SPEKCH OF JOHX CHARLTO]^, M.P. ON TH E BUDGET HOUSE OF COMMOXS, MA.Y i6, 1895 AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION A FALLxlCY CANADIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES WELL DEVELOPED BEFORE THE N. P. WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE— RECKLESS INCREASE OF DEBT- • BAD LAWS— AN UNfeOU^^^D PUBLIC POLICY Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Speaker, before entering upon a discussion of the questions which are pertinent to the motion before tho House. I wish to say a few words of a personal cliaracter witli respect to some re- marlvs made by the Controller of Customs in his speech last night. That hon. gentleman gave us an exhibition, not of dignity or of respectability, but an exhibition of tem- per, and he pursued a course of conduct that was the exact reverse of respectability. He made an unwarranted attack, an attiick entirely without foundation, on the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards). He ac- cused that hon. gentleman of paying his men in goods, of forcing them to take pay- ment out of his own store, of issuing scrip to them, and that he oppressed them in tho matter of payment of their wages ; and when the hon. member for Russell rose and explicitly denied the accusati.n, the Cx>n- troller of Customs failed to accept that de- nial, as he was bound to do from a brother member of this House, and he equivocated and quibbled al)out the story having ap- peared in the papers, about the hon. mem- ber for Russell not having brought suits for libel, and he failed to accept frankly and fully the disclaimer ftiade by that hon. gen- tleman. I venture to say that thp hon. mem- ber for Russell is well respected by almost all members of this House. He has never introduced a Sabbath Observance Bill, he has never introduced a Bill for the punish- ment of seduction, and he has never incurred, by his course, the hostility of hon. gentlemen opposite ; and the Controller failed to do that which, by parliamentary rules, he was bound to do, and i)ursued a course of conduct that failed to meet the approval of the great majority of liis own followers, and certainly failed to meet the approval of the friends of the hon. member for Russell. With respect to the charges made against myself, I will * pass tbem over, so far as the running of tugs on Sunday is concerned, because they are not pertinent to the question under dis- cussion. The hon. gentleman, however, when reference was made to the fact that he had been in Washington, said he was not there for the purpose of selling his coun- try to the Yankees. I presume he went down there to boiTow something. His party 2 had already borrowed from the Americans the Gerrymander Act, and had borrowed from them protection, and very likely the Controller thought he would borrow some- thing' else in the same lino that might be used in the elections that are approaching. So far as the allusions to myself are concern- ed, I have this to say, that the hon. gentle- man and his colleagues were very glad to accept the advantages that were secured— whether I was instrumental in securing them or not at Washington— in connection with the free lumber negotiations. We secured, under the Wilson Bill, the admission free of- Logs and round unmanufactured timber not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act. Firewood, handle-bolts, heading-bolts, stave- bolts and shingle-bolts, Lop-poles, I'ence posts, railroad ties, ship timber and ship planking, not specially provided for in this Act. Timber, hewn and sawed, and timber used for spars and in building wharfs. Timber, squared oi; sided. Sawed boards, plank, deals and other lumber. • Pine clapboards. Spruce clapboards. Hubs for wheels, posLs, last-blocks, wagon- blocks, oar-blocks, gun-blocks, heading and all like blocks or sticks, rough hewn or sawed only. Laths. ,: > V Pickets and palings. ^" Shingles. Staves of wood of all kinds, wood unmanufac- tured. We secured the free entry of all these articles into the American market, and in return for this, there was a condition that we should not impose an export duty or discriminate in stumpage dues, i repeat, that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues were very glad to avail themselves of this cond'tion, and having so availed themselves they close the door of criticism on any per- sons who may have been instrumental in securing those concessions, concessions which are more important to Canada than any commercial concessions secured from the United States since 1854. Now, the hon. gentleman showed a sense of the importance of these concessions by abandoning — or if he did not do it his colleagues did— by aban- doning his petty boom duty ; a duty the imposing of which in the month of May last year, came very nearly losing us the whole of these concessions. I might say with regard to this that I was requested by the then Premier of this Government to do some- thing in the line of averting the disaster, and without entering further into this case, I may repeat, I am ready to meet at any time, the hon. gentleman (Mr. W^allace) with regard to the imputation he has made, and to go fully into the question. That is all I have to say with regard to these per- sonal affairs, further than to regret, that tht hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) did not con- duct hi.uself in a manner consistent with the dignity of his position, that he did not display a statesmanlike line of conduct in his presentation of his case to the House, and that he did not abstain from these petty malignant attacks upon members of this House ; attacks which had no bearing what- ever upon the subject under discussion. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the dis- cussion of the matter legitimately before the House in connection with the motion of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright). The Government present several postulates in this discussion. They assert, in the fli'st place, that the farmer needs protection. My hon. friend, the Con- troller of Customs last night said, that the farmer stood more in need of protection than any other business interest in this country, and that the farmer had received a greater extent of protection than any other interest. The next assertion made by the Government is : that protection is beneficial to the development of man ifactures ; the third assertion of the Government is : that all classes have benefited by protection ; the fourth assertion made by them in this de- bate is : that the financial policy of the Government has been prudent and commend- able ; their fifth assertion is : that their financial management has been honest and clean ; their sixth assertion is : that their laws and general policy have been good ; and the seventh assertion of the Government is : that the Libei*als are drifting aimlessly and without a policy. I propose to deal briefly with those points, and only briefly, because this discussion has been protracted for a great many days and these subjects have become threadbare, so that I shall treat them in a sreneral way without enter- ing very fully into particulars. First, with regard to the assertion that the policy of the Government has afforded pro- tection to the farmer, that the farmer re- quires protection, and that the farmer is now receiving protection to a greater extent than any other interest in this country. I deny in toto that the farmer requires pro- tection or that he has received pro- tection, or that he has anything to thank the Government for in connection with its fiscal policy. This assertion, of course, Mr. Speaker, is very industriously promulgated by Ministerialists and there is a reason for It. The farmers of this country control the Government, they are the majority of the electors. The Government must of neces- sity secure a considerable portion of their votes or it cannot carry the elections. Con- sequently it is necessary to induce the farm- ers to believe that the beneficent character of the Government policy is of a great bene- fit to them, so far as their interests are con- cerned. I am bound to say that hitherto the Government have succeeded to a large extent in their design, and I am bound fur- ther to say, that I do not believe they will succeed to any great extent again. Now, Sir, the farmer Is a manufacturer. His raw ma- terial is the soil that he cultivates, the seed that he cauts upon that soil, the sun, and the wind, and the rain, and the transfusive forces of nature which take the seed that is cast upon the earth and bring forth the blade, and then the ear, and then the ^ull corn in the ear. His raw materials are machinery, and clothing, and food, and all that it is necessary for him to use in the prosecution of his enterprise. These are his raw materi- als. His finished products are, golden har- vest, fruits, flocks, herds, dairy products, vegetables, and all that the soil produces. He is in the highest and noblest sense a manufacturer, and he depends, not upon man's legislation, but he depends for the outcome of his labour upon the blessings of a kind Providence. Now, the farmer being a manufacturer, the question is. To what ex- tent can he be benefited in common with other manufacturers ? What have b<^n his profits under this policy which it is claim- ed has done so much for him ? Will any man here assert that the farmers of Canada are making 5 per cent net on their opera- tions ? Will any man point out that farmers are able to rent their farms for 5 per cent upon their cash valve ? Neither of these assertions could be substantiated ; the business