^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I UilM |2.5 ■so ■^~ ■■■ ^ ^ 122 :^ u£ 12.0 lisi mum ' ' :C ■; M 6" . -.. PhotDgraphic Sdences Corporation 4s 33 WIST MAIN STRUT WIHTU.N.Y. 14SI0 (7U)I73-4»0S '4> ,i^ '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. , ; CIHIVi/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy available for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically unique, which may altar any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur r~1 Covers damaged/ D D D D Couverture endommagie □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ at/ou pelliculie r~~| Cover title missing/ I — I Coloured mapa/ D La titra de couverture manque Coloured mapa/ Cartea giographiques an couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black!/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) |~~| Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planchea at/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding mcy causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrAe peut cauaar de I'ombre ou de la distortion la long da la marge intiriaura Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these hsve been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certainea pages blanches ajoutiaa lors dune restauration apparaissant dana la taxte, mais, lorsque ceia Atait possible, ees pagaa n'ont pas *ti filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmantairasr L'Institut a microfilmi la mailleur axamplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mtthoda ncrmale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pagaa/ D D D D D Pagaa da couleur Pagaa damaged/ Pages endommagiftas # Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurias at/ou palliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicoiories. tacheties ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages ditachias Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigala de {'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matirial supplimentaira n~l Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Lee peges totalament ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. una pelurs. etc.. ont 4ti film^s k nouveau da fSQon * obtanir la mailleure image possible. This item Is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux da reduction indiquA ei-dessous. 10X fM ItX 22X 2SX 30X y 12X 1fX 20X a4x asx 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grice A la g4n*rosit4 da: La bibliothAque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other originei copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or Illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont tt€ reprodultes avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de Texempiaire fllmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage.' Les exemplalres originaux dont la couvorture en papier est ImprimAe sent filmte en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'iilustratlon, soit par le second plat, salon la cas. Tous les autres exemplalres originaux sent fllmAs en commenpant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'iilustratlon et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signlfle "A 8UIVRE", le symbols ▼ signlfle "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left bend corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre film^a i des taux de rMuction dlffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, II est fllmA i partir de i'angle supArleur gauche, de gauche A drolte. et de haut en bas, en prenant I* riombre d'Images nAcessalre. Les diagrammes suivants lllustrent la mAthode. :• ■*, .■• t . ■ « . % ■y ■»■ - ♦ • - • ■ e '•«A ■? ■ '^ '.f ■ *'/ •IMMb«M||Mi|l|M^^ |i I iiiiiii ■ >n> n|i| linn iiiiiiii 1 uiiiiB ». ni V i ^ i U |i i I mj hh i ' rf i m mI i »i)«M(»«y*i 4m»immf!ia»eK^imsmuamKmmim^M ■' im (f J'^i ^J •«'-i"« : {iH«9^i9i^'^' jffiiiioi^, ; M 5^' I* li nm ii ni I I ijii f
  • '■( W^e! f 1.* M » ■'■'■i^lA -^^t i*^-. .ih. I L': ■■ At ^■«. >i< s4 ,'» tfij •j»**- 'j w.^ previ liamc that alarn ing liamc face also estina bablj almc ▼inoe %:ifi'.-Mi!'^>'. rAV , 1 *■ ■i 5 .» CONDITION OF CANADA, INDUSTRIAL, POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL. ••* JOHN CHARLTON, M. P., ON THE ♦.'• '. BUDGET ^•■fc. IN ANSWER TO THI ANNUAL STATEMENT BY SIR LEONARD TILLEY. Delivered in the Home of Cimmons, at Ottawa, on Tuesday, March 10th, 1885. Mr. CHABLTON. I am sure, Sir, that we have all listimed with plea«ure to the speech of my hon. friend the mem- ber for Piotou. A few of the poiiits he has made I shall perhaps notice in the course of my remarks to-night*. The interest taken in the financial state^ ment made annually by the Finance Minister of this Dominion is for ob- vious reasons increasing year by year. The importance of his statement as it re- lates to the interests and prosperity of the country is increasing year by year. That hon. Minister, Sir, on the present occasion, has met Parliament under cir- cumstances perhaps less favorable and less comfortable to himself than on some previous occasions. He meets Par- liament with the fact confronting him that the debt of this country is assuming alarming proportions — that it is increas- ing with great rapidity. He meets Par- liament with the fact staring him in the face that the expenses of the country are also increasing. He tells us that the estimates for the coming year will pro- bably reach |3C,000,000, an increase of almost 120,000,000 since these Pro- vinces were confederated in 1867. He knows that the taxation is ex- tremely heavy, and that, owing to the depression that exists, although the rate of taxation has not been reduced, the re- venue derived from taxation is consider- ably less than formerly. He also is un- able to deny that following the stimula- tion which has been applied has come over-production and plethora, and that ottt manufactures today are in a stag- nant position. He knows that the pros- pects of the great North-West, to which this country must look for expansion and growth, have been blighted by the policy this Government has adopted ; he knows that the tide of immigration which set in in a stream towards that country has, if it has not been turned, beenreduced until the stream has become a mere drib- let ; and he knows that this result is due in a large measure to the operation of his fiscal policy. He knows his Qoveru- ment has been guilty of the incredible folly of saying to the people of the North-West that they shall not use their own money to create avenues of traffic for the transportation of their products to market; he knows that, although he met us unctious with plausi- bility, the case he presents to Parliament is one the reverse of pleasing to himself and the party which backs him, and in fact the conclusion at -which he arrives, the one comfort he has for himself, is that matters might have been worse. He draws a comparison bet^roen the taxation of this country and the taxation of the old effete monarchies of Europe, in which great standing armies are maintained and the tax-paying capabilities of their popula- tions strained to the utmost, in order that they may maintain an armed neut- rality and congratulates himself because the taxation in Canada has not reached the sum it has in those countries. He points to the Australian colonies and their total revenue, and would lead us to suppose that their revenue is derived wholly from taxation, whereas he knows that 65 per cent, of it is derived from other sources and only 35 per cent, from taxation. His statements are all calcu- lated to mislead the country and to give us a false sense of security, a false sense of good government and of proper management on the part of those who have in charge the financial affairs of this countiy. Tone Not Congratulatory. It is noticeable that the hon. gentle- man does not assume the congi'atulatory tone which on former occasions he was wont to assume. His tone is depreca- tory and apologetic, contrasting strongly with his utterances in some of his former Budget Speeches. I will call the hon. gentleman's attention to one or two brief extracts from speeches made by him on former occasions. In his Budget Speech of 1880, be used the following language : "I believe. Sir. there is a good time com- ing. I believe tuat the policy of this Gov- ernment has inaugurated a good time, with reference to the encouragement of the in- dustries of this country, giving a home mar- ket to our farmers for their produce, giving business for everybody, and filling up the vast territory in the North-West in prepara- tion for the millions that will populate it in the future." Where is the home market? We will enquire into that more fully in a few T'i moments. Where is the market onr farmers were to have for all the produce th^y could raise? Is the North-West filling up with millions? What is the condition of the North-West ? Evidently the rosy picture drawn by the hon. gen- tleman in his Budget Speech in 1880 -ring their jpoficy: in ires of the: )ke truly 9t enemy- greatest iruly in [ve this it, time and the n's views ■s. •■•"* the hon. f - - , that at a has a le finan- position istory of ghas it histoiy , gener- re pros- se, Sir, submit )8perity )on the ted by at no as the n the i^as in He 1 that ontrjr witk $25,000,000 obligations shortly to fall due ransettled and unprovided for ; he might well say that at no time in our ihistoxy has the Government met Parliament witk $18,000,000 of float, ling debts; he might truly say that at no time inour history hasthe Government >met Parliament when the Government is obliged to confess that it has