greater than the rate at which it has grown since. It is true. Sir, that in that period our cities, towns and villages all grew moderately ; but the country grew in due proportion. During these late years we have seen, and seen j with regret— I think all men have seen it | with regret— that the population of the coun- try districts all over old Canada has been absolutely stationary, while a few towns and cities have Increased out of all j due proportion. To-day the conditions have changed. Then we saw elearly What would ! have resulted had our policy been permitted \ to prevail ; to-day we see clearly what i has resulted from the reversal of our | policy. My statements made in 1878 and in 1879 have been amply justified. ; I could heartily wish that they were not. I could heartily wish that I had been an i untrue prophet ; but I will give, this after- noon, just one instance of the way things ■ have gone with a great many of our towns ; and villages formerly prosperous and thriv- ing throughout Ontario, and I think the same ru!e applies to the hon. gentleman's own province. Some time ago, for the ques- j tlon is one of more than passing interest, I | had occasion to Investigate the condition of a town of about 4,000 people. I found that ^n 1878 this country town traded wltli about 5,000 families. To-day It trades over the same area, but the population has dim- Intsbed absolutely, as well as relatively, and there are scarcely more than 4,000 families now in that same area. But I find this very important fact, that, whereas, in 1878, and the years Immediately adjacent, on an average, every farmer spent in pur- chases for his farm and family, close on $600 a year in that town, to-day it is doubt- ful if those same farmi-.s spend more than $200 or $300 a year. The result is that a trade of close on $3,000,000 in that town had shrunk to a trade of about $1,000,000 per annum. All the natural increase had gone, and there was a large reduction of the popu- lation both in town and country. That is a simple statement of the facts, and al- though I will not say that it will be re- produced in all its details in every town and village in Ontario, or the other provinces, I say that, substantially, it represents the condition of a very large number of form- erly prosperous and thriving towns and villages throughout the country. Sir, tMs decrease in trade seems to be spreading up- ward to the cities. Even the hon. members for Toronto, I think, if they will own the truth, must be aware that the growth of that great city has not, of late years, by any means kept pace with their ex- pectations and desires. They have found ^ that tho cities of a country cannot prosper unless the people at large prosper ; and in the condition of Toronto, and other cities, we may see the certain result of an evil policy, when it has had time enough to work its natural results. The truth is that the farmers of Canada, as a rule, were very well off, indeed, in 1878, in spite of the bad harvests. Many of them had then a con- siderable deal of spare capital. And since that time they have been living on that and their borrowings. Their mortgages are in- finitely greater to-day than in 1878, even though the rate of interest— no thanks to the hon. gentlemen opposite— has largely decreased all the world over. Now we have come to a period of standstill and ^D'orced economy. Sir, if the Minister of Finance be really desirous to ascertain the condi- tion of the farmers, particularly of Ontario, I would advise him to Invest In a copy of a journal which does not always talk too kindly of himself or me, and that is the " Farmers' Sun," and he will find some nonsense and some unfairness, but a lot of useful information about the condition of the farmers. Here I will say one word as to the possible remedies for this state of things. I do not hesitate to say here that as regards any advantag'e or Immediate re- lief to the farmers of Canada, I know of but one remedy, and that is the obtaining of access on fair and reasonable terms to the markets of the United States. That Is the one thing which might bring Immedi{>te relief. But we may have lost our chance. The golden opportunity may have gone through the dishonesty and treachery and hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not believe myself that it has entirely j gone, but I admit that all that men could do to render it impossible has been done by hon. gentlemen opposite. The next remedy that I would prescribe, if I could, is simply to strike off our trade restrictions. Let us have tariff for revenue only. Let what the people pay go into the people's treasury, and be expended for the people's benefit. Let us have an end of all these wild-cat projects. Let us