has not been a remunerative one. The farmers of the country have not secur- ed large profits. Where are their markets ? They have a home market, of course, but they have markets in every country under the face of heaven that require the articles they produce. They send whatever the soil produces to any corner of the globe where that product is needed. Who are the com- petitors of the farmer ? His competitors are the producers in all lands. If he is sell- ing wheat, he must compete with the peasant of Bussia, with the coolie of India, with the poorly paid labourer of the Argentine Republic. All these classes he 'nust meet upon a common ground and compete w?th them in the open markets of che wovkl. He competes with the world at large in all his other products. Now, what the farmer wants, and what is essential for his prosperity ij, that If he is obliged to sell his products in the open markets of the world subject to competition from every quarter and from ail men, he should be allowed the privilege of buying what he requires under the same conditions,. If he is obliged to meet compe- tition in selling, he should have the privi- lege of having the benefit of competition in buying ; and so far as the Government can grant him that, with proper regard to its revenue wants, the farmer is entitled to demand, that if he sells in the open markets of the world, he should be allowed to buy in the open markets of the world upon the most favourable terms that can be secured. He wants relief from taxation, he warts relief from the burdens that press upon bim, and he wants to purchase and bay the neces- s.aries of life under the same conditions as be is obliged to sell his products. I do not deny that agricultural protection under certain circumstances would be benefi- J C IJ cial to the farmer. Agricultural protection would benefit the farmer of England, be- cause the farmer of England raises h^ pro- ducts and sells them in a market that he does not fully supply. He sells them in a market which must receive the surplus from other countries, of» all the kinds of things he produces, and if a duty were put on these products that would enhance the cost of what was brought in and so "Sa. .>t^) 1 increase the price of what the English farmer raises. Agricultural protection in England would be a bene- fit to the farmer, but in Canada the case is quite different. Here we have a country where is raised all that is required for the supply of the wants of our own people, and we have a surplus in addition, which is sold abroad ; and whenever there is a surplus of any article, it is unnecessfiry to argue that the price received for that surplus in the open mar- kets of the world will cover the price of the entire crop raised in the country. This being the case, protection cannot be made advantageous to the farmera of Canada. My hon. friend the Controller of Customs said last night that the farmers of Canada were subjected to great losses under the Mackenzie Administration by the free ad- mission of American grains and other agri- cultural products, and he pointed to the fact that the importations of agricultural aud animal products in 1878 amounted to $15,- 773,000. I contend that the free and un- trammelled admission of grains under the tariff of 1876 was not in any degree detri- mental to the agricultural interests of this country. We had constructed a costly sys- tem of public works ; we had united Lake Erie with Lake Ontario ; we had united Lake Ontario with the navigable lower stretch of the River St. Lawrence ; we had expended millions of dollars for the purpose of diverting from the Western States a por- cion of that trade which passed through American channels to New York and other American seaports. The purpose of these expenditures was to secure as large a vol- ume of trafllc as possible ; and in order to make that purpose effectual it was neces- sjiry to remove all restrictions, and allow the flow of that traffic unimpeded through our commercial channels. Well, what was the effect, so far as the farmer was con- cerned, of American wheat being ground at mills at St. Catharines, at Thorold, or on the St. Lawrence, where water power was furnished V So long as we had a large sur- plus of wheat, as we had, the American wheat which we used simply displaced so much Canadian wheat and flour, which took its place in our exports ; and the mills on the Welland Canal, or on the St. Lawrence, found it to be ^o their advantage to grind the hard spring wheats of the west mixed with certain qualities of Canadian wheat. This gave emploj'ment to Canadian labour, to Canadian capital, to Canadian coopers who made the barrels, to Canadian vessels which exported the product of the mills, to Cana(Jian shipping warehouses, and to Cana- dian bank capital ; and it was in every way an advantage to the country. It was a trade that swelled the volume of our commercial traifsactions, and did not in the slightest degree interfere with the pros- perity of the farmer. Why, Sir, during the Mackenzie Administration the average price of wheat was $1.11, whereas until recently # it has not gone above 00 cents ; the average price of barley was 88 cents, the average price of oats 42 cents, the average price of pease 76 cents. The average prices of all the products of the farm were from 30 to 80 per cent higher during the time of that Administration, under which occurred all those disasters which the hon. Controller of Customs pays il inflicted on the country, than they have been for years past ; and the country could not offer up a prayer better calculated to bring blessings upon it than th 3 pi*ayer that the same condition of things that existed under the Mackenzie Adminis- tration should be brought to this country again. The only grain afl:ected in price by a duty would be a grain that we con- sume in excess of our production, and the only grain we consume in excess of our pro- duction is Indian corn. A duty would af- fect the price of Indian corn ; but even the in^ortation of Indian com was advanta- geous to Canada. An hon. MEMBER. No. Mr. CHARLTON. Yes. It was the raw material of the stock feeder, who was pro- ducing beef ; it was also a grain relatively cheaper t'lan other coarse grains, so that the farmer who bought corn could sell bar- ley, oatg, pease and rye at relatively higher pricec, replacing them with corn, and 'make a large profit in the exchange. I found by a careful computation, in 1878, that the advantage to the fanners or Canada from the importation of 7,387.000 bushels of com in that yoar was $1,400,000. Now, it is said that the National Policy has had a good effect up )n the price of pork. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia the other day descanted on the great advan- tages that resulted to the Canadian farmer from the duty on pork. If we were producing poik in quantities less than our consumption, the imposition of the duty would raise the price of pork ; but we are doing more than that. Last year we exported 26,826,840 pounds of bacon, 1,682,167 pounds of ham, and 755,722 pounds of pork, a total of 29,- 264.729 pounds of hog products, valued at $2,976,503. Now, 30,000,000 pounds of pork in round numbers, valued at $3,000,000, is a surplus so large that it is folly to talk about the duty on pork enhancing the price in this country. It has no effect on the price whatever. We are selling in the same mar- kets as the Americans, and Mr. DICKEY. I did not intend to say that the duty affected the price of pork, but that it increased the production of pork. Mr. CHARLTON. Well, I can tell the hon. gentleman what has led to the increase in the production of pork. It is the fact that the production of other things has not paid— that the National Policy or something else has depressed the prices of wheat and of other grains, and that the farmer has been forced by the necessities of his cir- cumstances, into the production of some crop that would be more remunerative, and he has therefore gone into the production of pork and cheese ; but it is senseless to tiilk about this increased production being brought about by protection. Mr. ^SPROULE. How was it that the production expanded so rapidly after the duty Avas put on, and did not before V Mr. SPEAKER. Order. I must ask hon. gentlemen to refrain from these unseemly interruptions. Every member who has not spoken on this question will have an oppor- tunity of speaking. Mr. CHARLTON. Now. I wish to point out how utterly without foundation are the assertions that duties on agricultural pro- ducts have enhanced the prices of those arti- cles in this couLtry, or that we need protec- tion against American agricultural pro- ducts. At the present moment, owing to exceptional circumstances, the price of wheat is higher in Canada than it is in the United States. This, I presume, is the first time that this has occurred in at least ten years. The reason is that at the low prices which have prevailed for wheat, farmers have been feeding that grain to their hogs, their hoi-ses and their stock, and we have waked up suddenly to find that the country has sold short, and that we have not enough wheat to carry us till next harvest. Conse- quently, we have to import wheat and pay the duty on it. But the farmer in general has no advantage from that, because he has sold his wheat, though any who held wheat may derive some advantage. It is owing to that exceptional circumstance that wheat is higher in Canada than in the United States. I have watched the wheat markets, and there has not been a period for years, till now when wheat would not have been from 3 to 5 cents higher in Canada than it was, if we had free admission to the American markets. Although the surplus of both coun- tries are' designed for the same general mar- I ket, yet, for some reason, probably from I closeness of competition and the larger ; amount of money employed in grain tran- I sactions in the United States, wheat has I been almost uniformly higher in the Ameri- : can than in the corresponding Canadian j marivets ; and until this circumstance of the : shortage from over exportation there has scarcely been a day when the iarmers would not have been benefited to the extent of 3 to 5 cents a bushel by the free admission of wheat to the American markets. 