been com- pelled to resort to the expedient called, in •commercial language, **shinning," on the atreet, in order to meet its current obliga- tions; or borrowing at all points where it •can make atemporary loan, on the promise that the loan will be refunded as soon as the credit of the Government will permit it to make a permanent loan. Pledges that were not kept. If we go on to consider the pledges made with reference to this National Policy, we will find that scarcely one of them has been bept. With reference to the pledges made with regard to the employment of labor, I find in the Budget Speech of 1882, made by the hon. gentleman, the following language: ^ annum under the operation of th» National Policy than it was before. * ask is it possible that so stupendous * blunder was made in reference to thoe* statistics, as to show that this emigratio^ is no greater than under the operation r the previous tarifi't 10 'Test of Accuracy of Statistics. Now, with regard to the accuracy of these statistics, if we test them by the American census returns — ^if we take the return of native Canadians in the United States in 1870, we find them to be 498, 000; and assuming that to be correct, if we take the return of native Canadians in the United States in 1880, we find them to be 717,000. If we take these statistics year by year, and allow a death- rate of two in every thousand for the initial population, and one in every thousand for the emigrant population in every year, and work it out on that basis, as I have worked it out, we will find that the result is surprisingly near to the returns made by the Bureau of Stat- istics. I find, assuming it on that basis, and taking the population of the United States as shown by the census rotums of 1870, and adding to that population year by year the emigration from this country, as reported in these returns, striking off two per thousand as the annual death rate for those in the United States, and one per thousand for those going in, we will find that in 1880 the population, AS shown by the census returns of the United States, agrees with these statistics within some seven or eight thousand. That is what you will find, and I say it is impossible that any great mistake with reference to those statistics c%n have «xisted. Then if you take the school returns you will find that the school population has decreased The other day my hon. friend at my right (Sir Richard Uartwright), quoted certain school ratums, And the hon. member for Cardwell (Mr. White), quoted certain other school returns. Well, th^re are two kinds. There is one rettim tuade by the ' assessors, which is very inaccurate, and ' naturally this was the kind which my ^hon. friend from Cardwell (Mr. White) I li $66,000,000, but the last calendar year shows tliat balance in favor of the United States had reached $300,000,000 a - ?. I think then * * * tnat the p?(. ity of the one country at this moment i caused in a Seat measure by the large surplus in its vor and the depression in the other by the large deficiency. Under these circumstances it appears to me we should turn our atten- tion to the best means of reducing our im- ports from aU parts of the world." Is that accurate, Mr. Speaker ? Does the hen. gentleman still hold to these doctrines, that a balance of trade against a country is an indieation of poverty, that a balance of trade in favor of a C3untry is an indication of wealth, and that it should be the object of states- men to reduce the imports — induce the volume of trade. Does the hon. gentle- man still hold by the language to which he gave utterance in 1879, with regard to tiie balance of trade against England, to which he refera amounting to £140,- 000,000. Let us look for a moment at the question of the trade balance against England. For the last thirty years, at least, an annual balance of trade has existed against England of an enormous amount ; for the last twenty years it has averaged about five hundred millions of dollars a year. Now, if the theory of the hon. gentleman is correct, if a balance of trade against a country means that the country is being impoverished, then long ago England should have reached a state of bankruptcy, where she would have ceased to trade at all. I find that in the ten years, from 1873 to 1882, inclusive, the balance of trade against England was .£1,074,854,000, sterling, or an average annual balance of £107,486,000 ster- ling, or over $500,000,000 a year. But, Sir, when we come to analyse this ques- tion and examine into the condition of English trade, and see why it is that this large balance exists against that country, we will find that 1 1 per cent, should be added to the exports of England tocover thefreight earned by hervesaels in carrying her exports to foreign ports ; that 1 1 per oeni should be deducted from the valae of the imports to make up for the charges and earnings of the yeasels which bring the imports into the English mar- kets. The earnings of her vessels out . and in comprise 11 per cent, of the im- ports and 11 per cent, of the exports, and if we look at the matter in that light, in the ten years during which £3,857, 917,000 sterling were brought into that country and .£2,788,805,000 taken out— during those ten years England had to her credit £424,000,000 sterling as the earnings or freights on her imports, and £306,218,000 sterling as her earnings for freight on the exports, and that is to be deducted from the nominal balance against her. Then, England is receiving every year £56,000,000 sterling in interest from her investments in other countries, and that amounts to £560,000,000 in ten years. Add these three items together, and they amount to £1,290,588,000 to be deducted from the nominal balance of trade against England of £1,074,000,000, In adddition to this England has her direct profits fi'om trade. Her commercial houses have their agencies in Africa, South America^ China and other countries. Their car- goes ai'e shipped from England and sent to their factors and traded for the natural products of these countries; often the same cargo discharg ed and returned repre- sents a difference of twofold in value. So that the whole theory of the hon. gen- tleman with regard to an adverse balance of trade impoverishing a country, is an utter, an absolute fallacy. If the hob. gentleman's theory regarding unfavor- able trade balances is correct, then England would be exporting; gold to pay the balances against her ; and yet since 1861, England has had a balance of gold against her only in two years. From 1861 to 1878 her imports of gold exceeded her exports by £92,630,000. In 1861 and 1872, when the export of gold exceeded the imports, the balance of gold against her was only£2,066,000 and £728,000 respectively, a total of £2,794» 000. The excess of imports over exports indicates the wealth of a country, bat the excess of exports over imports indicates its indebtedness. Some of the richest countriee in the world, C^ermany, Bel- IS I n giam, Sweden, Holland, and Norway, have eveiy year nominally large balances of trade against them. If we examine the case of the United States, we shall £nd that the favorable balance of trade there is nominal rather than real. It is probably made up in this way. The du- ties in that country are excessive, and a large amount of smuggling is engaged in, which, of coune, reduces the favorable balances of trade to whatever extent it may be indulged in. Then there is said to be a systematic system of under- valuation by importers. Occasionally suits are brought by the Govern- ment for the recovery of hundreds of thousands, in some instances, millions of dollars of duty, in consequence of undervaluation and false invoices. If we take these two items, smuggling and undervaluation, I have no doubt they will very largely wipe out the balance of trade that exists in favor of the United States. We will find also that during the eight years that the balance of trade is said to have existed in favor of that country, in only two years has here been a balance of specie in favor of the country, while in six years a large amount of specie has been withdrawn to pay actual balances of trade against the country, although nominally the Custom houses showed a large balance of trade in its favor. Tilley on Canadian balance of Trade. I ^d, Sir, that the hon. gentleman also, in his Budget Speech of 1881, used the following language with regard to trade jn this country : — " Last year the excess of exports over im- Sorts was 91,461,711 — the first instance of le kind in the history of Canada. This is due to two causes. First, because we in- creased the value of raw material by manu- factures by $6,000,000, which diminished the value of the imports by the same sum. Then we increased the exports, due partly, I admit, to a bountiful harvest for which we have great reason to bethankfuL" Well, the hon. gentleman felicitated him- self at that time that we were to have a favorable balance of trade, but it does not seem that we have done so. I find that from 1875 to 1879 the total balanoe of trade against Canada was $106,111, 079 ; and from 1880 to 1884, under the administration of hon. gentlemen oppo- site, the total balance of trade against the country was $82,059,370, a difierenoe in favoi of the latter period of $23,051, 706. The year 1875 was an exceptional year ; the balance of trade against Canada at that time was a very heavy one ; andl if we take the four last years of the Mackenzie Administration and the four last years of this Administration, w« shall find, that in the former period the balance of trade was $59,927,772, and in the