cease to offer up perpetual sacrifices to the great god, Jingo. Let us put our house in order, and make the most of what we do possess, and there is great need that we should. Before con- cluding, I will apply one rou^h test. Mind, I do not mean to say that it is a perfectly accurate test, but, at the same time, it is I one that is worth applying. Everybody knows that our chief industry is agricul- ture, that we have very heavy debts to pay, taking into acconut all the debts which the people of Canada collectively owe. Nomin- ally, we pay these debts in money, but really we have to pay them in wheat, bar- ley, cheese, lumber, fish, minerals, and natural products of every description. Practically, our manufactures la.re nowhere. Now, let us measure the cost of our debt and the cost of our Government, not in ounces of gold, but in bushels of wheat, and see where we stand. In 1878 the in- terest on the total indebtedness of Canada, even allowing for the larger rate of interest, would not have exceeded fifteen millions of dollars. To discharge the interest on our collective debt at that time would have cost us, at the prices then prevailing, about fif- teen million bushels of wheat, which might be the produce of one million acres of land. In 1895, I believe, if a true account were struck, the interest on our collective in- debtedness was not less than $30,lX>0,000. It would cost us 60,000,000 bushels of wheat to pay that interest at the present prices, and It would take 4,000,000 acres of our best land to produce that wheat. The total taxation, in 1878, amounted to $20,000,000, allowing for the deficit, and that would have cost 20,000,000 bushels of wheat. In 1894 our real taxes amounted to $60,000,000— $30,000,000 for the treasury, and $30,000,- 000 to private parties ; and to pay that taxation, it would take 120,000,000 bushels of wheat at present prices, instead of 20,- 000,000. Were I to measure it by barley, the case would be worse, and by meats, not very much better. But I am happy to say that there Is good reason to believe that our farmers and producers are at last awaken- ing. In 1878 they drove away the sheep dog and gave the management of their flocks to the wolf, and now they appreciate the result. A good deal has been said at various times about the remarkable uprising known as the Tatrons of Industry. I will give the hon. gentlemen opposite some figures from a source they cannot dispute, which may tend to show that their ap- SIR R (1 3 preciation of the position is altogether astray. I find that the Conservative leader of the Ontario Opposition, Mr. Marter, the other day, speaking at London on the subject, gave the following interest- ing calculation to show that Mr. Mpwat was in a minority. There were in Ontario, he said, at the last election, 107,000 votes cast by Conservatives, 98,000 by Patrons, and 153,000 by Liberals ; thus showing Sir Oliver Mowat to be in a decisive minority. Therefore, on the computation of the Con- servative leader in Ontario, the genuine Conservative vote has been reduced to about 30 per cent of the total voting popu- lation. Our farmers have learned that taxa- tion never reduces prices. New inventions will reduce prices, cheaper transport will reduce prices, the development of new coun- tries will reduce prices^ but all that re- duction is in spite of taxation, and not be- cause of it. Now, if hon. gentlemen oppo- site will insist, I will make them an offer. They claim the right, and the sole right to arrogate to themselves, in virtue of the National Policy, all the reduction that has taken place in the price of manufactured goods. Let them shoulder, also, the re- sponsibility for all the reductions that have taken place in the price of farm products since 1878. There are other one-sided ar-. guments in which the hon. gentleman in- dulged. Like many others, be is willing to take, at any time, a few scattered facts which go to favour the National Policy, and to ignore all the rest. What man is there in charge of a large business who could not make himself out possessed of a huge sur- plus if he were to put oa the one side all his credit, and to omit, on the other, all his debts ? I do not refuse to admit that per se the increases in bank deposits, cir- culation and mileage are good, if they be accompanied by an increase in popula- tion. I admit, though that is more doubtful, that increase in insurance is good. These things are good as far as they go. But they cannot and do not neutralize the other and far more important facts of loss of population, depreciation of property, and huge tar.ation, to which I have called at- tention froru thne to time. Sir, I cannot pause now to discuss the injustice of this system of taxation further