1 have compiled some quotations for the 14th day of this month at Toronto and Buffalo, as relative markets and Chicago as a market not as favourably situated as Toronto. And I want to point out that in this list there is not an article that would be at all likely to be importod into Cana«la if the restriction were removed. Take oats. I place them upon a basis of 34 pounds to a bushel, because the American standard is 32 : and if j-ou make a comparison between 32 in the one place and 34 in another, It is not a fair comparison, I find, based upon 34 pounds to the bushel, that the prices were as follows :— ; Toronto 35 @ 36c. Chicago 29^4 @ 3014 Buffalo 38 @ 40 Or 4 cents higher at Buffalo that at the re- latively situated markec at Toronto. Ivly hon. friend the Controller would prevent the buying of oats in Buffalo at 40 cents, pay- ing freight, and bringing them to Canada for sale at 36 cents : Rye — 57c. in Toronto. 64i^c. in Chicago. 70c. in Buffalo. Buckwheat — 41c. in Toronto. 5.5c. iu Buffalo. Barley — 45 to 47c. in Toronto. 46^ to 52c. for the inferior western barley in Chicago. 63c. in Buffalo. Nobody is going to pay 63 cents for barley in Buffalo, bring it to Toronto, and sell it for 47 cents. It is not nece?sarv to nupose a duty to prevent that, and that is about all the benefit the National Policy confers upon our farmers : Cattle — $3.00 to $5.60 per cwt, live weight in Toronto 3.S0 to 6.15 in Chicago. 3.75 to 5.87 in Buffalo. We have heard a great deal about Armour sending in beef and supplying our hotels. We have heard a great deal about the danger of having American beef brought m here if the duties were removed and our maikets slaughtered. Who is going to buy heavy steers in Chicago at $6.15, bring them to Toronto and sell them at .$5.60 ? Hogs— the National Policy advocates stand lii'mly upon the assertion that the duty does some good in hogs. Well, on the 14th of this mcntli, the quotations were as follows : — Hogs— $3.00 to $4.80 in Toronto. 4.30 to 4.80 in Chicago. $4.00 to $4.90 in Buffalo. They were not as high In Toronto as in Chicago, five hundred miles further west. The Controller of Customs, the other night pointed out that mess pork was cheaper in Chicago than in Toronto. That Joes not affect the farmer. The farmer is affected by the price he receives for live hogs. He sells his hogs alive ; and if mess pork is sold higher in Toronto than iu Chicago, that simply shows that the packers are making larger profit in Canada than iu the United States. In Chicago they carry on rhe busi- ness systematically ; they utilize everything except the squeal— bristles, bones, every- thing else, and they thus manage to sell mess pork cheaper than iu Toronto. But live hogs have been uniformly higher for some years in the American markets than in ours, and the duty on live hogs is utterly useless. We do not need it at all. With regard to the sheep market, the quotation for sheep in Toronto by live weight, as near as I can get it, for they were quoted by the head Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). Does the hon. gentleman say there should be no duty on pork coming from the United States ? Mr. CHARLTON. My assertion is that the dutj^ is useless. It does not make any differ- ence and has not any effect ; as regards pork from the United States sent here. What we want is the duty taken oft' pork going to the United States : Sheep — $3% to $314 in Toronto. 3V2 to iVz in Buffalo. Lambs — $3 to $4 per head in Toronto, I do not know what the live weight would be : In Chicago the best are worth $6.75 per cwt In Buffalo, $4,75 to $8.50 per cent. I venture to say that the average price of lambs is $1.50 higher in Buffalo than in Toronto : Bale! hay- Toronto $ 9 00 Chicago 11 00 Buffalo 12 50 New York 16 00 Eggs- Toronto lOtolO^^c. Chicago 13 Buffalo 13 to 14 Butter, potatoes, turnips, vegetables— all are higher in that market than here. What we want is not protection against American agricultural products that are coming from the higher-priced markets to the lower, but the ability to get into t^at higher priced market with our products. The Government wonld have shown some sense if they had at least opened negotiations upon the sug- gested basis and see how far it would be nec- essary to go when invited to offer to the Am- erJcan Secretary of State proposals based upon the introduction of a list of manufac- tures in a reciprocal arrangement. If they had 6 entertained tliat proposition instead of sum- marily dismissing it, the farmer might have got some advantage from the action of this Government. But lie has never received a dollar from it. He has never -ecelved any protection. The whole thing is a mockery, a delusion an lishments, machine shops, hat factories— we ^y' had nearly all that we have got to day, and' these industries were well established. They were not exotic industries, they were not in- dustries struggling for an existence. Many of these had practically full control of the field. The saw-mills and the wood manu- factories of the country-; planing mills, \ sash and blind factories,* wooden and hol- lowware, foundries, agricultural implements, I boots and shoes, leather— in fact, all the prin- cipal raauufacturinj^ industries in Canada had almost exclusive control of the tiold in this country. How desperate was the con- dition of the maaufacl'irors ? J. 25(>.00:J apiece. But it happens that we had a period of depression, extending from 1874 to 1871), and our manufacturers imagined that the world-wide depression that existed was due to something that did not cause it, and they wanted to have something done by the Government to put them in a posi- tion that time would have put them in, that the removal of the depression would have put them in. But I think I can show that even in 1878, almost at the close of that depression, the condition of our manufac- turing industries (vas not an unfavourable one. I took occasion to correspond with about 100 manufacturers in 1878, and I re- ceived letters from twenty of them, in vari- ous lines, in the province of Ontario, and in one or Uvo other provinces. I will give the result to the House now, for the result of that investigation has a direct bearing upon this question. One cotton mill stated that they had made no dividend, and I found out afterwards that they had earned 10 or 12 per cent, and had applied it to the purchase of machinery in order to enlarge their operations. One woollen mill, with a capital of ^180,000 reported 10 per cent dividend. One foundry, with a capital of $180,000 reported no dividend in consequence of having been unfortunate in making bad debts to a large amount. One woollen mill reported a dividend of 6 per cent ; one hosiery mill, G per cent ; another hosiery mill, 8 per cent ; one sewing machine ^ factory, 6 per cent ; one carriage factory said their business was remunerative ; one extensive clothing concern said they could make more money by shaving notes ; one agricultural implement manufactory said business was satisfactory, and they were very busy ; another sewing machine factory said they were running on three-quarters time, and their profit was slightly reduced, and they wanted free trade in iron, steel and coal ; another agricultural implement factory were making satisfactory profits ; one large foundrj' made 20 per cent ; another agricultural implement factory made 23 per cent ; another, 40 per cent ; another, 20 ; another reported business sat- isfactory ; one knitting goods factory was satisfied that they were holding their own all right ; and that was the general state of trade in their line. The summary of the statement is that in these twenty establish- ments one paid a dividend of 40 per cent ; one of 28 ; one of 23 ; two of 20 ; seven some- v/here between 10 to 15 ; one of 8 ; six of 6 and over ; and one in iron reported that they had made bad debts, and had no divi- dend. Now, I want to compare that condi- tion with the condition of manufacturing establishments in New England, where they had heavy protection, a protection tliat had existed for seventeen years. I want to make a comparison between the conditions of these concerns in Canada, under a re- venue policy, and foi-ty-el jht of tlie principal manufacturing concerns in New England, in 1877 witli a capital of $53,320,000. Six- teen of these forty-eight establishments re- ported no dividend, compared with only one out of twenty in Canada. Nine of them re- ported dividends of less than 6 per cent ; eight reported dividends of 6 per cent ; and ten reported dividends of 10 per cent and upwards. Now, if the relative condition of things was such that out of twenty estab- lishments in Canada one only had no divi- dend, while out of forty-eight in New Eng- land, sixteen had no dividend ; if, while 9 of those establishments in New England paid less than 6 per cent, and there was only six in Canada that paid as little as 6 per cent —I say that the manufacturing industries of Canada were beyond all question in a relatively healthier, more prosperous, and more profitable condition than they were in six New England states, where they were enjoying very heavy protective duties. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I may venture the assertion that the protected industries in the United States throughout the depres- sion that existed from 1874 to 1879, were more severely affected than oui*s were in Canada, and were in a less prosperous con- dition. I make that assertion without hesi- tation, I make that assertion believing fully, in fact, knowing, that it is true. Now with regard to protection in a general sense. If one solitary interei^t could procure protection, it would ob- tain an advantage ; but if you distri- bute protection over all the industries in the country, or attempt to do it, you handicap one by putting a duty upon what is its raw material, w^hich is the finished product of another ; and after you have gone the round of the circle, you leave matters relatively in as bad a posi- tion for the manufacturers as they w^ould have been if you had made no attempt to put the duties on. A blast furnace pro- duces pig iron. Where one establishment produces pig iron, forty establishments in the country use it, and the protection that benefits one is a burden upon forty. One establishment produces steel billets, and where ouv^ produces them, fifty use them, and the protection that protects one is a burden upon fifty. And so it is around the list. One manufacturer is buying what an- other has produced ; the manufacturer that produced it has been protected, and tlie protection adds to its price, and the manu- facturer that is using it is obliged to buy it at an enhanced price, and charge a higher price for his goods. He is no better off, and tlie consumer is very much worse off. That is the trouble with protection. It takes out of one pocket and puts into an- other, and takes out of tliat pocket and puts into a third, and it goes the round, and the only man that has had anything taken out of his pocket that he does not get baclv again, is the consumer, who is necessarily robbed by the operation of the system. I think I can show that the operation of the protective policy in the United States has not been, in any sense, advantageous to the manufacturing interests even of that country. In IS-IG tlie United States abandoned protec- tion after a brief trial, and passed a revenue tariff, which decreased, by a graduating scale, every three years. As that tariff de- creased, the manufacturing interests of the country took a new bound towards pros- perity, and in 18.50 the product of manufac- tures in the United States amounted to $1,019,000,000 in value, and the number of hands employed was 957,000. In 1860, in a clear decade of a revenue tariff policy, without the intervention of protection at all, the number of hands had increased to 1,311,000, the wages to $378,000,000, and the product to $1,885,000,000 ; or the increase ir the decade from 1850 to 18G0, under a re- venue tariff, had been 37 per cent in the number of hands employed, 60 per cent in the amount of wages paid, and 85 per cent in the products. Well, this is a highly favourable showing ; and it happens. Mr. Speaker, that at no time since 1860— for high protection was introduced in 1861— has the condition of manufacturing industries in the United Sftates been more prosperous or satisfactory than it was between 1850 and 1860 under a moderate revenue tariff. I have prepared tables as to the increase in wages, in prices, in raw material, capital, and in products, for the three decades fol- lowing 1850, and are as follows :— 1S50. Hands, males 731,137 do females 225,922 957,059 Wages $ 236,755,4.')4 Product 1,019,106,616 1860. Hands, males 1,040,349 do females 270,897 , ■ — 1,311,246 Wages % 378,878,966 Value of product 1,885,861,676 Percentage of increase, hands 354,187 — 37 p.c. do do wages $142,123,502—60 p.c. do do - product 866,755,060—85 p.c. 1870. Hands, males 1,615,598 do females 323,770 1,939,363 Wages In currency % 775,534,343 Reduced to gold 581,690,258 Product in currency 4,232,325,442 do gold 3.174,244,082 Increase in No. hands 628,122 — 47 p.c. do wag?s, cur'cy...$ 396,705,307— 104 p.c. Increase reduced to gold... 297,528,981- 78 p.c. do in product, cur'y.. 2,346,463,706— 12< p.c. do do gold... 1,288.382,406— 68 p.c. Deduct also for protection prices of goods. \':, 1880. Hands, males 2,019,035 do female'^ % 531,639 • v 2,550,674 Wages $ 947,953,795 Value of product 5,369,579,191 Increase of hands, aside from children. In all cases, 611,306 — 31 per cent. Increase of wages, $172,369,352, or 22 per cent over currency basis. Increase over gold basis in 1870, $366,263,537 — 63 per cent. Increase of product, on currency basis of 1870, $1,137,253,749, or 27 per cent. Increase of product, on gold basis of 1871, $2,- 195,335,109, or 69 per cent. A summary of the results shows that, re- ducing the figures to a gold basis, which is necessary to do in order to make a com- parison with the gold basis that preceded it and succeeded it, the increase was as fol- lows :— Increase of hands, not children, 1860, 37 per cent ; 1870, 47 per cent ; 1880, 30 per cent. Increase of wages, gold basis, 1860, 60 per cent ; 1870, 78 per cent ; 1880, 63 per cent. Increase of products, gold basis, 1860, So pe'- cent ; 1870, 68 per cent ; 1880, 69 per cent. There is nothing here to show a material acceleration in the development of manufacturing industries in the United States under protection. It shows, on the whole, the reverse, that the development during the decade from 1850 to 1860 was as great as between 1860 and 1870 or 1870 and 1880, and it furnishes corroboration of the statement I have made, that both in Canada and in the United States the opera- tion of protection, as contnisted with the operation of the revenue tariff— I refer to >^ the first period as shown by these statistics \ —shows beyond question that protection V fails to protect, that it fails to secuie i the object it is ostensibly aimed to secure. % and that manufacturers are no better off under high protection than under a moderate revenue policy. There is another feature of this case which has a bearing on the matter, Mr, Speaker, ard that is the population statistics. You tr.ke the population statistics of a nation, and if there is Tiat'^nal variation between one ^cade ana H is reasonable to sup- pose that fisca* . itions may have had something to do /ith that variation. Dur- ing the decade ending 1860 the United States increased their population by .35 '10 10 per cent, and of that the increase 24-98 was a natural increase, without reference to immigration. In 1890, under a high pro- tective policy, the natural increase had fallen from 24-98 to 14-39 in 1890. If we take our own country, we find in Ontario the increase from 1851 to 1861, under a revenue tariff, was from 952,000 to 1,396,- 000, or an increase of 46 per cent iu ten years ; while in Quebec, for the same period the increase was 25 per cent. From 1871 to 1881, under a revenue tariff, tlie increa.se of population was 18-88 per cent, while that of Quebec was 14-05, and of the whole Dominion, 17-31. With the full benefit of protection, the increase of population in Ontario, from 1881 to 1891, was 9-05 ; in Quebec, 9*53 ; in the whole Dominion, 11-66. This falling off in the ratio of increase, I think, indicates clearly that the condition of the country w-as unfavourably affected by the operation of something, and I assert that that something was the National Policj, and that under the operation of the protective policy we declined, as regards increase of population, in the Dominion, from 17-31 in 1881, to 11-66 in 1891. There is another matter in connection with this question which is deserving of attention. It has been asserted that the condition of this country is satisfactory'. The hon. member for North Plastings (Mr. Northrup) was driven to asserting tliat an increase of 11-66 was satisfactory. He compared that in- crease with the increase of some of the countries in Europe, with France, for in- stance, and he was highly satisfied that we had increased in as great a ratio as the European countries, which are throwing off emigration every year, which have reach- ed the full development of their resources, and are cultivating all the soil capable of furnishing sustenance to man. I assert that Canada is a country whose natural conditions are such that it should increase in population as rapidly as any country ever has or ever will. ^Ve have abundance of food, abundance of soil, a vigorous popula- tion, room for expansion, everything favour- able to the rapid increase of population. If we take the United States— and I will deal with this question of natural increase alone —the natural increase of that country for the decades from 1790 to 1890, was as fol- lows :— INCREASE OF POPULATION IN UNITED STATES. Total increase. Natural increase. 1790 to 1810 35-10 3300 1800 to 1810 36.38 3532 1810 to 1820 33-06 32-00 1820 to 1830 32-50 31-03 1830 to 1840 33-52 29-33 1840 to 1850 35-83 28-12 Pop. in 1868. 