latter period, $83,481,079, or an excess in favor of the former period against the latter of $23, 553,307. Then, if we take the last two years of each Administration we shaU find that in 1878 and 1879 the total bal- ance of trade was $24,231,298, and im 1888 and 1884, $59,158,765, or an excess of $24,927,473 in favor of the former against the latter period. So much, Sir, for the question of the balance of trad& I think I have shown to the satisfactioa of the House that the hon. gentleman's views on this question are not in accord' anoe with sound political economy. I think I have shown also that even if it were an advantage to Canada to lessen the adverse balance of trade, the hon. gentleman has not been successful in thai respect, for it has been much heavier in the four last vears under his Administra- tion than in the four last years of the Mackenzie Administration. Who pays the Duty on Coal. Now, one word with regard to the coal duties. The hon. gentleman, in his speock the other night, used the following language : — " I will not undertake to say that It may not by proved, to some extnnt, that, in some cases the duties are paid by the party selling the coal. I am not going to take any doubtfal ground. I will Mmit, for the sake of arma- ment, that the people pay every cent of the duty." Well, I suppose he will admit that for tho sake of argument, becausu the argu- ment is so overpowering that he oannol of ill deny it. But he used different language with reference to this matter once. I recollect that in 1882, 1 heard the hon. gentleman make the following state- ment: — ''On the subject of coal I know there has been a good deal said, but my enquiries have led me to the conclusion that while we re- ceive a very considerable sum from coal im- ported from the United States, and consumed m Ontario, one-half of that sum is paid by the coal producers in the United States. That ia my conviction, and we have evidence of it.'' l^ow, I would like to call the attention (d the hon. member for Pictou (Mr Tup- per) to what Sir Charles Tupper said on the same matter ; and I recollect, as dis- tinctly as if it had been yesterday, the look of admiration that was on the face of the Finance Minister when he looked up and listened to this statement, very much as one boy would look at another who could climb a tree higher than he could, Sir Charles said : "I defy any man who will ai>proach this subject in a ndr and candid spirit to arrive at any other conclusion than that the coal tax is not paid by the people of Ontario, though paid in Ontario. I venture to state, and have sufficient pounds for the state- ment, that the imposition of the coal duty has not cost the people of Canada one farth- ing either in Ontario or out of it. * * * It is on this point I slightly^ differ from my hon. friend the Minister of Fmance, who seems to think that perhaps half of the duty might be paid in the United States and half in Ontario." Well, Sir, it is said to-day, on the admis- non of the Finance Minister, that it is a doubtful question, and he admits, for the sake of argument, because the argu- ment is so stroug that he cannot deny it, that the duty is paid by the consumer in Canada, Tilley's Way of Estimating Taxation. Now I come to the question of taxation, as dealt with by the hon. gentleman, and be has certainly a very ingenious way of dealing with questions of this kind, fie is able to manipulate figurfs with an Ability which may fairly be 8 kid to stand unrivalled in its particulir line and way. He sets out with the turpose of making a comparison between the two periods of taxation — the period of five years under the Administration of Mr. Mackenzie, and the period of five yean under b's own Administration. In taking the first period, he adds the deficit to the taxation. Well, Sir, the people did not pay the defi(!it ; the people paid in taxa- tion the amount derived from Customs and Excise. He then comes to the second period, and in as much as he had taken from the people 120,000,000 more than he could spend in ordinary expendi- ture, he coolly deducts that amount from the taxation. He says: True, you paid that money, but we did not spend it in ordinary expenditure ; we got rid of it in some other way ; therefore, I will score it off as if not paid by you and will not consider it a tax at all. By adding on the one hand the deficit, and subtract- ing on the other the unnecessary taxa- tion which he levied, he gets his figures into a shape that enables him to draw the comparison he desires to draw. I propose to adopt a different method. I pro- pose to adopt the honest way of dealing with the question; I pro- pose to take the actual taxti^tion in the one period and the actual taxation in the other, and on that proper and just basis to draw a comparison between the the two. It is true there was a deficit under the Administration of my hoa. friend (Mr. Mackenzie), amounting to some four and three-quarter million dollars, but it is also true that he paid into the sinking fund out of the revenue of the country a sum of money amount- ing to f 4,190,000 ; and if you deduct the sinking fund from tho revenue you have an allor^ance for the deficit which places the Government in nearly the position in which it would have been had no deficit existed. Oomparisons of Actual Taxation. The actual sum derived from Customs, Excise and Bill Stamps, from Istof July, 1874, to the Ist of Jtily, 1879, was $93, 290,770, and if you take the mean popu- lation for that period, upon the basis taken by my hon. friend opposite— and u 1 his basia is too high — ^the taxation for that period amounts to an annual average per capita of $4.64 under the Administrati ably with that of the hon. gentleman, the Finance Miniater (Sir Leonard Till^). I hear a reaponae upon the other aide. Hon. gentlemen oppoaite aay *%ear, hear." I wish that thia ooontry had been bleaaed with the aenrioM of - a mntleman •• oapable of grappling with the diflElonltiea ■ ^ai^viO'iicj 15 >of it» position as the hon. gentle- man on my right (Sir Bichard Cart- wright); I wish that during the last six years the finances of this country had been administered with that prudence, sagacity and economy that characterized the Administration of my hon. friend- Increase of Duties Unnecessary. What is his record ] It is said he had deficits. He had. And why ? Because that hon. gentleman took the position, the sound, economic position, that in a period of depression the revenues derived from Customs duties were not a fair in- dication or a fair measure of the volume of revenue that would be derived from them under ordinary circumstances. He took the position that though the expense was slightly in excess of the revenue erience is concerned, because our own tariff was changed just at the time the yemment, to show how inordinately our expenditure has been increased, to show to what alarming proportions the public debt is swelling, to show what dangers impend over this country and threaten it, and it is the duty of hon. gentlemen opposite to hear these state- ments, to examine them, and to make up their minds whether these statements are true or not; and, if they are true, it is the duty of every independent member of this House of Commons to check that Government and to see if the course which is being followed and which islike- ly to result in the ruin of this country cannot be stopped. Now, with regard to the comparisons taade by my hon. friend, he first of all makes a comparison of expenditure, a compa- rison on averages ; he speaks of the State taxes, too; he tells us that the State taxes amount to |1.20 per head in the United States. The hon. gentleman is slightly in error there, his basis of caloiuatifm upon population is too low. He estimates ^e population of the United States at 64,000,000. It is estimated by their own statisticians at 57,500,000. If we take 56,000,000 it is certainly be- low the mark. The State taxation last •year amounted to $61,434,095, which would be about $1.09 per head, but a large amount of that taxation is expen- ded for purposes for which we raise muni- cipal taxes, and, if we take out of ques- tion the subsidies in Oanada, which last year amounted to $3,603,714, and which would, in proportion, amount to $46,848, 000 in the United States, they will offset the State taxation in the United States. The hon. gentleman goes on to make a comparison between the two countries as to expenditure, and first of all he places the population too low. Then — I do not know whether he was aware of it or not — he included in the taxation of th* United States a sum of seven and one- half millions which does not figure in the taxation of the country. He takes the bank tax, he takes consular fees, he takes patent fees, he takes fees of all kinds, and these items amount to $7,432,333, and he informs the House of Commons that this is a part of the taxation of the United States. It is not, Mr. Speaker. He places the taxation nearly eight millions too high and he places the population nearly three millions too low, and he strikes his balance on that basis and makes the tax- ation of the United States $4.93^. It is not a cent o^ar $4.60. He mekes it 33^ cents too high, at least. He starts on that bads. Then he goes on to make a statement with regard to the debt. He states the debt of the United States cor- rectly. I believe he did not inform the House what our debt was. If he did I have forgotten. I will take the pains to supply Uie omission. On Public Debt On the 30th June last the gross debt of Oanada was $242,482,416 ; and the net debt $182,161,800. On the 81st Do- comber the gross debt