than to say that it is one of those systems of taxation under which It happens that the very poorest In the community, in proportion to their means are often the most aeavlly taxed, while the rich very often escape with an infinitely smaller proportion than the poorest are obliged to pay. Now, when the taxation Is light, that may be overlooked ; but when the taxation reachefj the present enormous proportions it becomes a question which we must all, and the Government In par- ticular, take carefully Into consideration. i Nor, Sir— for I have taken longer than j I Intended— can I find time to allude I to no more than the barest and briefest 26 way to the Intolerable folly and waste- fulness with which the money of the people has been dissipated. I can only name our Tay Canal, our Curran Bridge, our rail- way subsidies, our North-west expenditures, our immigration expenditures, our seventeen paid Ministers, our duplicate Speakers, our St. Charles extensions, our Caraquet rail- ways, our Fredericton bridges, our Behring Sea arbitrations and our Prohibition Com- missions ;— our Franchise Act, our Civil Government costs us a million and a half ; another million and a half we pay for Militia, and get no Militia after all. Sir, these and all the other favourite ways of wasting the money of the people have been pretty fully laid before this House in times j)ast. Take our Intercolonial Railway ; — iifty millions of the people's money invested, and not one copper of revenue from it. We call ourselves lucky— most fortunate— if we can make both ends meet, • and, notAvith- standing our sinking fifty millions, we are not obliged to add more than a few hundred thousand of capital account from year to year. And what shall I say of the new pro- jects in the North-west ? Sir, I have here a document made up on very high authority which shows that there are to-day in the country extending from Sudburj^ to the western limit of the province of Alberta, a population of 2G1,1G1 souls. This, of course, includes the greater part of Algoma. In the same territory they have of constructed railway, 4,348 miles, being at the rate of one mile of constructed railway for every GO souls or every 12 families in these terri- tories. And we are asked for aid for pro- jected lines which would run the total up, according to my calculation, to something close upon one mile of completed road for every ten people now in the territories— in- cluding the subsidy likely to be brought down for the Hudson Bay railway. I repeat that I do not, for my part, despair of the position of the country. But, I realize the facts. I realize that very great chances have been thrown away. I realize the long suc- cession of blunders which have character- ized the conduct of Government during the past twenty-five years. I can remember that Canada entered into confederation in this position— our debt was one-third per head thai of the United States, our taxation was one-third per head of the United States. How stands the account to-day ? Our debt per head, or I am greatly mistaken, is at least treble that of the United States. The debt of the United States per head of the people is $14. Our debt,^ according to the computation of the hon. gentleman, not taking into account the liabilities which ho excludes, would amount to close upon $300,- 000,000, which would be about $60 per head. How has our population Increased ? Since confederation we have barely added a mi'licu and a quarter of people In nearly thirty years. Look at the Increase In the Ignited States, in their early days, without heavy expenditures upon immigration to help them. In 1790 their population v/as 4,000,000 ; in 1800 it was 5,300,000 ; in 1810 it was 7,315,000 ; and there was an estimated population of 9,000,000 in 1818. When I look back to what might have been done, when I realize that with reasonably 1^'ise government it would have been no great feat for Canada to have gained a population of 8,000,000 souls— perhaps 10,000,000—1 cannot but feel \ that the greatest opportunities have been I most ruthlessly thrown away. Well, Sir, as I said before, what, under these circum- stances, can we advise ? Our advice is simple and brief :— Make adequate pro- vision for your deficit ; do your duty to the country and let the people know and fully j understand what the public liabilities are— I liabilities which, according to the tigures I ; have submitted, are not much short of JfoOO,- 1 000,000. Sir, I advise that we learn pru- ; dence and economy ; that we be content, as the Scriptures have it, with such ihings as we have ; do not stretch our hands for fur- ther territory which we cannot properly ad- minister or provide for without doing in- justice to our own people. I would