1850 to 1860 35-10 24-98(31,413,321^ 1860 to 1870 22-45 1870 to 1880 30-08 22*79 1880 to 1890 24-85 14-39 Average nat. Increase, 1790 to 1860, 7 decades 30 54 That was the natural increase of popula- tion, leaving aside immigration to the coun- try. Is there any reason why we should not increase as rapidly, especially when it is remembered that when this increase of 25 per cent, in round numbers, took place, the United States had a population of 31,- 500,000 ? Here we are with a population of 5,000,000, with as many advantages, with as great room for expansion as the United States had even in 1810, when they had abjjt 7,000,000 of population. How has the population of Canada increased ? We should have a natural increase of 25 per cent. That was the lowest rate of increase in the United States, down to 1860, and we certainly should have that. It is reason- able to say that our increase should be 25 per cent— I believe it should be more than 30 per cent. Estimating on a basis of 25 per cent increase in 10 years, what should have been the condition of things in this country as regards population in 1891 ? We had in 1881 a population of 4,324,810. If we had added 25 per cent for natirjal increase to the population of 1881, that natural in- crease would have been 1,081,202, and with- out receiving a single immigrant we should have had, when the census was taken in 1891, a population of 5,406,012 inhabitants. I take the natural increase at 25 per cent for the ten years, which is only 2i^ per cent for each year, and that was the lowest natural increase they had in the United States up to 1860. During that period be- tween 1881 and 1891, we received 886,173 immigrants. It would be fair to add a con- siderable percentage for natural increase to these immigrants, but I will add nothing on that account. I will add to the popula- tion of 1881 the bare 886,173 immigrants, and plus the increase of 25 per cent on our actual population in 1881, it would have given us in 1891 a population of 6,292,185 souls. W^ll, we had 4,833,239 inhabitants in 1891, and so we fell short of what our pcpulation should be by 1,45§,946, and we fell 572,773 short of our natural increase without the immigration at all. Will any man tell us that is a satisfactory condition of things ? Will any man doubt that these figures w^hich show that we fell 1,458,000 short of our proper population, on a moderate estimate of what our increase should be, do not prove that there must be something wrong in this country ? The advocates of this policy who base their expectations for success iu the future, and attribute to the policy every blessing received in the past ; will they tell us, in view of the facts pre- sented here, that this policy is not a failure ? Sir, the policy is a failure. It is a lament- able failure, and every argument made in favour of that policy is an argument with- out foundation and not basefi upon reason. Now, Sir, with regard to the next postulate, for it is a postulate, that this policy benefits all classes. Does it benefit the lumber in- terest, Mr. Speaker ? Does it enable you 11 and me to buy blankets, and chains, and axes, and saws, and the outfit for our camps, any cheaper than we could buy them without it ? Does it enhance the price of a single article we have to sell ? Do we sell in mar- kets that are affected by this policy or reached by it at all ? Does it reach the consumer in the United States ; the con- sumer in Great Britain, the consumer in Australia, in the Argentine Republic, or in South Africa ? It does not have tlie slightest influence upon prices, and it loads the producer of lumber with bur- dens which are incident to the policy, and gives him no compensating * advantage in the slightest degree whatever. Does it bene- fit the mining industry ? "Well, we do pro- duce a little pig iron, but how much ? We produce 46,000 tons, I think, and in return for that little production of pig iron we load up the consumers of this country with duties upon $10,000,000 worth of bar-iron and other kinds of iron, and where the pro- ducer of iron gets $1 in protection the con- sumer in Canada pays ^10 out in return. Mr. McNeill, how did they build up their iron industry in the United States ? Mr. CHARLTON. Natural advantages. Mr. McNeill. Oh, yes ; which we do not possess, I suppose ? , - Mr. CHARLTON. Iron in the United States at Birmingham, can be produced cheaper than at any other point in the world. The actual cost of producing it there is only about $5.75 per long ton. , • ' ■ - ■ Mr. McNeill. We have as great natural resources in Nova Scotia as anywhere in the world. , . _ ,,, . ,, . Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Then we do not need protection. Mr. CHARLTON. Then with regard to coal. Would it not be better for Nova Scotia to have free access to the markets of the New England States, to New York, to Phila- delphia, and to other seaport cities, than to force coal against nature hy a long rail- way route to Montreal and points further west ? Would it not be an advantage to British Columbia to be able to sell coal in San Francisco and other Pacific coast cities for consumption i;i California or Oregon ^ How is it about iron ore. Sir ? There are every year 8,000,000 tous of American irou ore shipped from the Lake Superior region, and with our own mines as accessible and as valuable as those in Michigan, we are shipping only rbout 2,000 tons per year ; a mere driblet compared with that vast stream of commerce that employs one-third of the lake shipping in the inner Lake Basin. With free access to the American market we could swell our exports of iron ore from the paltiy 2,000 tons that we have now, to millions of tons. How is it about marblo and stone ? Sir, $25,000,000 worth of struc- tural materials are used in the United States every year, and we exported to that country in 1894 a paltry $32,220 worth. If the duties were removed, the magnificent quarries we have on the north shore of Lake Huron, af Lake Superior, and the quarries in the re- gion back of Lake Ontario, would share in that lucrative trade. We could supply cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, Deiroit, Cleveland and Buffalo with millions of dol- lars worth of structural material. We could send our structursil material through the Erie Canal, and supply builders in New York, Philadelphia and other cities. If we hod free access to the American market for our iron ore, free access to tlie American market for our structural material, we could furnish to the labouring man of this country, $10 worth of Jabour for every dollar's worth he would be deprived of if wo swept the whole system of the National Policy away with one clean sweep. Does this policy of protection benefit the fishing industry ? No. Where does the fisherman find his market ? He finds it in the West Indies, in the United States and in Europe. He must meet in competition in the sale of his products, the fishermen of all other quarters of the worla. Protection enhances th(; cost of his supplies, handicaps him, and makes him less capable of meeting th.at competition. And as regards the labourer. Is the labourer benefited by this policy ; a policy that injures the lumberman, a policy that injures the farmer, a policy that injures the miner, and a policy th'at in.iuues the fisher- man ? Will any one tell us that the labour- er is benefited by this policy ? If the labourer makes $1 out of increases I employment furnished by manufacturers— if this policy does promote manufacturin>i:, which I deny— his class loses $10 on the other hand through the operations of this policy. The labouring industry of Caaada loses heavily in being deprived of the different lines of employment that would be prosperous, and that would employ an enormous number of labourers but for the Imposition of these duties and burdens which are incident to the policy of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. There is another feature, Mr. Speaker^ with which I have not yet dealt. My hon. friend the Controller of Cus- toms said last night : A tax on articles not produced in the country is a tax on the people. That is true. But the tax on ar- ticles produced in the country is a double tax. It is 'a tax on the people to the extect that the people pay taxes into the treasury, and it is a tax on the people to the extent that the people pay in enhanced cost for all articles of that nature produced in the country. That enhanced cost is what the political economist denominates an Incidental 12 tax. Now, Sir, the price of a domestic pro- duction is enlianced to nearly ttie full ex- tent of the duties imposed upon the corres- ponding article imported into the country. The duty goes into the treasury, but the enhanced cost upon the domestic article goes into the pockets of the combine, and the monopolist, and the manufacturer who se- cures this unjust iidvantiige. For instance, the production of cotton in this country would, I suppose, amount to nearly $10,000,000 a year. The cotton import amounted in 1894 to $4,001,0*18. Upon that the Government re- ceived a revenue of $1,139,068, Upon the $10,000,000 worth of domestic products, the manufacturer receives enhanced cost to the extent, perhaps, of $2,500,000 more. So that the consumer is paying $3,600,000 of enhanced cost on cottons in order that the Government may receive a revenue of $1,139,000. The woollens we im- ported in 1894 amounted to $9,493,629 worth, on which the duty paid was $2,876,873 ; but on the woollen goods which were manufac- tured in Canada, the consumer paid almost a, corresponding amount in this incidental tax, which did not go into the treasury, but went into the pockets of the manufacturers who produced the woollen goods. During the discussion in the United States on the policy of a revenue tariff, a very interest- ing paper was compiled by the Hon. Wm. Springer, who is considered a good au- thority on economical questions, bearing on this very question of the burdensome char- acter of the incidental tax. Mr. Springer selected a line of articles, the aggregate im- portation of which in to the United States for the previous year was $194,464,758. He showed that the domestic product of the same line of articles was $2,440,502,649. The number of hands employed in the pro- duction of that domestic product was 1.327,- «81 ; and the wages paid were $463,606,049. Now, mark this, Mr. Speaker, the increased cost to the consumer of these goods, $2,440.