was $263,739,147, and the net debt $188,914,886. The net debt in six months had increased $8,763, 036. On the 31st January the gross debt was $266,966,416, the net debt was $192,128,080. The net debt had in. creased in one month $8,208,196, and the hon. gentleman adnoitted that sub- sequent to that date, the 31st January* the debt had still Airther increased faj at least two millions more. If that is true, the net debt at the time the admission was made — I do not know what it may be now— was $194,123,000, or a chaige per capita, if we estimate the mean population oftheyearat 4,500,000, which is high enough, of $43.13 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada. But that is not all. We have nominal assets of $68,843,386. These are deducted from the gross debt, and the balanoe is assumed to be the net debt. Will the Finance Minister assure us that he can realise upon these assets of sixty-three millions without a shrinkage of thirty millions 1 If he will assure US| 17 takes ees, he of all mt to the part States, places >ns too nearly kes his he tax- h It ekes it starts make He tes oor- rm the edidi aixus to I would li* «. t-n have the assoranoe that the nominal assets of the Dominion of Canada would realise to-morrow |33,000,- 000. I do not believe they would. I believe we are entitled to add thirty million more to the net debt stated by the Government for the shrinkage in realising upon the assets. If that is the case, our net debt to day has reached the enor- mous amount of $224,123,000, a charge of $49.80 per head if our population is 4,600,000, or $48.72 if it is 4,600,000, as I belive the hon. gentleman asserts it is. We will compare that state of the case with the debt of the United States. The hon. gentleman made the comparison. It is my duty to correct statements which I believe are not warranted by the fact& On the Ist November last the debt of the United States was $1,408,482,948, which, on a population of 66,000,000, ia $26.16 p«r eapUa, against at least $48.72 in Canada, if oar assets would shrink thiriy millio&s in realising. He says we oi^ht to add the State debts, as we have nothing corresponding to them in Canada. We will add them. The State debts amounted last year to $237,611,768 funded debt, and $30,260,317 unfunded debt. We wiU add these sums and we have $1,676,246,023 as the total debt of the United States State debt and National debt Well, what does that amount to p$r capita on a populati on of 66,000,000 9 It amounts to $29.93 per head. If we take the State debt and National debt of the United States and make a comparison of ikepwcapU^i charge between the two countrieB^ we will find that even upon that bans the debt of Canada exeeeds the debt of the United States by $18 per head, which is the position of the country to-day. And how has this debt been incuiredl What has the Government to show for their debt) Sir LEONARD TILLEY. Full value. Mr. CHARLTON. PubUc works, paying one fifteenth of 1 per cent ; thirty or forty nuUioas sunk in the Canadian Paoifio Railway assets comparitively vahialess; forty millions in the Inter- ooloDial Railway, that w will ultimately hat« to dosa— this is ths oharaoter of our assets ; this is the full value that we re- ceive for the money. The United States incurred their debt to save the life of tiia nation, confronted by a crisis which threatened the dissolution of their Republic, threatened by a crisis which re- quired tlutt country to put forth its ut- most exertions, to bury 600,000 of its sons upon the battle field which, required that counlry to expend thousands of millions of dollars — ^it was under these circum- stances that the debt of that coimtry was incurred, that debt which has been re- duced to $1,400,000,000. But we, in a time of profound peace, with no necessity resting upon us, have gone on piling up our debt until it exceeds the debt of the United States by a par capita charge of at least $18 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada. And what is the outlook ahead ) Can the hon. gentleman assure us that the limit of the accumulation of debt has been reached 1 Can he assure us that when he makes his next financial state- ment, if he should make it in this House, he will be able to point to any diminution of our public debt ? Will he not, on the contrary, be called upon to inform us, when we meet here again, if Provi- dence spares us, that milli<»ui upon mil- lions more have been added to that burthen (tf debt already so great) Sir, it is inevitable that we will. It is inevit- able that when he next makes the finan- cial statement to this country, we will have added to our taxation, added to our expenditure, aad enormous as our debt is already, it will have been considerably increased. The Interest Charge. Now, Sir, with regard to the interest charge. Did I understand the hon. gen- tleman, when he made his financial state- ment, to say that the interest charge in the United States was as heavy as it is in Canada t I think not. He admitted that it was heavier in this oounlay, but he minimised the interest charge here, and he presents a statement -wHSl regard to that mii'.i'yr more roseate than the droumstanoes and the truth will warrant. -# 18 li I Kow let us all look at that question. Assoming the population <^ this United States at 56,000,000, and that of Canada at 4,500,000, our interest charge last year of $7,700,000 was at the rate of $1.69 per hcAd ; while the interest charge of the United States last year of $54,578,000 amounted to a per capita charge of 96 cents against $1.69 in this country. That was the condition of thipgs last year. What will be the con- dition of things in 1886, accoi'ding to the estimates of this Government and the estimates of the United States Groyem- ment 1 In 1886 it is estimated by my hon. friend that it will require $9,450,- 000 to pay the interest on our public debt, and upon the basis of his estimates our population will be 4,660,000, which will be a per capita chaise of $2.02. What will it be in the United States 1 It is estimated that their interest charge will be $18,500,000 for a population of 57,- 500,000, so that the interest charge in the United States next year will be 84 cents per head, against $2.02 in Canada. In 1887 it is inevitable that the interest charge in Canada will be three times as great as the interest diarge in the United States, in proportion to the population. Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear. Mr. CHARLTON. Perhaps] hon. j^entleman had better wait till 1887, and then see who will be right. I say that, in all human probability, the year 1887 will] show that the interest charge of Canada is threefold as great as the inter- est charge of the United States — a brillant record, surely for the hon. gentlemen oppo- site ; and the disparity will continue to increase. The debt of the United States is being reduced from year to year, the population of that country is swelling to an enormous magnitude, and its wealth is being increased in proportion, while, on the contrary, our debt ia continually augmenting, and the interest charges are increasing in proportion. So, much for the question of the public debt and the interest charge resting upon the two countries. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of grave importance to this country. I see my hon. from Lincoln (Mr. By kert) laughing. He cannot see anything wrong to thu. He cannot rea^ Use, Mr. Speaker, that this country, lying \ alongside the United States, is a compet- itor with the United States in inviting emigration from the old world to our North- West, lying untilled, and asking for millions of people to settle in it; he can- not realise that the question of which country has the greatest debt, the great- est interest charge and the heaviest tax-^ ation, will have anything to do with the ' settlement of that country in the future, or will have anything to do with its prosperity. Oh, no! He cannot realise that. It is a matter of no consequence whether we owe three times as much per head as the United States or owe five times as much. It is a matter of no consequence whether we squander our resources, whether we accumulate a vast public debt, or whether we imperil the future of this country — all that matters mothing. The hon, gentleman from Lincoln can laugh as Nero fiddled when Rome was burning ; he can laugh ov«r the dark future that lies before this country, in consequence of the mis>ii management of the hon. gentleman oppo- site ; but 1 believe it is a matter of very grave consequence to us alL I believe the time has come when we should care- fully consider our financial position. I believe the time has come when we should recognise that we have been pro- 1 ceeding in a wrong direction, and whea ? we should retrace, if possible, our stepsi ) . Oomparison of Expenditure with ' United States. Now, with regard to our expenditure. ^ The expenditure in the year 1884,: charffeable to the Consolidated Fund, was $31,107,000, upon a population of 4,500,000, making a per capita expendi- ture of $6.91. The expenditure of the United States in the same year was $290,916,000 as stated by my hon. friend when he made his financial state- ment. The per capita charge in that country on a population of 56,000,000 is $5.19, or $1.72 less than the per oapitu charge in Canada. Then, if we deduct i per the the will ther for for 000 for 1» the sinking fund firam the expenditure iu each country, we will find the expen* ditare in Canada to be $26,100,000, or $5.80 per haad ; while the expendi- ture in the United States is $244,000, 000, or $5.35 per head, an excess of $1.45 per