ndvise the hon. gentleman to dispense, for the time being, with his Pacific cables and Fast i Atlantic services, I advise him to make i friends, 'if it can be honourably done, Avith I the people of the United States. And above ! all and before all, I advise him to sirika cff, as far as possible, existing trade i-escricHons. These things done. Sir, I will grant there is a reasonable chance that the country may right Itself, that out of all this evil, there may spring some good. Sir, I do not pi eteud to say, and I do not believe that this country is going to escape entirely scathless from the results of sixteen years of folly, fraud and falsehood. We must suffer for what we have done ; we must retrace our steps and must be prepared to submit to some sacri- fice In doing it. What these gentlemen have done Is to put back the progress of Canada for a whole generation. We cannot, and we do not pretend that we can give bJick to Canada her lost children, her " lost legions." Nor is It In our power, except In so far as our example can redeem the past, to blot out the marks of shame upon the shield of Can- ada which these men's conduct have caused. Sir, the hon. gentleman's proposals may stop the deficit. That Is well. That ought to be done ; that must be done. But we roust do more than that. We must lighten the burdens of the peojjle ns well as stop the deficit. I do not pretend to say that that will be an easy task. I say that It is a task utterly and hopelessly Impossible under the present system. Nevertheless that Is the goal that the Reform party must keep In view, that li the f,oal for which they must strive ; that Is the goal which 1 hope and trust they will soon attain. As to the manufacturers, I desire to say most emphati- cally that we have no Ill-will on our side of the House to the manufacturers as a class. We know that manufacturers prospered more up to 1878, and in a far more sub- stantial and permanent way, tlian they have since, if the truth were known. Sir, we re- cognize fully the value of manufacturers to a country situated as Canada is. But our motto is : Justice to all classes. We neither propose to do injustice to farmers to please manufacturers, nor to do injustice to manu- facturers for the purpose of pleasing farmers. Sir, I admit, I am not going for one moment to conceal from the House the fact, that a considerable customs tariff must be enacted for some time to come, but it must be a just tariff, it must be no tangled mass of dishonest absurdities like the one under my hand ; it must be something which is fairly and honestly framed for the purpose of bring- ing revenue into the treasury, and not at the dictation of protected manufacturers' asso- ciations for the purpose of enabling thean to Jiivide with the " Government the plunder unjustly obtained from the people. There- fore, Sh-, I propose this amendment to the motion that you leave the Chair : That all the words after " That " be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof : — " the Estimates for the fiscal year 1894-95 amount to the sum of $38,517,152 Independently of any further Supplementary Estimates which may be brought down. That the said sum of $3S, 517,152 is in excess of the amount expended in 1893-94 by the sum of $922,127. That the deficit for the year 1893-94 amounted ti $1,210,322. That the deficit for the present year is esti' mated by the Minister of Finance at $4,500,000. That, from statements made by Ministers of the Crown, in this House, it appears that our existing obligations for railway subsidies and for public works now in progress will involve a fur- ther outlay of $20,000,000, computed as follows :— For railway subsidies now voted.. $8,729,000 For the St. Lawrence Canals 6,000,000 For the Trent Valley Canal 5,000,000 For the Intercolonial Railway and minor works 1,000,000 $20,729,000 The interest on which sura, together with the subsidy provided by Statute to be paid on account of a fast Atlantic service, will entail an addition to our already very heavy annual fixed charges of $1,400,000. That, inasmuch as enormous sums of money are now exacted from the people of Canada which are not paid into the treasury, and inasmuch as the burthens of the people are thereby greatly and unnecessarily increased, and it is of the ut- most importance to the well-being of the com- munity that not only should the present extrava- gant expenditure be diminished, but that the said burthens should be reduced as largely and speedily as possible, — it is expedient that in mak- ing provision to restore ' the equilibrium be- tween revenue and expenditure,' as recommended in the Speech from the Throne, the existing tariff be so modified that it may be made a tariflt for revenue only."