- 000,000 worth, in consequence of protection, was $556,938,637. The excess of increased cost over the wages paid in that produc- tion was $163,600,000. In other words, the people paid, in direct tax the duty on the goods imported, and in indirect tax. ia the enhanced cost of the goods produced, $751,- 403,395 ; and of that sum the Government got $194,464,758, or 23-7 per cent, and the mooiopolist got $556,693,000, or 76*3 per cent. Is that not a beautiful system that compels the consumer in the country, of every dol- lar he pays, to pay to the Government 23 cents and 7 mills, and into the pocket of the monopolists, 76 cents and 3 mills? That is protection. That is the operation of thp incidental tax. Now, my hon. friend the Controller of Customs claimed that we had free sugar. Well, we had, in a sense. We had free sugar of a kind that the refiner wanted, but we had a duty of j'^^',- per cent on the kind the refiner wanted to sell. The result was that while the Government re- ceived no revenue, the refiner was able to take, at least, half a cent a pound more for his sugar than it could be imported at ; so that on the 300,000,000 pounds consumed in the country, he was able to take out of the pockets of the people, and put into his own pocket at last, $1,500,000, not one far- thing of which went into the treasury. That sum would pay all the wages of all the men employed at the refining of the sugar. A costly, wasteful, absurd system ! My hon. friend told us last night that if wo had had the tariff of 1878 in operation last year, we would have realized a revenue on tea, coffee, and sugar, of $8,000,000. Well, Sir, I suppose we would, and there would have been no incidental tax connected with it. The people would have paid the tax ; the money would have gone into the treas- ury of the country ; there would have been no domestic product of sugar or coffee, or tea, to be enhanced in price to the consumer by the tax ; and, instead of paying to the Government 23 cents and a fraction, and to the monopolists 76 cents and a fraction, they would have paid the whole dollar to the Government. That would have been the advantage of a revenue tariff upon those articles. But, Sir, on refined sugar, on cottons, on woollens, and on many other articles produced in this country, we are paying, in this incidental tax, in enhaiced prices charged by the manufacturers under cover of the duty, more money than the entire amount paid by those manufacturers for labour in the production of those articles ; and we would be better off if we just turned those labourers loose, paid them their wages for doing nothing, and saved the balance. The obvious inference from all this is that this is a costly, jvasteful, absurd system. I liave proved that under a revenue tariff in this countiy, from 1861 to 1881, * . progress of our manufacturers .ind the net profits made by them were so satisfactory that there was no rea- son under heaven for a change in that policy in order to promote their welfare. I have pointed out that in the United States, from 1850 to 1860, under a revenue tariff policj', inaugurated four years before 1850, the in- crease in wages paid, in hands employed, in raw material consumed, and in product put out, was as satisfactory as in the decade from 1860 to 1870, or in the decade from 1870 to 1880, reducing the pro- duct of 1870 to a gold basis ; and, whon we examine into this matter, everything points inevitably to the conclusion that the imposition of this tax, which bears so heav- ily upon the producing community in con- sequence of the diversion of the greater part they pay to the pou':ets of the com- bines, is not warranted on sound principles, and cannot be defended. Now, "Mv. Speaker, we shall come to that postulate as to the financial policy of the 13 Government beirg prudent and commend- sons of the controllable expenditures for able. The following tables gives compari- 1S71. 1878, and 1S94 :— Controllable Expeniiituke— Comparisons, 1874, 1S78, 18114. ' Administration of Justice Arts, Agriculture and Statistics Civil Government Fisheries Geological Survey and Observatories . Immigration Quarantine Indians Sui>erintendence Insurance Legislation Lighthouse and Coast Service Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions Marine Hospitals Militia and Defence Miscellaneous [Mounted Police Xorth-west Territories Government Ocean and River Service. Penitentiaries Pensions Police Public Works Railways and Canals Steanil>oat Inspection Superannuation 450,037 49 10,091 97 883,685 53 7<5,'J47 11 97,814 38 291,200 57 27,270 30 146,008 31 784,048 537,057 285,882 00,402 1,122,282 102,160 199.599 12,729 121,818 395,551 56,453 56,387 1,778,915 47,085 10,2i'l 04,442 7,041,086 51 15 63 • 29 53 I 27 i 20 14 ; 91 I 14 ! 70 84 54 88 15 58 84 1878. ii% cts. i 564,920 11 92,305 62 823,300 80 93,262 28 9(>,049 74 154,351 42 2(5,340 02 421,503 06 8.577 48 018,035 38 461,967 71 257,534 08 57,484 60 618,136 58 (!2.968 <>1 334,748 50 18,199 20 144.837 82 308,101 69 105,842 05 10,016 44 907,469 70 1,125 00 14„315 82 106,588 91 1894. $ cts. 745,r)01 00 264,879 66 1,402,279 40 406,750 76 158,010 14 202,235 52 113,571 43 968,563 17 0,578 20 698,006 ()4 470,(335 07 530,702 66 38,403 94 1,284,517 17 249,843 89 011,263 21 2/6,951 m 211,922 67 44(),134 16 86,027 18 21,1=47 47 2,033,054 91 133,0«»6 60 25,030 89 262,302 07 6,308,712 23 I 11,720,809 89 Controllable Expenditure- Summary. 1874 1878 Decrease Percentage of decrease, 16 02. •97,641,086 51 6,308,712 23 §1,242,073 28 1878 . . . 1894 . . . Increase Percentage of increase, 83. 8 6.398,712 23 11,720,800 89 § 5,322,007 66 u Now, I wish to draw the attention of my hon. frlenl the Finance Minister and mj hon. friend the Controller of Customs to the fact that the Mackenzie Government, com- mencing with the coDtrollable expendi- ture in 1874 at $7,641,000, reduced it by 1878 to $6,398,000, being a reduction of $1,- 243,000, and that the Conservative Govern- ment, commencing with that e: do ■ Tay and Trent Canals and Curran Bridge, &c do increased revenue from increased prosperity do strictly revenue duties, if necessary to impose In civil government we expended in 1S78. $823,000, and in 1894, $1,400,000. Tliat is too large an increase. That is an increase four or five times greater than the proportion- ate increase of population. If we strike $250,000 from that, the expenditure of civil government will still have increased in a much greater ratio than the increase of population. On fisheries we expended $93,- 000 in 1878, and $460,000 in 1894. Suppose we allow this fishery expenditure to bo three times greater in 1894 than it was in 1878, we will still have $100,000. On agricultural statistics we spent in 1878, $92,000, and in 1S94, $265,000. Strike $75,000 off that, and still the increase will be out of all proportion to the increased population. On immigration we spent in 1878, $154,000, and in 1894, $202,- 000. Strike off $50,000— strike the whole thing off, it would not make any difference. On Indians in 1878, we spent $420,000, and in 18C4, $968,000. It takes 47 cents out of every dollar to pay the other 53 cents to the Indians, I thiuir I could arrange that so as to save $300,000 and leave the Indians as well off as they are. On steamship sub- ventions we spent $257,000 in 1878, and $530,- 000 in 1894. We have subsidized a line to Australia to bring in Australian frozen mut- ton, and we shipped $18 of agricultural pro- ducts there last year. We need that line as badly as a cart needs a fifth wheel. Strike it off. On militia and defence we spent in 1878, $618,136, and in 1894, $1,284,517— more than double what we spent in 1878. What is the sense of that ? The l)opulation has not doubled ; it has not increased over 20 j^er cent Strike off $280,000 from that, and leave a round million for militia expenditure, and that will be plenty. On mounted police we spent in 1878. $335,000, and in 1894, $611,000. We can effect a saving there, I think, of $125,000. In the North-west Territories we spent $18,199 in 1878, and in 1S94, $277,000. W^e could save the whole of that expense by allowing the North-west Territory people to manage the'r own concerns. Give thorn self-governmenc, do not lead them around as infants with a string, but let them man- age their own business like free British subjects, and save the whole amount of $276,000, or allow $76,000 for incidental ex- penses and strike off $200,000. On peniten- tiaries we spent in 1878. $308,000, and in 1894, $460,000. Strike $50,000 from that. On public works we spent $997,000 in 1878, and $2,034,000 in 1894. Why can you not get clong with an addition to the expenditure in 1878 corresponding with our increasing population and wealth, on superannuation we spent $106,000 in 1878, and $262,000 in 1894. I think the woy to do with that is to wipe it out. At all events, we can strike $50,000 ^ from that. On the Franchise Act we spent $250,000. Cut the whole thing off. On customs we spent 16 In 1878, .