head in Canada as compared with the United States j and if we analyse the expenditure of the United States we will find various items of expenditure there we do not have here. We will find, for instance, an enormous expenditure for pensions, amounting to over $55,000,- 000 a year, and a very heavy expenditure for the purpose of maintaining an army and a navy. These are expenditures which we are in a measure free from. Our expenditure for pensions last year was $95,500. If you multiply that by 12^, the discrepancy of population be- tween the two coimtries, our expenditure for that purpose would be $1,194,276, corresponding exactly in magnitude to what the expenditure in the United States would be if its population at the same proportion as ours. If you take our ex- penditure for militia at $1,475,481, and multiply it by 12|, you have $18,443,- 612, which is the expenditure we would have incurred upon the same basis if our population were the same as the United States. Multiplying those expenditures by 12|, in order to make them compaie with the CJnited States, what do we find ] We find the expensesofthe United States under those heads, when our corresponding expenditure is multiplied by 12^, exceeds the expenditure in our case by $83,637,- 670, and deducting that excess and the sinking fund from the ordinary expendi- ture, the j9er oa/n/a rate is $2.86. There is another view to take, and I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to it. The United States have no such thing as a consolidated account and a cap- ital account : all soes to current account. There is no capital account kept. When 1 state the expenditure of the United States, at $290,000,000, J state the entire expenditure of that county. We had an expenditure last Tear, dedooting sinking fund, of $26,000,000 ; we had, in addition, tlie expenditure on capital ac- count, without oountinff payment of debts to Provinces, $16,800,000. We spent last year, to say nothing of debts paid to Provinces, $42,905,529. To make a fair compariaonjbetween this country and the United States, we have to take, on the one hand, the total expenditure, $42,- 905,529, and on the other hand, the total expenditure in the United States, $290,- 916,478. If we make that comparison and this is a &ir basis, we find that iheper c -^ita expenditure for all purposes is in Canada $9.41, and in the United States for all purposes, except payment of public debt. $5.19. This is a fair comparison to make vrith respect to the expenditure of the two countries. Oomparison of Taxation with United States. A word with respect to the taxation of the two countriea As I said a short time ago, the proper measure of taxation in this country is that derived from Customs. Excise duties are voluntary ; you may pay them or not, as you please; Customs duties are involuntary ; to them all men must contribute. The United States average annual Customs, from 1st July 1879, to 1st July, 1884, was $3.82 per capita. The annual average for the same period in this country was $4.52, upon the basis of population as repre- sented by the Finance Minister. If we take the United States Customs taxation for last year, we will find that the per coptto amount was $3.64, while our own taxation from Customs was $4.45 per capUa. If we take 1883, the Customs taxation in the United States averaged $3.97 per head, as against $5.22 in this Dominion. So much for the rates of taxation imposed in the two countries. Comparison of Expenditure in different Eras. If we compare the expenditure in this countiy with the expenditure of the United States in different eras, we will find some startling contrasts. It will be remembered that this is a young country. If we go back to the history of the United States, to the time when that country was in a similar condition to our ao own, when it had not attained the pro- portions of one of the great powers of the globe, and if we miJce a comparison between the expenditure in that country then and the expenditure here, now, we will find, I say, some startling contrasts. I invite the attention of the Finance Minister to a few of these oontrasta I will taketheyear8l790, 1800, 1810, 1820,1830 1840, 1860, 1860 ; and in making these comparisons, I do not include interest paid on public debt on either side. The figures are as follows : CANADA— OBDIHABT EZFmn>rn7BB, 1884. , Excluding iuterest, $23,407,626. ^ , Population, say 4,500,000; j^er capita, |6. 13. UKITSD STATES t 1790.— Population, 3,919,214. Net ordinary expenditure, excluding interest, $1,- 919,689. Per capita, 49 cents— 1-10 OUT rate. Navy and war, in all cases offset subsidies. 1800.— Population, 6,294,390. Expenditure, $7,411,360, of which $6,000,000 for war and navy. Ptr capita, $1.40 — 2-7 our rate. 1810.— Population, 7,230,808. Expenditure, $6,311,082. Per capita, 73 cents— 1-7 our rate. 1820.— Population, 9,633,822. Expenditure. $13,134,630, of which was, navy ana pensions, $10,226,768. Total per capita, $1.36 — 2-7 our rate. 1830.~.population, 12,866,020. Expenditure, I' $13,229,533. Pereopito, $1.02—1-6 our rate* 1840.— Population, 17,069,463. Expenditure, 1 \ $24,139,920, of which war, navy and pension, $16,812,526. TotiA per capita, $1.41 — 2-7 our rate. I860.— Population, 23,191,876. Expenditure, $37,166,990, of which war and navy, $19,468,634. Per eapUa, $1.60— 1-3 our rate. I860.— Population, 31,443,321 . Expenditure, $64,912,634; war, navy and pen- sions $29,087,653 ; balance, $26,- 824,981. Total per coptto, $1.74— 1-3 our rate. I suppose these figures do not suit hon. gentlemen opposite, but the Finance Minister instituted a set of comparisons betweei^ the expenditures of the United S tates and Canada, and I wanted to show what is the real relative position of each of these two countries. I wish to call his attention to it, because he occupies a responsible position in this matter, and it is time for him to put on the brakes. Suggestive Oonmarison— United States and Canada 1868 and 1884. I wish to make one more comparison only. We launched out as a nation im 1867. I want to take that year and compare the expense or the taxation per head for expenditure in Canada and the United States, and then I want to see how we have travelled together; I want to make the comparison for this year and see whether we have lost or gained ground in the race which we must ncMS- sarily and inevitably run with that country. In 18b7-68 the taxation of the United States, receipts from Customs and internal revenue, and the direct income tax, was $357,340,090 on a population of 86,6000,000, or a per oapita tax of $9.30. The ordinary expenditures in that year, and ihe payment of nterest on debt was $370,339,000, or a per capita expenditure of $11.46. Now, we made a favorable contrast with the UnitedStates for that year. Our Customs and Excise taxation for that year was $11,690,000, or $3.40 p«r capUa. Our expenditure was $13,486,000, Or $3.93 per head, and the United States spent that year $6.40 per head more than w« did. Their taxation was 2^ per cent, greater than ours, and their expenditure 2x^ per cent, or $7 53 per head greater. If we come to the year 1888-84 we find that the United States Customs and In- ternal revenue taxation amounted to $6.66 per head, and ours to 5.62 ; or, in other words, while their taxation was nearly three times greater than ours in 1867, there was a cUfferenee of only 3 cents per head in 1884. The United States expenditure in 1884 was $5.19 per head and ours was $6.91 per head, so that while theirs was al- most three times as great as oun in 1867-68 it was $1.72 less this year. This comparison is a suggestive one. If , eighteen years ago, the United States, burthened from taxation, had an expen. years. 31 aitore nearly tliree times as great as it was in Oanada ; if, in 1864, the expen- diture of the United States is $1.72 iuss than Oanada, there is food for tiiought in that statement ; and if we are to continue t« travel in that direction what will the ntrast be in the next eighteen years ? I say that if we are to go on in that di- rection we will not exist as a peopleineigh- teen years, to institute comparisons be tween the two countries ; we will have reached the goal of ruin before that time if we are to continue in the course we have been pursuing in the last eighteen years. Unpatriotic Conduct. I shall be told, I have no doubt, that I am unpatriotic ; I shall be told that these statements will be taken up by the American immigration agents; I shall be told that I am prejudicing the interests of Canada — ^in doing whati In telling the truth 1 Sir, I am not prejudicing the interests of Canada. I am warning the gentlemen in charge of the interests of Oanada as to the condition of this oountiy at this moment. I am warning them as to the dangers which threaten this coun- try, as to the results which will attend persistence in the policy they are now pursuing. Sir, we cannot conceal our position from the United States or from intelligent men. It is not nece8<*ary to tell them ; they know i(^. But we can inform ourselves, and it is necessary tha* the people of Canada should know the truth. It is necessary that the people of Oanada should know the affairs of this country, and it is nothing short of criminal to conceal from the people of Canada the actual condition of the public affairs of this Di>minion. I do not intend to con- ceal them. And gentlemen may prate «>bout unpatriotic conduct and injuring the country if they choose. We have heard enough of that stuff; it is the business of an Opposition to criticise the policy of the Government, and expose what is wro >g, to warn the Government and the people, if the Government is re- creant to its trust, recreant to its duty. Assisted Passages. I have just a word to say, by way of variety, about assisted passages. I have here a little morsel I came across acci- dentally, in the shape of an extract from a speech made by Sir Charles Tupper in Torouto, on the 11th day of May, 1878. It came to mj mind when I heard his son, the hon. member for Ficton (Mr. Tupper), speaking with reference to im- migration. On that occasion Sir Char- les Tupper used the following language : Sir CHARLES TUPPER. « I tell you that this Qovemment within four years have spent one million dollars in bringing emi- grants into this countey. What for— to starve f (Hean hear). The finance Bfinister says his remedy is to teU the people to work harder and to be more frugal. Well, we may be willing to eat and dxink less, to spend less on dress and to be more frugal, and we are will- ing to work hard, but we want work to do." The arraignment was that the iniquitous Government of Mr. Macken"::e had spent a million of dollars in assisting immigra- tion in the last four years. Well, what is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite ? Have they spent anything 1 I looked at the Public Accounts and I find that they have spent for immigration and quaran- tine for the last four years, $1,516,000. I had not time to subtract the exact sum chargeable to quarantine, but I venture to say that they have spent in the four years forimmigration purposes an amount exceeding by $300,000 the sum stated by Sir Charles Tupper in 1878, when he arraigned the Government of that day for spending that money. I am free to admit that I believe the whole system of assisted passages is wrong. I believe we want the class of immigrants for Canada who are able to pay their own way, and that we are in danger, if we assist immi- grants, of assisting criminals and jail birds, and the most undesirable classes of immigrants — those who have not the energy to pay their own way. I think we might very properly adopt the policy of the United States, which does not assist immigrants, but on the contrary, taxes its immigrants — ^taana the steamship companies for the purpose 32 J': of providing hospitals, and maintaining Castle Garden, and looking after the wel fare of immigrants in going to their desti- nation. I believe that that is a more wise and pi-udent policy than the one we have been pursuing hitherto. Now, Sir, I come to the consideration of the question of expenditure, which I shall treat as briefly as may b<3 and in re- ference to this matter Task the attention of the House to an extract from a speech made by the leader of the present Government, regarding the mode in which the finances were managed by his predecessors. The Speech was made in Toronto on 1 1th May, 1883, in I'esponse to an address delivered to that hon. gentleman. He says : " We have endeavored to raise up this country from the incompetent men who un- worthily hold the reins of power. Of those men I may say that their reign is to be a short one, and that the people are going to rise in their might at the conning election and sn-eep jobbery, corruption and incapacity into one common ruin." Well Sir, the people arose in their might, and they ewept away — whaf? They swept jobbeiy, cori'uptitn and incapacity into power on the crest of a great tidal wsLve of folly and fatuity. A brief glance at some telling facts. We will examine the record of these t\\ o Governments — and the record will Jn•o^o what I say; we shall examine the record of the two Governments as to the expenditure and the management of the finances of this countiy. These are the gentlemen, Sir, charging jobbery, who have i (een guilty of such little peccadilloes as the Onderdonk contract, who did not dare to allow a Bill introduced l)y my lion, friend who sits near me, to prohibit contractors from subscribing to election funds, from becoming the law of the land ; who have i*efuscd, Session after Session, to enact that the coutruc. tors of this Government shall not be con- tributors to its election funds ; those gentlemen, who charge corruption on the gentlemen whom they supplanted in power, arc gentlemen who at that very time had resting upon them a stain; which will be an indelible staiii not only on them, but on Canada, so long as Canada has a history — the sale of a great charter, th« Pacific Scandal. These men who charge corruption on the men they supplanted are men who have given away vast areas of this country without com- petition, and in many cases at one hun- dred times less than its value, to their favorites, in violation of every principle of justice and honesty — who have given away areas large enough for dukedoms and principalities, as pasture land, or as timber or coal leases, on almost nominaT terms. No wonder this Government is popular with a certain class. No wonder it is strongly entrenched, when it has made a corrupt use of the influences at its command for the purpose of securing the favor of its friend& The gentleman who leads this Government, and whom I am sorry not to see in his seat, I will do him the justice to say, no doubt, has acted worse than he would have wished, on many occasions. I have no doubt that the heterogeneous elements he has been obliged to reconcile, and the political difficulties he has had to face, have forced him to commit acts that his better nature revolted against. The trouble with him is, that he is a first-class politician and a third-rate statesman. He can manage public men with the greatest facility, but as for the principles that actuate a states- man, to demand that if his principles are not carried out he will resign, if he was called upon to live up to that standard, he is not there. He reminds me of a story of an African preacher who was warning his congregation against the danger that confronted them in a spiritual sense. He said : •' My brethren, the broad road leads to destruction, and the narrow road leads to damnation." Then a hearer in the congregation cried out : "Then this African takes to the woods." It is so with this hon. gentleman. He will take to the woods or to the narrow way, or will take any course in order that he may remain in power ; and so, as I have said, on many occasions, he has taken posi- tions and committed acts that his better I sha briefly with under tinued thate: It mai (Sir the af tnonth he did timato hon. t 23 nature has rerolted against. With re- gard to the charge of incapacity preferred Against the gentleman now on the Oppos- ition benches, that charge is made by the men who made the Pacific Railway con- tract, and who, when that contract was laid before this House, and it became evident that a better o£Fer was made, I'ef used to retrace their steps, and refused to comply with the law of the land and advertise for tenders in order to secure the construction of that work on terms more favorable to the country. The men who gave, or will give to that syndicate more money than the road will cost, in addition to the 25,- 000,000 acres of »land ; the men who have piled up a debt of $225,000,000 upon this country; the men who have adopted a scale of expenditure which, if continued, will inevitably force this Government to resort to direct taxation to raise money, in addition to all they can squeeze out of tho country by indi- rect taxation — these are the men who prefer the charge of incapacity, jobbery and corruption against the men they isupplanted. General Expenditure of Two Qovemments. Well, Sir, we will examine the finan- cial record of the two Governments ; and, first of all, we will take the general expenditure. I made this comparison ])artly last Session ; but I had not then the complete returns as to the expendi- ture of 1884. I placed that expenditure too high ; it was supposed that it would he higher than it has actually proved to be. I shall make this comparison to-night briefly. I start at the year 18G8, with an expenditure of $13,486,092, under hon. gentlemen opposite, who con- tinued in power six years and increasotl that expenditure to $23,316,316, in 1871 It may be asserted that my hon. friend (Sir Bichard Oartwright) administered the affttira of the country for eight months of that financial year. It iu true he did ; but, Sir, be camt; within the es- timate of my hon. friend opposite. My hon. friend opposite asked for |2.J,0y5, financial year ; Su" Bichard was due to from increase 009, and the expenditure was only $28, 316,316. Now, the increase in those six years was $9,830,224, a percentage of 72 per cent., while the increase of popula- tion during the same period was only 1 1 per cent. The increase of the expenditure exceeded the increase of population by six and a-half times. Now, we turn to the record of the corrupt men whe were driven out of power on account of incapacity, job- bery and corruption. They commenced in 1874 with an expenditure of $23,316, 316, and they went out of office in 1879 with an expenditure, based upon the es- timates of my hon. friend, of $23,669, 000. It is true, that expenditure was somewhat increased, owing to the fact that the hon. gentleman opposite was in office eight months of that but the increase over Cartwright's estimates them. This shows au 1874 to 1879, of $352,- 684, or an average of $70,536 a year, against an annual average increase of $1 ,638,370 undertheirpredecessors. Now Sir, we have commenced on the third financial period in our history, being the second term of the hon. gentlemen oppo site. Upon my hon. friend's estimate of $23,669,000 they commenced operation. They increased the expenditure of that year. My hon. fiiend assures us that he would have kept the expenditure within the estimates, and we have reason to be- lieve he would, inasmuch as he reduced the expenditure between 1877 and 1H78 by !?16,000. If this be the case, those hon. gentkmen, starting with au expen- diture of $23,069,000, in I BSD, have increased it, to to !?;>l,lU7,70t), in 18S4. They have increased the expenditure by $7,438,700, or M \*er cent, while the population of the count ■.