^714,5227, and in 1894, $921,000. A reduction can be effected there. You can wipe out rhe Controller and some other officers and be all the better off for it. 1 think we could effect a saving there of $1C>0,000. Weights and measures, $94,975. Strike that off altogether. On excise, we spent $215,000 in 1878, and $485,000 in 1894. Knock another $100,000 from that, aiu! another Controller. Adulteration of food, $24,000. Strike that off. Post office, in 1878 we spent $1,725,000, and in 1894, $3,517,000. While the population of the country has increased about 20 per cent only, was there any sense in increasing the post office expenditure over 100 per cent. I think not. Strike from that $150,000. Railways and canals, in 1878 we spent $2,374,313, and in 1894, $3,760,549. Strike $750,000 from that. What does all this amount to ? My hon. friend challenged me to say where any reduction could be effected in this expenditure of $20,000,000. There is a reduction of $3,948,000. If we can get rid of Controllers and supernu- meraries and introduce a system into the Civil Service which will require a man to do a day's work for a day's wage and put men in the service who are capable of doing work, and discharge those who are mere attaches, put there by political friends, we can save an enormous sum of money. The men who appointed them will never do that They cannot discharge these useless civil servants, because tliese useless people have too much political influen2e. But put an Administration in office who does not care a continental whether the friends of these us(^loss attaches are friends or enemies, and we will start them on the run suf- ficiently fast to effect a great sav- ing. Put men in the departments who will turn things over and allow the country to see what is going on. Let in the light. Let us know what is going on. Let us know what tliere is that is rotten in Denmark. We voted $4,600,000 in railway subsidies last year— waste, the most of it. Almost all these subsidies wore purely for political purposes, without any design to benefit the country, without tlie remotest idea of benellting the country. Then we can refrain, Mr. Speaker, from constructing Tay canals, from building Cur- ran bridges, from making appropriations for Trent canals ; we can refrain from this whole abominable system of squandering millions of the money of the people of this country to benefit ridings and strengthen candidates. Why, my hon. friend the Minis- ter of Railways and Canals justified the expenditure of $476,000 upon the Tay Canal that paid last year one three-hundredth part of tho interest tipon its cost and its charges of management, on the ground that his riding had had . no benefit in the shape of an expenditure of public money before. That is the principle these men have acted upon— laying out money, squandering millions for the purpose of making them- seleves solM in their constituencies, for the purpose of improving their own political fortunes, acting upon the assumption that all the wealth of Canada can be legitimately used for the purpose of securing them in the possession of power and of excluding their opponents from power. Then, Sir, with regard to the debt. My . friend the Controller of Customs told us last night that the net debt had increased five and a half million dollars in the last five years. Well, I suspect that the hon. gentleman did not prepare his figures him- ; self, and possibly got them mixed a little. ; Mr. WALLACE. I stated that the net i debt had increased eight and a half millions. I Mr. CHARLTON. Well, eight and a half ' millions. I will take the net debt for four i and half years up to 31st January last. The I debt on 30th June, 1890, was $237,809,000, i and on the 31st January last it was $249,- 1 407,000, which makes an increase in four I years and seven months of $11,598,000, in- i stead of $8,500,000. And we do not know I how much more it is now— it may be a I million or two more. What reliance can i we place upon the hon. gentleman's state- ment, if he cannot sum up the increase of our public debt for four and a half years without making a mistake of about $3,000,- - 000 ? . - • • Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Perhaps he has an explanation to offer. Mr. WALLACE. I quoted the increase of the debt for five years from 1889 to 1894. 1 stated that it was about $237,500,000 at the beginning of that period and about $246,- - 000,000 at the end of it. The p".blic accounts will show that I am right. Mr. CHARLTON. The hon. gentleman must have chosen the period very prudently. But he will be judged by the country by the condition of the debt up to the present time. I will venture to say, without looking * at the public accounts which I cannot take time to do now, that the hon. gentleman is wrong, even for the period he chose. At the end of the period he chose the public debt, as he states it, was $246,000,000. Now, the public debt on 31st January last was shown to be $249,000,000, and we have $8.- 700,000 voted but not paid for rail- way subsidies, we have appropriations for the Trent Valley Canal, the St. Lawrence Canal and a lot of other public works in- volving expenditures of $63,000,000 worth ? Will they realize their nominal value ? How luuoh can you get for the $370,000 in the Fredericton Bridge and arrears of interest ? How ranch can you get for three or four millions of dollars of Quebec harbour bonds ? What do these assets that are put down there and carried forward, year after year, epresent of actual value ? W^hat would they 17 realize if we put them on the market or closed them out ? If we squeeze the water out of them, I believe they would shrink several millions of dollars. 1 venture to say that at this moment the net debt of Canada is in reality not a dollar less than $275,000,000. And this is the prudent, econo- mical, financial policy that these hon. gen- tlemen talk about and Justify before che country. The increase of the public debt since 1878 is $109,045,000. The hon. gentle- man told us about the increase in the debt under Mr. Mackenzie. But he stopped there. But since Mackenzie's Administration closed, these hon. gentlemen have increased the debt over $109,000,000. The Controller of Customs told us last night— another evi- dence of his accuracy— that the public debt had increased on the average eight and a half million dollars a year under Mr. Mac- kenzie. That would be a total of over $40 000,000. But the increase of the debt from 1874 to 1878 was $32,037,000. The in- crease of the debt from 1874 to 1879, eight months of which was under Tory adminis- ti-ation, was $34,665,000. So the hon. gen- tleman is millions of dollars out of the way In the reckless statements that he makes. And who was responsible, Mr. Speaker, for that increase of the debt V The debt in- creased from $75,728,000 in 1867 to practi- cally $275,000,000 to-day. The Conserva- tive Government, I say here, in the face of -this House and o.' the country, is re- sponsible for every dollar of it— respon- sible for the increase from 1867 to 1873 ; responsible for the increase from 1873 to 1879 ; responsible for the increase from 1879 to 1894. Why ? Because the increase of the debt under the Mackenzie Administra- tion was incurred in the discharge of obli- gations that that Administration never en- tered into ; incurred in carrying out contracts that their predecessors had made ; incurred in consequence of public works or under- takings initiated wholly by their prede- cessors, except for a paltry sum. of one or two hundred thousand dollars. The Mac- kenzie Government was not responsible for the selection of the route upon which the Intercolonial road was built ; it was not responsible for the building of that road, for it came into power when that road was partly constructed and contracts were out for the construction of the remainder. The Mackenzie Government was not responsible for the enlargement of the canals— the whole work had been provided for so far as the in- curring of the obligation was concerned, and they had to carry out the agreements and contracts entered into by their prede- cessors. And so I say that the whole debt from 1867 to the present moment must bo shouldered by the present Government and their Conservative predecessors, for they are responsible for every dollar of it. An hon. MEMBER. Everybody knows that J c 2 Mr. CHARLTON. Everybody knows it Nobody denies it except those who want to deny a fact. Now, with regard to deficits. The Mac- kenzie Government is responsible for de- ficits up to 1878, amounting to $4,489,000. But if we make them responsible for the year 1879, for more than eight months of which they were not in office, the whole amount of their deficits would be $6,427,- 000. Gentlemen opposite have incurred de- ficits since then of $16,138,000, including the estimated deficit of $4,500,000 for the cur- rent year. And yei they have the brazen effrontery to stand up here and talk about deficits under the Mackenzie Government, as though they themselves had never In- curred one. Yet in reality their deficits are nearly three times as large as those of the Mackenzie iQovernment, even shouldering upon that Government the year for which they were not responsible. Again, the dif- ferent circumstances under which these deficits were incurred must be taken Into consideration. The deficits under the Mac- kenzie Government were incurred during a period of extreme stringency lasting through four out of the five years of their term of office, and they were In- cuiTed mainly through the refusal of the Administration to increase the taxation. Deficits under the present Government have been incurred in face of the largely-increas- ed taxation ; the burdens upon the people are from 30 to 40 per cent greater than they were under the management of my hon. friend to my right. Still, with these in- creased burdens, with these largely in- creased duties, with much larger revenue, the Government have incurred deficits of over $16,000,000. But my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) did not want to In- crease the duty, and he said : Wait, the circumstances under which v/e are living now, are abnormal in their character ; wait till this depression passes away ; wait till the normal condition of trade returns, and then we will see where we are. In the meantime, with the cruel depression exist- ing, we do not want to pile additional bur- dens upon the people, and we can afford to wait. Suppose he had remained in power a year or two longer, suppose he had been in power In 1880 Mr. MONTAGUE. Is that the reason the Minister of Finance at that day gave for not imposing new taxes ? Mr. CHARLTON. It is. Mr. MONTAGUE. I think you will find out differently. Mr. CHARLTON. I think not I think the hon. gentleman took the ground that when trade resumed its normal condition, the revenue derived from the tariff as it existed then, would be sufficient for the needs of the country. Mr. MONTAGUE. I think my hon. friend will find, if he reads the Budget 18 speech, that that was not the reason. My hon. friend from South Oxford won't say that was the excuse he gave. Sir RICHARD CART WRIGHT. Most undoubtedly it was. Mr. MONTAGUE. My hon. friend from South Oxford gave the excuse that he did not want to mix up the discussion with the trade question. Mr. CHARLTON. I have given the rea- son the hon. gentleman assigned. I sat in this House and hearr* him assign that rea- son ; I heard his Budget speech, I am a living witness, and know about it I know the question was discussed in party caucuses, I know what the decision of the party was, I know what reasons he gave the party in refusing to augment the bur- dens upon the people of this country. I know, furthermore, that the position as- sumed by my hon. friend would have suc- ceeded, and would have proved that his prognostications were correct, if he had re- mained Minister of Finance for two short years longer. Our revenue, in 1879, was $12,900,000 from customs ; the revenue of the United States, in 1879, was $137,250,000. Now, we changed our tariff in 1879 ; the United States did not ; and if we take the experience of the United States, passing from the depression to that condition of things when trade resumed its normal course, and find what the effect was upon the revenue of that country, we may fairly assume that a corresponding effect would have been produced upon our revenue if no change of tariff had been made. Now, Sir, in 1879 the United States revenue was $137,000,000 ; their revenue in 1880, after the depression had passed away, was $186,- 000,000. the increase of revenue in one year was $49,272,000. Now, the increase of re- venue in this country between 1879 and 1880, providing our tariff had remained the same, would have been $4,650,000 ; the en- tire revenue would have been $17,544,000 in place of $12,900,000, if it had borne exactly the same proportion to the increased re- venue of the United States between 1879 and 1880. If taxation had been no higher in 1880, this Government would have had a surplus of $3,100,000, and the assumption upon which my hon. friend proceeded would have been borne out triumphantly by the outcome. The policy of not increasing the burdens of the people, was a good one ; it is the policy the Reform Government pur- sued upon all occasions. They were careful about increasing the expenditure they were careful about increasing the taxation, they were prudent in the management of our fiscal affairs ; and in all these things their record has been in striking contrast to the record of their successors. These hon. gen- tlemen were imprudent, they were reckless, they increased the debt, they increased the taxes, they inceased expenditure by four- teen million dollars, and they have piled upon the people of this country burdens under which they stagger to-day ; they have piled upon people of this country burdens which, even if an honest, an eco- nomical Government comes into power, only ' , long years of self-denial and economy will remove. Now, to the next postulate, that their financial policy was honest and clean. . How was it about the sweating of public contracts ? How was it about the imprison- ment of McGreevy and Connolly, and , their pardon, because there were men upon ; the treasury benches more worthy to be in jail than they ? How was it when Mr. Mc- Greevy took his seat in this House with a cloud resting upon his reputation ? I felt sorry for the man. I felt indignant that he had not had the moral courage to ex- pose the whole of this thing from top to bottom, and to have shown that there were other men in this Chamber who were more worthy of punishment than he ; that he had been simply goaded on by men who are enjoying the fruits and reaping the ad- vantages of transactions for which he was punished. We saw him come in here es- corted by the two Tory whips ; he ought to have been introduced by the ex-Minister of Public Works and the present Post- master General. How much money, Mr. • Speaker, do you suppose the Government made by this contract sweating system ? How many hundreds of thousands of dol- lars were diverted from their proper pur- poses of honest expenditure, and carried in- to that election fund ? How many ? And then this railway bonussing to the extent of $7,800,000 yet to pay, besides all the millions that have been paid on the same account —what has been done with that ? How much good has the country got out of it ? How much advantage does the Government reap from that ? To what ex- tent have ihey benefited by these subsidies? Have they taken 10 per cent, or 25 per cent toll, or what did they take ? What do they propose to do with the Hudson Bay Railway grant of $2,500,000 to build a - section of the road that will not cost more than $2,000,000 ? Are they to take $250,000 • of the surplus for their election fund, as has been reported, and allow the , contractors to take the other half of V the surplus ? Are these charges that have been made, true ? Has the policy of the Gov- >" v ernment been a clean and honest policy? i Why did they increase the mail subsidies r to the Canadian Pacific Railway while a con- I test was pending in 1891 by order in Coun- ' cil ? How much of it did the Canadian Paci- fic Railway give back to their election fund ? j Why did they give to the Canadian Pacific I Railway 6,400 acres of land per mile for ; a railway filready constructed, that they ; knew, and every man knew, the company I had built for its own purposes, and would j hav^e built anyway ? Why have they i squandered the area of an empire in putting 19 bogus railway schemes upon their feet, and investing speculative companies with the possession of franchises of enormous yalue, when they kne.w, and every man knew, that these companies were not intended to pro- ceed with their work, but intended simply to hawk these charters around the country for sale ? How pure was thei^ transaction when they gave away 25,000 square miles of Dominion timber limits to their friends ? What were the motives that actuated them in building the Tay canal, the Trent Valley canal, and the Curran bridge, and chang- ing the contract for Sheik's dam ? Has their record been an honest and clean re- cord ? I deny that such is the case. They have been engaged in humbugging the peo- ple. They have been engaged in denying to the people that which could alone con- duce to their prosperity. They have made no attempt to secure reciprocity. They have palmed off upon the people their absurd schemes for promoting trade Tvuth Australia, trade with South Africa, trade with the West Indies, trade with these out- lying countries that could not all together furnish a trade of $2,000,000 ; and the Gov- ernment offer this as a substitute for that market of 67,000,000 of people at our doors. They have been the paid agents of the monopolies, and rings, and combines ; and they have sat in this House and upon the treasurj'- benches, and have shaped the legis- lation of the country to promote the inter- ests of this small fraction of its population, regardless of the interests of the agricul- turist, of the miner, of the fisherman, o1] the lumberman, and of the labourer ; and they have received from these interests, as a compensation for their services, the funds that have kept them in power. Have their lav/s been salutary laws V Look at their Gerrymander Act, which gives to 300,000 Liberal vot.rs in Ontario less power than 200,000 Conservative voters, an infamous, cut-throat, assassin-like policy, borrowed from the United States with their National Policy. Was their Franchise Act a proper measure, when the Government took into their own hands the making of the lists and the printing of the lists ? Do they tell us that the National Policy has secured them success in three elections, when they have at the same time been supported by the gerrymander, the Franchise Act, and boodle covering millions of dollars whih have been acquired in the way I have described ? No ; in none of those respects are the claims they make before the House and the coun- try founded on fact ; and this Government is unworthy of the confidence of the people, unworthy of their confidence either as re- gards their fiscal policy, their general pol- icy, or as to the manner in which they are discharging their trust, and for that reason I hope to see the Government replaced by a better one. I shall labour for that pur- pose and to that end, and I shall consider it a godsend to this country if ever the efforts for securing such change are crowned with success.