•y hus increa^>e(l but 9 jter cent. They ha\e increased their expenditure in the last p?riod thiee and a-half times faster than the population has increased. But for the manipulation in the Dominion lands account, !>ut tor the placing to capital account the .*7-3,- 000 that ought te have been jt'aced on tlie consolidated fund ascount, theconii«arison would have been'?723,000 worse than it is. 24 'Siihs: Comparison upon the Basis of CTontrollable Expenditure. But there is another basis upon which to institute this comparison, and it is a fairer basis than the one I have adopted. If we take our Public Accounts and look at our balance sheet, we will find that the expenses chargeable to con- solidated fund are placed under three heads. We find, first, the classification of charges on account of debt, subsidies or sinking fund, and so forth. These ar'> fixed charges ; they cannot be varied ; i I whatever subsidies have to be paid, what- ever interest is ' harged upon the public debt, whatever sum has to be put into the sinking fund, these sums must be paid. The pruning knife cannot be ap- plied here ; the Government cannot re- duce the appropriation for these ex- penses. Then we have charges on rev- enue, the charges for collecting Customs, the charges of carrying on the operations of the Post Office Depart- ment ; the charges for the Excise Depart- ment, the charges for managing Public Works — these are charges that, so far from the Government being able to re- trench them must inevitably increase to a small extent every year. The pruning knife cannot be applied to those. If the pruning knife is to be applied at all, it must be to that class known as Control- lable Expenditure, expenditure on account of I egislation, Administration of Justice, CivilGovernment.Appropriationsfor Pub- lic Works, Militia Expenditure, and ex* l)enditure of that character. It is to those the pruning knife may be applied, and I propose to institute a comparison l)etween the expenditure of the two ( iovernnients as regards controllable ex- penditure, HO that we may see what ench Govprnnient has accomplished in the matter of retrenchment. We will take the period from 1868 to 1874, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. Starting with a controllable expenditure, in 18f)8,of |3,(;;n,0()0, they had increased that by 1874 to 88,:i*J4,075, an increase of $4,093,000 in six years, or 12'J per rent., averaging annually 29J per cent., or an increase in expenditure 12^ times more rapid than the increase in popula- tion. We will take the period \vhen the incompetents came into power — when the jobbers and the corruptionists were put at the head of afiairs. They started in 1874 with an expenditure of $8,324,075; in 1879 the expenditure amounted ta $6,941,577, showing that they had effected a reduction in controllable ex- penditure of $1,882,498, or 16 per cent. of a reduction against an advance of 29 per cent, by their predecessors. We then come to 1879, when the Government changed and hon. gentlemen opposite came into office. They started with a controllable expenditure of $6,941,677, and in 1884 they had succeeded in raising it to the amount of $11,294,374, an in- crease of $4,352,797, or 62 per cent., giving an annual average of 12io per cent, or an increase seven times more rapid than the increase in popu- lation. If we add to this control- table expenditure, the sum improperly placed to capital account, with regard to expenditure on Dominion lands, $723,- 000, we will find that the increase was $5,000,000, or 72 percent. Somuohforthe comparison of the expenditures, first un- der the head of total expenditure charge- able to consolidated funds, and secondly, under the head of controllable expendi- ture, the latter being the only one in which the Government can exercise its- power of retrenchment. I propose to occupy the attention of the House a few moments in making a comparison of the expenditures in certain Departments of the Government, coming under the head of controllable expendi- ture, made by each Administration ; and in whatever way we institute the compar- ison between the tinancial record of my hon. friend, (Sir Richard Cartwright) and that of the Finance Minister, we will find that in every instance it will re- bound to the credit of my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright). I will take the Departments of Civil CJovernment, the Department of PuVlic Works charge- able to Consolidated Fund, the Dom- inion Lands and the Department of Public Works chargeable to ReTenue, — ma erectii lavish t uenci mont noes, lias be liamei ^nit it and will institute a comparison in each case. As regards Civil Governmont, I would like to call the attention of the Finance Minister to this comparison I am about to make, because he may feel dis- posed to emulate in future, the good ex- ample set to him in the past by my hon. friend (Sir Richard Oartw right). Civil Government Expenditures. In 1868 there was expended on Civil Government, $594,441 ; in 1874, $883,- 685, an increase of $289,244, or 48 per cent., or an average annual increase of 8 per cent., four and a-half times greater than the increase in population. Then my hon. friend (Sir Richard Oartwright) came into office, and starting with that expenditure of $883,685, in 1874, he re- duced it, in 1878, to $823,369, a decrease of $60,316, ar 6f per cent., dfscrease againct an increase in the preceding period of 48 per cent. Then the gentlemen who drove these incompetents from power came in, and they started with this expenditure of $823,369, which, by 1884, they had increased to $1,084,417, an increase of $261,048, or 81 f per cent, being an average annual increase of 5f per cent., three times that of the population in this, the second period in office of hon. gentlemen oppo- site, and four and a-half times that of the population during their first period in office, as against a decrease of 6| per cent, during the period my bon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) was in power. Public Works Expenditure. Next, take up Public Works charge- able to Consolidated Fund. Here is an opportunity to exercise economy, but alao here is an opportunity to launch out into lavish and unjustifiable expenditure, for the purpose of bribing constituencies — making canals, promising to erect, and erecting public works, spending money lavishly by this means in various consti- tuencies, in order to influence public senti- inont in favor of the Government nomi- nees. Tliat powermay be used ; that power liiiB been used. Perhaps it would be unpar- liamentary to say that poweris being used; but it certainly has been used. 1 will pointout amost striking contrast between the records of the Finance Minister and that of my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright). Hon. gentlemen opposite started in 1868 with an expenditure under this head of $126,269; in 1874, when these gentlemen went out of power, their expenditure had reached $1,826,- 000, an increase of $1,699,722, or 1846 per cent, making an annual average increase of 224^ per cent., 128 times faster than the increase of population. Then the Reform Administration came into power and, starting with an expen- diture of $1,826,000, in 1874, they had succeeded in reducing that, in 1878, to $998,694, a reduction of $827,407, a reduction of 45 per cent., an annual re- duction of 11 per cent., against an annual increase under their predecessors of 224^ per cent. Then the gentlemen opposite came into power, and, starting with this expenditure of $998,594, in 1878, they ran it up, in 1884, to $2,908,851, an increase of $1,910,257, or 191 per cent, an average increase of 32 per cent, an increase eighteen times greater than the increase in the population of this Dominion. This is a pretc/ nice record. These men are entitled, I think, to talk about jobbery, and corruption, and incapacity, when speaking of gentlemen on this side of the House. Dominion Lands Expenditure. And next, with regard to Dominion Lands. In 1868 we spent nothing ; in 1874 the expenditure was $280,163. Starting with that expenditure in 1874, my hon. friend reduced it, in 1878, to $87,628, a reduction of $195,535, an an- nual average decrease of $48,883, a re- duction for the period of 69 per cent, or an average annual decrease of 1 7 per cent Then our friends opposite admin- istered the affairs of that Department and, commencing with $87,628 of an ex- penditure in 1878, they bad, in 1884, an expenditure chargeable to income of $166,890, and chargeable to capital — a device for cuokiug the accounts and making the exjiense seem less than it • really is— $723,658, a total of $81)0,548, I an increase of $802,920 in six years, an 2S ■ b'v ifc.r I ^1 h average annual increase of $133,821, a total increase of 101 6 percent., or an an< nual average increase of 169 per cent., or ninety-six times faster than the increase in the population. fe Public Works Management. In Public Works chargeable to Bevenue— that is the management of our public works, our railways and canals — we started, in 1868, with an expenditure of $626,286; gentlemen opposite ran up the expenditui-e to $2,389,679 in 1874, an increaseof $1,763,393, or 281 percent., an average annual increase of $293,898, or 47 i^er cent., an increase twenty-seven times faster than the increase in the population of the countiy. Then the incompetents came in and, starting with the expenditure of $2,889,679, in 1874, in four years they had increased it to $2,471^437, an increase of $81,758, or B^ per cent, for the period. Then the gentle- men opposite took charge of the adminis- tration of that Department again, and commencing with an expenditui-e of $2,471,487, in 1878, they had increased that expenditure to $8,302,791 in 1884, an increase of $831,354, or 33 percent., an average annual increase of $138,559, or 5 J per cent. This is the record. These are the comparisons, these are the contrasts that exist between the manage- ment of theso Departments by the two Governments, and nothing could be more striking, nothing could be more satisfactory as an evidence of the economy and careful management ot these aft'airs upon the one hand, antl the reck- lessness which cliaracteriRes the manage- ment of these aflaivs upon the other. Causes for Alarm. ^Vll;lt is the significance to us, as a pcojile, of our increasing expenditure and our diminishing revenue 1 Is there any ciiuse for alarm in the future 1 Is there any cause for supposing that my hon. friend will l»o able to boast of surpluses of .^4,000,000 or $5,000,000 a year in the near future ? Is there any cauie for fear that ho, too, may be troubled with deficits, tliat he may possibly bo characterised by some person opposed to him in politico as the "King of Deficits,' as my hon.. friend was a short time since? With a scale of expenditure this year reaching $33,000,000, with a shrinkage in revenue from Customs and Excise of $3,786,000 in the last year, with these causes in operation, I say that there is reason for grave alarm; I say that there is a danger that our finances may break down ; I say that there is reason, good reason, for the inability of the €U>vemment to place the $25,000,000 loan about to fall due ; I say that there is good reason for their having a floating debt of from $13,000,- 000 to $15,000,000; I say that there is reason for their being obliged to resort tc the desperate shifts which the man in business resorts to whose credit is not good and who goes "shinning" around the streets attempting to raise money to meet a note which is due and is threat- ened with protest. We have placed ourselves in a position of grave em- barrassment, in consequence of reckless extravagance and mismanagement of the afiairs of the country. I do not blame my hon. friend, who is the creature, the victim, of circumstancea He undoubtedly has been forced to a great degree into the position in which he is, but, whether foi-ced or not, whether res- ponsible or not, the difficulties which thi-eaten the country are none the lees real, and none the less to be lamented. Our Manufacturing Industries. And, now, a few words in regard to our manufacturing industries, and I am done. Mr. KYKERT. That is good. Mr. CHARLTON. I hear the Minis- ter of Customs say " that is good." Mr. BOW ELL. No; you did not. Mr. CHARLTON. I am afraid he is like the old Scotch elder, who was ac- cused of being hard-headed and not open to conviction, and who denied the accu- sation, and stated that he was open to conviction, "but," he added, "I would like to see the man who would convince me." That is the characteristic of my hon. friend opposite. 1.-' 27 f.*/. Mr. BOWELL. I did not happen to say anything, so your story does not apply. Mr. GHARLTON. I am afraid that the warnings I have giren have fallen upon that hon. gentleman unheeded, and that they will have no effect upon him or upon the Finance Minister. It troubles me to think that efforts so well meant and truths so palpable should have so little effect upon those to whom they are directed. Mr. BOWELL. Love's labor lost. Mr. CHARLTON. I wish to ask this question: Did our manufacturing interests, when the National Policy was introduced, require additional protection ? I answer that they did not. They had attained a great development under a Tevenne tariff of 15 per cent., raised to 17^ per cent, in the last two years. I say that, in 1871, if our census statistics are reliable, we had $125,000,000 worth of material consumed by our manufactures in Canada that year, that the products of the manufac- tures were $221,500,000, that we had 178,000,000 of capital invested, that $40,850,000 were paid in wages, that 188,000 people were employed. I say that was a respectable, nay, more than a respectable, that is was a marvellous de- velopment of manufacturing industries in a country so young aod so poor as Canada was then ; and, if the manufacturing in- dustries of Canada had attained that de- gree of development under a 15 per cent, revenue tariff in 1871, I say that no necessity existed in this country for any additional protection. I say that without fear of contradiction, and I shall point out, before I iBnish, that the development of the manufacturing industries of this country has been greater and more sat- isfactory than those of the United Htates in the last decade under a high protective tariff. What industry have we in prosperous operation in Canada to-day that did not exist before the National Policy came into operation 1 What branch of manufacturing industry is prosecuted now that was not proso- cutcd then? Wo hear people talk of the National Policy— the advocates of the policy — and you would imagine, from their air, from their assertions, from their clahois, that the National Policy created the manufacturing indus- tries of Canada, and that before this Nacional Policy was adopted we had nothing of the kind. This is not the case. The National Policy may have accelerated to some extent the develop- ment of the manufacturing industries of the country, and it accelerated them, if it has done so, in an unhealthy manner. The stimulation has been unhealthy, and the manufacturing industries of the coun- try are to-day, I believe, in a worse posi- tion than they would have been if no such stimulant had been applied. Were not our manufacturing industries pros- perous before this National Policy came into operation? A careful com- paiison of the industries of the United States with those of Canada will prove beyond controversy that the manufac- tures of Canada, during the entire period of depression, from 1873 to 1878, were more prosperous, were earning better dividends, were moi'e fully employed, than those of the United States. That is an assertion I make broadly ; it is one that can bo substantiated ; it is one that does not admit of denial. Why, then, did we need the protective policy ? The very prosperity that came to our manufac- tures after the passage of the National Policy tariff was a prosperity due in a great measure to the revival of trade. Not only in Canada, but all over the world, an immense impetus was given to business. It was an impetus that busi- ness received, not from the tariff of Canada, not from any tariff, but from the passing away of that long period of com- mercial depres.siou that sat like a night- mare upon the industries of every civi- lized nation, from 1874 to 1878, ami tlio prosperity that resulted from nutural causes ; the prosperity that came from the passing away of that serious depres- sion that weighed upon every industrial occupation, every industrial interest, and every conmiercial interest in the civilized world — I say the prosperity that was due to t8 I 1: III the removal of tbat depression has been falsely attributed to the National Policy ; and if tilie National Policy had not been adopted, I firmly believe that the manufacturers of Canada would have made as good progress and would have been in a more healthy condition to-day than they are now under the operation of that policy. Percentage of Oost Chargeable to Wages. Now, Sir, I have one little fact to pre- sent to the House, which I think will con- vince any candid member that the pro- tection we afford is higher than necessary. One of the arguments of protectionists is that it is necessary to protect the manu- facturer because he pays higher wages than are paid in England — it is claimed in the United States that the wages are 60 to 70 per cent, higher than in England. Well, we will admit that it is necessaiy to afford a degree of protection that will enable the manufacturer to pay double the wages paid in Great Britain-^what amount of protection would be required 1 What percentage of the cost of the fabrics and wares produced in this country and produced in the United States is charge- able to wages 1 That is the question. The census returns of the United States show that 1 7 per cent, of the cost of the products of the manufacturers is the oost of the wages paid to the operatives, and the balance is due to the raw ma terial and other charges. Our census re- turns show that 19i'o of the cost of fabiics produced by our manufacturers is chargeable to wages. Well, Sir, if you are going to enable the manufacturer of Canada to pay double the wages paid in England, how much protection does he want to overcome that? Why, he wants one half of that 19 per cent,, he wants 10 per cent, protection, 10 per cent, higher prices, in order to enable him to pay double the wages paid in England, because the total cost of the wages to him is 19, 'o per cent. In the United States 8 J per cent, protection is sufficient to en- able the manufacturer to pay double the wages paid in Great Britain ; and so the people of this country have been vem- gersi to re- and pru- alami promi- nment ed the ise adr Slit f.;ui- ■■■■i. \: