House of Commons ® abates 
 
 FOURTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 DR. R W. BORDEN, MR 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BUDGET 
 
 OTTAWA, FRIDAY, 6th APRIL, 1894 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman began 
 his speech by chiding the hon. member for 
 Queen's (Mr. Davies), for having failed to 
 discuss the question before the House, the 
 Budget brought down by the hon. Finance 
 Minister. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and 
 to this House whether the hon. Minister of 
 Marine has set hon. members who may come 
 after him the good example of having himself 
 followed the course which he said should 
 have been followed by the hon. member for 
 Queen's (Mr. Davies). That hon. gentleman 
 certainly discussed the public questions of 
 the country and those bearing on the 
 tariff and the trade relations of the 
 country fully, so far as they affect us in 
 our relations with other countries. Every- 
 body knows that when the Budget is under 
 discussion the fullest liberty is accorded to 
 every hon. member to discuss the condition 
 of the country and its trade relations with 
 other counftries. This is the first time I 
 have ever known a serious question of this 
 kind to be approached with a scrap-book of 
 
 I extracts, cut out from speeches made ten 
 i or fifteen yv^ars ago, and extracts from par- 
 tisan newspapers, which it was \iseless for 
 ' my hon. friend to contradict, though he did 
 so over and over again, be«i\ise no sooner 
 would he contradict the truth of an extract 
 than the Minister proceeded to re-read 
 I the same extract or to , quote an- 
 i other extract from the same paper. 
 The speech of the hon. Minister reminded 
 I me of a story. He has treated the House 
 i to several stories, and perhaps the House 
 j will suffer me also to tell a story which, I 
 : think, illustrates the manner of the Minis- 
 I ter's speech. Once upon a time, in a coun- 
 j try where there was a poor congregation- 
 it could not nave been in Canada, it must 
 I have been In free trade England, and I 
 ; think it was— the congregation was in want 
 of a new set of hymn books. The old hymn 
 books weare worn out, and an enterprising 
 member of the congregation had somewhere 
 read an advertisement by a vendor of patent 
 medicines, to the effect that he would sup- 
 
ply free bj.^" h"ok<« to any congregation 
 provided that he vvould have an opportunity 
 of inserting here and there an advertise- 
 ment of his nostrums. The congregation 
 was made happy and adopted the scheme, 
 and on the eve of Christmas Day they 
 were furnished with brand new hymn booiss, 
 and on the next morning when the service 
 began, the clergyman pointed to them with 
 pride, took up the new hymn booli and said 
 it was unnecessary to read the hymn, as 
 it was known to every member of the cou- 
 gi'egation. The congregation stood up and 
 began to sing, never having examined the 
 books they were to sing from, and this is 
 what tliey sang : 
 
 Harlj tlie herald angels singi 
 Beechain's Pills are just the thing 
 Peace on earth an<l mercy mild 
 Two for a man and one for a child 
 
 That is very much the style of the speech 
 which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries 
 has deliveretl to this House to-night ; a 
 speech which I do not tliiuic was up to the 
 standard of the hon. gentleman ; a speech 
 which I do not think it was worthy a Min- 
 ister of the Crown to address to an assem- 
 blage of this kind, engaged vrith a serious, 
 sober question such as that of the tariff 
 which this coimtry has to adopt in the 
 future. The hon. Minister alluded to the 
 Liberal party as a disappointed party. He 
 could not have looked amongst his own 
 followers when he said that, for it has oc- 
 curred to me, dm'ing the past eight days, 
 that disappointment has not been on this 
 side of the House, but amongst those on 
 the Government benches. What about these 
 hon. gentlemen opposite who have been de- 
 claring during the last eight or ten years, 
 and even up to the last session ol Parlia- 
 ment, that the National Policy, that high 
 taxation was the means of reducing the cost 
 of living in this country and of lowering the 
 prices of the comr jdlties used by the peo- 
 ple ? What are these hon. gentlemen who 
 f " have been preaching that doctrine to think, 
 when now the Minister of Finance has taken 
 that argument out of their mouths, by stat- 
 ing, as he did in his Budget speech, that 
 high duties increased the prices of the com- 
 modities used by the people ? It occurs to 
 me that there must have been considerable 
 disappointment among hon. gentlemen who 
 have been preaching to this House and to 
 the people of the country on every hustings, 
 the doctrine that high duties created lower 
 prices. The Minister of Marine took ex- 
 ception to the statement made by the hon. 
 member for Queen's (Mr. Davies) with refer- 
 ence to the population of Dakota. The 
 hon. gentleman has succeeded iu hvmting 
 up a number of speeches made by my hon. 
 friend (Mr. Davids), and, by the way, I 
 have often wondered for what object such 
 a large number of newspapers were taken 
 by the different departments of this Goyern- 
 
 ment as I see charged up in the Auditor 
 Geueral's Report. I find now that at any 
 rate, so far as the Minister of Marine is 
 concerned, this country is taxed for such a 
 large amoimt, to pay subscriptions to news- 
 papers so as to enable him to cut out ex- 
 tracts from the speeches of the hon. mem- 
 ber for Queen's (Mr. Davies). 
 
 Sir CHARLES HTBBERT TUPPER. You 
 
 do not seem to like them. 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. I enjoy them immensely; 
 nobody could help it. Without these ex- 
 tracts the speech of the Minister would 
 have been nothing. Now, the hon. Minister 
 has said that the member for Queen's (Mr. 
 Davies) misstated the population of Dakota, 
 and that he said it was one and a half mil- 
 lions when it was only a half million. Well. 
 Sir, I am informed that the figures given 
 by the ho' nember (Mr. Davies) were taken 
 from a newspaper estimate which had been 
 made of the population— because the state- 
 ment was made prior to the census of 1890— 
 at a time when people were going into the 
 Dakotas very rapidly and the population 
 was filling up very fast. The estimate given 
 by the hon. member was what was set down 
 in the newspaper. 
 
 Su- CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. 
 was incorrect. 
 
 It 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. It was incorrect. It oc- 
 cm-s to me that my hon. friend the Minister 
 ought not to be too strict in charging against 
 hon. members on this side of the House a 
 little inacciu'acy of that kind. I remember 
 a time in this House when an hon. member 
 made some statements of what was going 
 to happen in this country— not a statement 
 with reference to Dakota— but as to what 
 would happen in the North-west, and he 
 fixed the date and year that certain wonder- 
 ful things would come to pass. I find that 
 Sir Charles Tupper, when a member of this 
 House, in discussing the North-west, said : 
 
 When I remind the House that the land alone, 
 according to the authority of the right hon. Min- 
 ister of the Interior. 
 
 The Minister of the Interior was in it too. 
 It was not simply Sir Charles Tupper, but 
 Sir John Macdonald also. 
 
 Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Let 
 me point out to the hon. gentleman that one 
 statement was in favour of Canada ; it was 
 unfortunately incorrect ; the other was an 
 estimate which was incorrect, and it was 
 against Canada. 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. Then it is no harm to tell 
 a fib if it is in favour of Canada. 
 
 Sir CHARLES HIBBER^B TUPPER. I 
 did not say that. 
 
 Mr. BORDEN Sir Charles Tupper then 
 went on to say :— 
 
When I remind the House that the land alone, 
 according to the authority of the Right Hon. Mi- 
 nister of the Interior, upon the calculation which 
 he believes to he sound, within the next ten years 
 will give us S38.000,()0() in hand, $.«,0<X),()0() to 
 r. ceive on mortgages witliin tlie following ten 
 yei.'-s, or a total sum of $7(),<K)<),(KX), it will be seen 
 that we incur no risk. But supjxise the land does 
 not give us that, we have an authority which hon. 
 gentlemen opposite will accept : that the customs 
 revenue from tlie people wlio w'U go into the coun- 
 trj for the next ten years M'ill furnish the interest 
 on.«00,tMK),(K)0.* * * * 
 
 I am glad the hon. gentleman has done so. I am 
 glad liis attention has been drawn to the fact that 
 100,(XK) farmers, cultivating 320 acres each, or2(X)- 
 (XK) fanners, cnltivating half that (]uantity eacii, 
 and taking the product at only 20 bushels to the 
 acre, instead of 27 or ;iO, which is the average in 
 the North-west in favourable years, would give 640,- 
 000,tKX) busliels of wheat, or 50 pei' cent more 
 wheat than tlie whole United States produces to- 
 day. You have only to look at those figures for a 
 single moment to see what the future of Canada is, 
 to see what a magnificent granary for the world is 
 placed in our Canadian North-west, and when you 
 remember we have six belts running through that 
 fertile country that would each give 320 acres each 
 to 100,000 farmers, you can understand to some 
 little degree what a magnificent future awaits u& in 
 the development of that great country. 
 Now I think that my hon. fi-iend the Minis- 
 ter of Marine otight to be a little kind to 
 the hon. gentleman from Prince Edward 
 Island If he happens to make a mistake of 
 half a million or so in quoting an estimate 
 of the population of some foreign country. 
 
 Mr. LANDEBKIN. That v/as only an 
 euphemism of the Minister. 
 
 Mr. BORDER'. Now, the hou. gentleman 
 has seen fit to chai-ge the Liberal party 
 with inconsistency in their policy. It is 
 fashionable among hon. g:>ntlemen opposite 
 to charge this party with having no policy ; 
 but I fancy that that charge will scarcely 
 be made again, because it is owing to the 
 fact that the Liberal party of Canada have 
 a policy, and that that policy is commend- 
 ing itself to the people of Canada, that we 
 are here to-day to consider the resolutions 
 which the hon. Minister of Finance has been 
 forced to bring down in deference to the 
 public opinion which has been created by 
 the Liberal party. But the hon. gentleman 
 has charged us with inconsistency. He says 
 on one occasion we are in favour of xm- 
 restricted reciprocity, on another in favour 
 of commercial union, on another it is 
 a revenue tariff, and on another something 
 else. Well, Sir, I have been a member of 
 this House most of the time for twenty 
 years, and during that time I have followed 
 very closely the debates in this Chamber 
 and have read very carefully the statements 
 of public men with reference to the policies 
 of the two parties, and I do not think it 
 lies in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite 
 to charge the Liberal party of Canada with 
 inconsistency or with any material varia- 
 
 tion in their policy from the time they be- 
 came a party since confederation down to 
 the present moment. What was the posi- 
 tion of the Liberal party in 1874 ? Its 
 policy then was its policy of to-day— that 
 the taxation of the people of Canada should 
 be for revenue only, or for revenue chiefly ; 
 that it is wrong to take one dollar of taxes 
 out of the pockets of the people more than 
 is required to carry on the government of 
 the country. That has been the main plank 
 in the platform of the Liberal party from 
 1874 down to the present time. With refer- 
 ence to reciprocity, it was the policy of the 
 Liberal party in 1874 to obtain reciprocity 
 if possible ; and, as the hon. Minister has 
 shown, the late Hon. Oeorge Brown was 
 sent to Washington for the purpose of en- 
 deavouring to negotiate a treaty of recipro- 
 city. But the hon. gentleman says that the 
 I.iiberal party have failed, and that after 
 having failed they did not make any further 
 attempt to obtain a reciprocity treaty, but 
 had taken the independent position which 
 tho Government are now taking, and which 
 he commends, of trying to buJd up the 
 trade of Canada independently of trade 
 with the Un'ted States. That is true. 
 Nevertheless, efforts were made to ob- 
 tain that reciprocity, and the hon. Min- 
 ister and the House must bear in mind 
 that the Hon. George Brown went to Wash- 
 ington at a time when the people of the 
 United Sta/tes were irritated against the peo- 
 ple of Canada in respect of matters whicli 
 had grown out of the war that had closed 
 I only a few years before. That irritation for-^ 
 tunately, has passed away, and an entirely 
 different condition of things exists now, and 
 has existed since the time the first offer of re- 
 ciprocity was made by the Goverument now 
 in power — or the pretended offer which was 
 made in 1891. But, I say that the policy of 
 the Liberal party has been mainly revenue 
 tariff, though there have been ttaies when 
 the policy of reciprocity, which was always 
 the poUcy of the Liberal party, which is 
 their policy to-day, has been put forward 
 more boldly and more prominently than at 
 other times ; and why should that not be 
 so? In 1888, 11- hoc. member for South 
 Oxford (Sir Rit^ ^irtwright) moved cer- 
 
 tain resolutions House, and the mo- 
 
 ment was oppor >r him to do so, and 
 
 why ? Because .- larles Tupper had re- 
 
 ceived a letter fro Ir. Bayard, then Sec- 
 retary of State of th. United States, offering 
 to give this country a reciprocity treaty. 
 That was a favourable moment for any party 
 in Canada to give to the Canadian people the 
 opporttmity of expressing their opinion on 
 the question of reciprocity, and it was at that 
 moment that the Liberal party placed their 
 policy of reciprocity more prominently be- 
 fore the people. But the attempt has been 
 made to fasten upon this party a policy 
 which they " have never entertained as a 
 party— the policy of commercial union with 
 the Un'ted States. No matter how many 
 
 / 
 
contradictious are made, no matter how 
 often gentlemen who have been charged 
 with having expressed themselves In favour 
 of commercial union deny the charge, back 
 como the old quotations. It seems to be 
 essential to the arguments of hon. gentle- 
 men opposite to misrepresent their oppon- 
 ents, and if possible to place them in an 
 improper light before the country. The 
 hou. gentleman knows— he must know, be- 
 cause he has been in Parliament dm'iug 
 the whole time that this discussion has gone 
 on--that never, by any resolution, or by 
 any speech of any of the acknowledged lead- 
 ers of the Liy ivsd party in this House, has 
 the doctrine of commercial union been put 
 forth as a part of the policy of the Liberal 
 party of Canada. I am surprised that the 
 hon. gentleman shoula be so persistent in 
 making these charges. Does he not know 
 that the late chieftain of the Conservative 
 party, Sir John Macdonald, was prepared 
 to enter into an arrang* ^ent for commercial 
 union with the United fe.ates in 1869 V That 
 la a matter of history. That was perfectly 
 proper, perfectly loyal on his part ; but 
 if any member of the Liberal pai'ty, speak- 
 ing, not for the Liberal party, but for him- 
 self, happens to have made an observation 
 that commercial union would be a good 
 tJiing for this country, then at once 
 the party Is chargetl with disloyalty. 
 I do not tliink lliat it lies in the mouth of 
 hon. gentlemen opposite to charge' the Liberal 
 party with inconsistency with reference to its 
 policy. But whac shall we say of the hon. 
 gent'emen opposite ? I have just told you, 
 that in 1809 the gi'eat leader of the Conserv- 
 tive party of that day was prepared to go to 
 Washington and arrange for a common taiiff 
 between the 'wo countries. That is a matter 
 of history. I remember well sitting in this 
 House in 1876, and hearing Sir Charles Tup- 
 per, when the lion, member, for outh Oxford 
 had increased his tariff from l-« to 17% per 
 cent, in oi*der to meet the obligations which 
 had been left upon this country by lion, gen- 
 tlemen opposite before tlicy went out of 
 office— I remember well Sir Charles Tupper 
 then charging the hon. member for South Ox- 
 ford with entering the thin edge of the wedge 
 of protection. And this is the consistent 
 party ! Commercial union in 1869, a charge 
 against the liberal party of entertng the thin 
 edge of protection in 1876— and wh.nt happen- 
 ed in 1878 ? Because tlie hard times which ex- 
 isted, all ov2r the world, were acutely felt in 
 Canada, as elsewhere, hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site saw an opportunity of taking advantage 
 of their opponents and putting the Govern- 
 ment out of power. And. althougli their 
 financial critic of tliat day (Sir Charles Tup- 
 per) came down with a speech prepared to 
 denoimce the Mackenzie Government for in- 
 creasing the tariff, at the importunate re- 
 quests of the manufacturers— because he sup- 
 posed the hon. member for Soutli Oxford 
 (Sir Richard Cartwright) was going to adopt 
 that policy, yet, when he found that the Lib- 
 
 eral party remained true to their pr'nciplea, 
 he turued round and denounced thorn for not 
 having increased tlie tariff ; and it was then 
 that the yoUcy of protection was adopted by 
 the hon. gentlemen. But, in adopting that 
 policy, they did so very carefully and ginger- 
 ly. What was the resolution moved by hon. 
 gentlemen opposite prior to the elections of 
 1878 ? It was : That this policy, called the 
 National Policy, of imposing higher rates of 
 duties should be adopted— for what purpose ? 
 Fur the pm-pose of protection ? Not entire- 
 ly—but for the purpose of forcing the United 
 States to come to our terms and make a re- 
 ciprocity treaty with us. TLey dared not 
 go to the covmtry at that time upon any plat- 
 form which did not include reciprocity. But 
 they went to the country and carried the 
 election ; and in 1882 they became bolder. 
 But when they came to the Maritime Provin- 
 ces, even in 1882, we find Sir Charles Tupper 
 telling the people of Prince Edward Island, 
 at Charlottetown, knowing how anxious tney 
 as well as the other Maritime Provinces were 
 to have reciprocity—" Stick to us and our 
 policy of high tariffs, and in two years, 1 
 promise you, you shall have what you want, 
 reciprocity with the United States." The 
 elections of 1887 then came. Their policy 
 still was the National Policy, but in the Mar- 
 itime Provinces there was a good spice of re- 
 ciprocity thrown ?n, for the Government dar- 
 ed not go down there without s.^ime promise 
 of reciprocity. And then we come on to the 
 elections of 1891. What happened ? Where 
 was the National Policy then ? The hon. 
 gentlemen came down and told the country, 
 that they had an offer of reciprocity from the 
 United States and wanted a new House, com- 
 posed of new men, to consider this question. 
 We are a moribund House, they said, and 
 we want a new House to take up this new 
 boon of reciprocity which we will obtain 
 for you. And these are the hon. gentlemen 
 who charge the Liberal party with inconsist- 
 ency ! It you can find any more sudden 
 turns, any more variegated policy, in the short 
 space of twenty years, I would like to know 
 where. You certainly cannot liml it in the 
 record of the Liberal party. Now. I would 
 like, if time permitted, to discuss a little more 
 fuUy what has happened. I have got up now 
 to the year 1891, and it is just as well that 
 we should refresh our memories as to what 
 happen .d in that memorable year. We were 
 all more or less taken by siu-prise at the sud- 
 den appeal to the country tlien. But we were 
 certainly taken more by surprise at the ques- 
 tion upon which the appeal was made. Why 
 was that appeal made at that time ? Why, 
 because the gentlemen opposite, wise in their 
 day and generation, saw that the policy which 
 the Liberal party had put forward in 1888 
 was becoming popular and carrying the coun- 
 try. They saw us and went one better. 
 They said : We wiU get the start of the Lib- 
 erals and go to the country ; we will go on 
 reciprocity ; we will take the wind out of 
 their sails. And how did they do it ? They 
 
did it by an outrageous abuse of their au- 
 thority. They did it by misrepresentation of 
 the grossest kind. They put forward the 
 statement that the United States had made 
 au offer of reciprocity to tliis country. They 
 said : 
 
 .*Sir .Joliii Macdonald's Government not lonj{ ago 
 made a definite proposal to the Wasliiiigton authori- 
 ties for a settlement of all existing differences be- 
 tween tlie two countries on a basis of an extension 
 of the trade Ijetween the two countries- It involves 
 partial reciprocity, the enumerated articles to 
 include quite a nunil«;r of natural products, Imt the 
 proposition discards any idea of conmiercial union 
 or unrestricted reciprocity. Moreover, these jjrn- 
 pof itions were invited and suggested by the Wash- 
 ington authorities. Commissioners from Canada 
 and (jJreat Britain will start for Washington on 4th 
 March, on the opening of the new Congress. The 
 result of the Canadian elections will be known on 
 ()th March, the day the commissioners reach Wash- 
 ington. In order that this Commission may have 
 no uucertain sound, Sir John :»Iucdoiiald has 
 decided to appeal to the country and ask for 
 judgment on these proposals of his to the Wash- 
 ington authorities. He does not want the endorsa- 
 tion of a Parliament in its last session, but the 
 freshly expressed opinion of the people of Canada, 
 and for tliis reason lie has ad\ised a dissolution. 
 But it turned out laier on that, instead Of the 
 invitation or the suggestion coaling from 
 Washington, it came from Ottawa, and that 
 Sir Julian Pauncefote was requested by the 
 Ottawa GoTenun(?nt to sound the Ad- 
 ministration at Washington, In order to 
 see whether it would be prepared to 
 consider a reciprocity treaty between 
 the United States and this country. 
 And we find, more thiin that. Sir, that what 
 was agreed to — and it was agreed to on 2nd 
 January, 1891— between Blaine jn ore 
 side and Sir Julian Pauncefote on the other, 
 was, not that any ti'eatj- should be consider- 
 ed, but that Mr. Blaine should receive re- 
 presentatives from the Government at Ot- 
 tawa, and privately discuss the question 
 of whether a basis could be laid down for 
 an agreement of a r-^ciprocity tretity. And 
 this was the ground upon which the hon. gen- 
 tleman, as it tu''.!'.^! cut, went to the country 
 in 1891. But, Sir. we come now to the 
 present time. Is this a change of policy, 
 or is this the same policy ? At any rate 
 we have a very seriotis departure from the 
 tariff which we have been told here, year in 
 and year out, was simijly the acme of per- 
 fection. And even now the Minister of 
 Finance spent two hours and a half of the 
 time occupied by his Budget speech in prov- 
 ing the absolute perfection of the National 
 Policy, and then he spent two hours and 
 a half in showing how completely he could 
 tear it to pieces. Now, Sir, to return to 
 some of the observations which the hon. 
 Minister has made in his criticisms of my 
 hon. friend from Prince El ward Island (Mr. 
 Davies). He stated that that hon. gentle- 
 man had made a speech in which he had de- 
 clared that the manufactiu'ers were losing 
 money, and that he made another speech 
 
 In whioh he said that they were making 
 large sums of money, and the hon. Minister 
 claimed that these two speeches were in- 
 consistent. I have not read the speech of 
 the hon. gentleman from Prince Edward 
 Island (Mr. Davies), but, so far as I could 
 gather from the remarks of the hon. Minis- 
 ter, it was a speech made in 1885. In that 
 speech, as I uiiden^tand it, the hon. gentle- 
 man statwl that tliere were three stagos in 
 the history of manufactures imder protec- 
 tion. Beginning under the stimulus of the 
 protective system, there would be erhanced 
 pri-ces and profitable returns. Then came 
 over-production, and then it was that those 
 eugage<l in these manufactures lost money, 
 and I think there are some hon. gentlemen 
 sitting pretty near tlie hon. Minister who 
 could testifj', if it were necessary, to the 
 truth of the statement made by the hon. 
 gentleLian from Prince Edward Island (Mr. 
 Da\-ies)." The hon. Minister says that my 
 hon. friend from Piince Edward Island (Mr. 
 Davies) is inconsistent, because he declares 
 in his other speech that the manufacturers 
 were making large sums of money. There 
 is no inconsistency whatever. Why ? Be- 
 cause when the hon. gentleman made the 
 speech in which he said large sums were 
 beuig made by the cotton and sugar com- 
 bines, the third stage in the manufacturing 
 industry imder protection had been reached. 
 What is that stage ? It Is the stage of com- 
 binaton of the different members of each 
 industry in the coimtiy, and that is the 
 stage that the hon. member from Prince 
 Edward Island (Mr. Davies) was discussing 
 when he said the combin(« were taking large 
 sums of money' out of the pockets of the 
 people. And that is why the Liberal party 
 object to the policy of the Government, 
 because it helps the favoured individuals 
 to combine together, and through that com- 
 bination to take from the consumers more 
 money for the commodities they supply 
 than those commodities are worth, or, in 
 other words, hiore than the consumers would 
 have to pay if they were at liberty to buy 
 elsewhere. The hon. Minister took ex- 
 ception to what he was pleased to call the 
 inconsistencies of my hon. friend in what he 
 said with regard to the United States. The 
 hon. Minister declared that my hon. friend 
 had stated in one breath that the United 
 States had Ijeen injured by protection, and 
 in the next that the American Union was 
 a great free trade country as between the 
 forty-two or forty-three States of the Union. 
 I do not see any great inconsistency in that. 
 The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davies) says, 
 as he believes, as we all believe, that 
 the protective principle is a vicious one, 
 and is botmd to htu-t any country that 
 adopts it. But he says that in the 
 United states you have the least possible 
 bad results fi'om a bad policy, because you 
 have within the United States forty-three 
 different countries, as it were, all trading 
 freely together, and containing within their 
 own boundaries every product tmder the 
 
light of the sun. It seeuis to me, Mr. 
 Speaker, that that is sound according to 
 logic and facts, and that no exception can 
 be taken to what my hon. friend said on 
 that score. From what the hon. Minister 
 said, one would suppose tliat the United 
 States had always had a protective tai'iff. 
 Dw?s not the hon. gentleman know that the 
 United States deliberately adopted a free 
 trade or revenue tariff policy as long ago 
 as 1845, and that the people lived under 
 that Uiriff uutU 1861, and, further, that the 
 greatest prosperity that tliat country has 
 seen was between those two years. What 
 drove the United States to adopt a policy 
 of protection ? Was it a desire tliereby 
 to build up industries or to tax the masses 
 of the people in on er to enrich the few ? 
 No, Sir, they had to face the war of the 
 rebellion, and In 1861 they foimd themselves 
 in debt, they foimd themselves obliged to 
 raise enormous sums of money to carry on 
 that war, and so they put up this tariff— 
 not for protective purposes, but for the pur- 
 pose of raising revenue. But we have 
 there an illustration of how difficult it is 
 to extricate a coimtry from the control of 
 the protective system, once that system has 
 been established. Under this policy in the 
 United States great industries gi-ew up, 
 great combines were started, and the power 
 of these combines was so great that, exert- 
 ed upon the Government of the country, it 
 has forced the United States to continue 
 that i)olicy in operation. The hon. Minister 
 says that protection is lively in the United 
 States yet. Well, Sir, I agree ,ith him. 
 And I quite agree with him that the strug- 
 gle is not yet by any means over. As I 
 have just said, eJiormous interests, selfish 
 inter'^sts, have been built up in that country 
 whii ; are fighting now for their very life, 
 so that when the Government of the United 
 States endeavours to change that policy, 
 they find aiTayel against them millions and 
 hundreds of millions of capital which will 
 be used in eveiy way to th^ -t their efforts 
 and to thwart the will of people, ex- 
 
 pressed though it was witn no uncertain 
 sotmd in the last presidential election in 
 1892. I am not going into the question 
 of the mandate of the people to President 
 Cleveland in 1892 to carry out the policy of 
 tariff reform— that would take too long. But 
 I may make this observation, that in the 
 experience of the United States we are able 
 to see— we Liberals who are charged with 
 everything bad, who are charged with want 
 of admiration for British institutions— an 
 object lesson setting forth the immense 
 superiority of British institutions over 
 those of the United States. Here we 
 have means by which effect can be 
 given almost immediately to the will of the 
 people ; there, under their extraordinary 
 system of government, it takes a year, or a 
 year and a half, and almost two years, be- 
 fore effect can be given to the will of the 
 people. You have there a defunct House 
 of Representatives sitting for months and 
 
 legislating after they have been defeated at 
 tlie polls. You have there a President ac- 
 tually In authority and carrying on the gov- 
 ernment of the country, months after the 
 people have declared by an overwhelming 
 majority that they want no more of his 
 policy. However, that is their business, and 
 not ours, and In that peculiar condition of 
 things we find, no doubt, a reason why the 
 policy of the Democratic party meets so 
 many obstacles in being crystallized ' \to 
 law. Now, the hon. gentleman criticised 
 as Inconsistent a statement made by the 
 hon. member for Queen's, P.B.I. (Mr 
 Davles), to the effect that t^»'•e hnd - 
 been prosperity under the Natlo' ^i 
 He said : In one breath he (l.lr. 
 P.E.I.) says there has been prospe*- .aer 
 
 the National Policy, in another a,ia he 
 says there is no prosperity. Bu. " ephe- 
 mereal " was the word the hon. member for 
 Queen's used. He said th^-re had been an 
 epheraereal prosperity, not due to the Na- 
 tional Policy, but as a result of the large 
 sums of millions of money that had been 
 spent In this counti-y during the last few 
 years upon public works. That was th9 
 statement made by the hon. member for 
 Qtieen's, and a perfectly true and sound 
 statement it was, one that does not require 
 to be supported by argument. The hon. 
 ?Iinister says that these public works are 
 not done yet. That looks a good deal like 
 a note of warning for a general election. I 
 understood the Minister of Finance to say 
 more than once in this House, that he was 
 ilbout done expending money on public 
 works. I have a speech delivered, I think, 
 by the right hon. the First Minister in Mont- 
 real, in which he said there woiUd be no 
 more large expenditures on public works, 
 and that therefore — that was the argument 
 he used— we would be aule now to cut down 
 our expenses, and consequently to make cer- 
 tain reductions on the tariff. But the Min- 
 ister of Marine has no Idea of letting 
 public works stop in that cavalier 
 fashion. He always was in favour of pub- 
 lic works, and I will say this for him, that 
 he has fought very weU for large expendi- 
 tures in his own province, not always the 
 most judicious, perhaps, but still he has got 
 them. We have seen a short line railway 
 which cost a million dollars, constructed In 
 his cx)imty, which was to shorten the distance 
 some forty miles, and after the road was 
 built and the million of dollars spent, 
 we found that the actual shortening was 
 seven miles. However, we are to have 
 more public works. Now, the hon. gentle- 
 man said that he did not oppose reciprocity, 
 but he said It very cautiously, and I could 
 not gather from the argument he put for- 
 ward that he was very strongly In favour 
 of reciprocity. I have no doubt that when 
 the hon. gentleman comes down to conduct 
 the next campaign in the Maritime Pro- 
 vinces, he will say that he Is in favou' of 
 reciprocity. But I do not judge hon. gentle- 
 
men opposite by thoir words. They «.ay on 
 the eve of an election that they are In tavour 
 of reciprocity, but reciprocity is not in their 
 hearts. When they ko to Washington li 
 seems to me that they take special pains 
 to find ont what the United States Govern- 
 ment will not do. and then they Insist upon 
 that. On one occasion Sir Charles Tupper 
 went there, after receiving a letter from 
 Mr. Bayard, in which Mr. Bayard said that 
 an arrangement for reciprocity between 
 these two countries must be a full and a 
 comt^lete one. Subsequently a delegation 
 01 Ministers went there, went there in face 
 of an announcement made by Mr. Blahie. 
 made to the world — everybody knew It— that 
 no treaty with Can ula would be entered 
 into by the United S ates which did not in- 
 clude manufactures. But the Government 
 would not accede t > any proposal to in- 
 clude miuiufiLctures. That policy is carried 
 out now in tills vei^ tariff reform which 
 the Minister of Finance has presenetd to this 
 House. What do we find? We find in 
 that an offer of reciprocity in certain natiu-al 
 products, but when it comes to anything 
 like a manul'actiu*ed article, when it comes 
 to agricvdtm'al implements, in respect of 
 which the United States are making an offer 
 of reciprocity to this country, we find the 
 hon. gentlemen turning their faces the other 
 way, and utterly refusing to co-operate with 
 the United States. We may lay it down 
 as their fixed poUc.v that they will not make 
 a ti-eaty with the United States which in- 
 cludes manufact'U'ed articles, knowing full 
 well, as they do, and as their old leader. 
 Sir John A. Macdonald, frequently stated in 
 this House, and cut of it that it is impos- 
 sible to get from the United States a treaty 
 which does not include manufactiu'ed 
 articles. Consequently I say it is fair to 
 assume from the hon. gentleman's conduct, 
 no matter what thf>y may say with their 
 lips; that they are apposed to the policy of 
 reciprocity I am sorry that the hon. mem- 
 ber for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Mclnemey), is not 
 in his place, because I think it would be a 
 comfort to him to hear these words of mine. 
 That hon. gentleman spoke some minutes 
 the other night in proving to his satisfaction 
 that this Gove-nment had done everything 
 In their power to obtain reciprocity for this 
 country; and then he spent about the same 
 length of time, or more, in proving to his 
 satisfaction that reciprocity would be an un- 
 mixed evil to this country. Yet the hon. 
 gentleman has left the Liberal party— or at 
 any rate he is no longer an Independent— 
 and he is going to support the Government 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite because they 
 want to do a thing which he has said is the 
 greatest evil that could happen to this coun- 
 try. Sir, I tliink almost the only article of the 
 tariff to which the hon. Minister refers, is the 
 article of coal oil, and in that he thought 
 he saw an opportunity to make an attack 
 npon the Liberal party. He said that the 
 
 ' Liberal party was responsible for the present 
 condition of the coal oil question. Now, Mr. 
 Speaker, let me give you the facts with re- 
 ference to coal oil. Before 1877 there was 
 a customs duty of 15 cents pe- gallon and 
 an excise duty on petroleum. In 1877 Mr 
 I ^Mackenzie reduced the customs duty to 6 
 [ cents pf»p gallon, a reduction of !» cents, and 
 I took off the excise dtity. At that time 
 I the same qu.ality of American oil. which 
 is now imported, was selUu'-' at 20 cents 
 : per gallon. When this change was made 
 I in the interest of the people of Cannda. 
 ' there was a reduction of from 15 cents down 
 I to 5, a reduction of from 90 per cent 
 1 down to 30 per cent upon American coal 
 I oil. What is the case to-day? The duty 
 upon the same quality of oil comiii;: into 
 Oiinada to-day is tbout 130 per cent, in 
 some cases more. In some cases less, but In 
 no case less than 100 per cent. But how 
 does this operate? It operates with special 
 hardship upon the people of the Maritime 
 Provinces. The people of the Maritime Pro- 
 vinces, let me tell the Minister, if he doea 
 not know it, buy and import from the 
 Unite<l States two and a half times more 
 oil than the people of Ontario and Quebec 
 per head of the popidation. For every gal- 
 lon of coal oil per head of population im- 
 ported in the provinces of Ontario and Que- 
 bec there is iraporteti of American nil by 
 the people of the Mai'itime Provinces two 
 and one-half gallons, and two and a half 
 times more per capita is paid b.y the people 
 of the Maritime Provinces into the Treasury 
 on coal oil than is paid by the provinces 
 I have named. Yet the Finance Minister 
 came down last year, and repeated it this 
 year, with a proposition to let coal oil into 
 Canada in tank cars, in order to make it 
 cheaper, but when it came to Nova Scotia 
 and New Brunswick he refused to give theiB 
 the same benefit by permitting coal oil to 
 be Imported in tank steamers. It is no use 
 to allow us to import oil In tank cars, be- 
 cause the distance is so great from the point 
 of production that it costs more than if It 
 is imported in the regular way. But if the 
 hon. gentleman gave us the same fair play 
 as he accords to other provinces of the Do- 
 minion, he would permit the impoirtation of 
 coal oil in tank steamers. I think this is 
 a proposal which the Finance Minister might 
 take into his favom-able consideration. The 
 Minister of Marine said there is wonderful 
 prosperity in the Maritime Provinces, that 
 there is no place in the world where the 
 people have so much reason to rejoice. But 
 the hon. gentleman failed to state upon what 
 grounds he based that opinion. He does 
 not spend very much of his time in the Mari- 
 time Provinces now. No doubt, in his pleas- 
 ant official chair, everything In the Maritime 
 Provinces wears a roseate hue. The hon. 
 gentleman has had a pleasant time recently ; 
 he has been abroad and has reaped honours, 
 no doubt well-earned ; but the hon. gentle- 
 man has not been in touch lately with the 
 
people of his own province. He does not 
 know JuKt how things are down there. I 
 have never been in the haMi; of preaching 
 blue ruin ; I believe in in/ country and in 
 my province, and 1 hold there is not a finer 
 ooimtry under heaven than the valley cf 
 the CornwalllB and the Annapolis ; but in 
 my busines.s relations I cannot shut uiy 
 eyes to the existing conditions. I tell the 
 Minister of Marine that when he tells the 
 people of the Maritime Provinces that there 
 are no people in the world who have more 
 reason to rejoice, he is stating what is not 
 true, and if he woidd ascertjiin for himself 
 from those people their present condition, 
 he woidd find he had made a serious mis- 
 take. I believe there never was a time 
 when the people were more pinched for 
 money — I am speaking of the orllnary cen- 
 tres in the Maritime Provinces. 
 
 Sh- CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Will 
 the hon. gentleman state where there Is a 
 similar population better off than the peo- 
 ple of tie Maritime Provinces to-day, man 
 for man, all aroimd— a similar population 
 and about the same number of people ? 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. Comparisons are odious. 
 The hon. gentleman wants to obtain a com- 
 parison from me, and he will then cut it 
 out of ' Hansard,' and it will be read to 
 my constituents. I will not be drawn into 
 a trap like that. I 'have had some experi- 
 ence to-night, and I will endeavour to pro- 
 fit by it. I am not speaking of other coun- 
 tries, but of my own country. There is a 
 want of the circulating medium, the people 
 find It difficult to pay their bills, the farmers 
 do not get the returns they should for their 
 crops, and land values have diminshed in 
 the province. If the hon. gentleman will 
 look at the trade returns he will as- 
 certain that trade has decreased, that 
 the voluc:.^ of our exports and imports is 
 smaller, or at all events that it has not in- 
 creased. He will also olt)serve, If he goes 
 back twenty years and compares the condi- 
 tion then with the condition now, that there 
 hap been no growth whatever. If the Mari- 
 time Provinces are as prosperous as the hon. 
 gentleman states, what alK)ut »the popula- 
 lioii? Where are the people? Why have 
 not the people remained there? Why has 
 the population in New Brunswick not In- 
 creased during the last ten yeai's? Why 
 has the poptdatlon of Pi-lnce Edward Island 
 not increased? Why has the population of 
 Nova Scotia only Increased by 10,000 souls? 
 If the condition Is such as represented by 
 the Minister of Marine, it Is remarkable that 
 the people, who are considered to be rather 
 shrewd— and Indeed the hon. Minister has 
 shown it— should have left the province and 
 not returned. They may be doing so in a 
 few instances, owing to the distress in the 
 United States during the winter, but they 
 will return south In the spring. As has 
 been suggested to me, we ralght make a 
 comparison with the condition now and 
 
 twenty years ago. and that Is a propei com- 
 parison to make ; and If the hon Minister 
 would consult any one conversant with the 
 condition of affairs twenty or twenty-flve 
 years ago, he would imdoubtedly be told 
 that at all events, so far as the agricultural 
 interests are concerned, there is not the 
 same prosperity now as thero was then, 
 when we had free exchange of commodities 
 with the United States. The hon. Minister 
 talks about people of the Maritime Pro- 
 vinces l)eing happy and contented and in a 
 most fortunate position, when they are taxed 
 j for everything they eat, wear and use. 
 
 Mr. KENNY. Taxed on their +ea. 
 I 
 
 i Mr. BORDEN. They arc going to be 
 ! taxed on their tea, and I know the constitu- 
 ! ents of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. 
 I Kenny) feel very keenly on that point. They 
 i will have to pay 10 per cent duty on thalr 
 i tea Importetl from Great Britain. Surely, 
 with 125 per cent on coal oil, 75 cents per 
 barrel on flour. 40 cents per barrel on com- 
 meal and 10 per cent on tea coming from 
 the mother country, there should be suffi- 
 cient imposts? These are the people who 
 should be the most satisfied people in the 
 world, according to the statement of the 
 Minister of Miuine ! When the Minister 
 comes down to the Maritime Provinces and 
 discusses this question with the people, I 
 believe they will persuade him that they do 
 not think as he does. I have prepared one 
 or two calculations which I desire to bring 
 before the Minister of Finance and the 
 Controller of Customs, the latter of whom 
 I notice is not in his seat. The Con- 
 troller of Customs, in order to prove 
 that the present condition of the country 
 was all that ould be desired, imd that it 
 was fairly prosperous, quoted from a speech 
 delivered by the hon. member for South 
 Oxfoi'd (Sir Richard Cartwright) in 1877, in 
 which that hon. gentieman stated : that a 
 very fair test of the prosperity of the country 
 was the extent of the bank note circulation, 
 the extent of the growth of the deposits in 
 the chartered banks, the Increase In life 
 Insurance, and the Increase In the deposits 
 m tlie savings banks, and the CJonti'oller 
 quoted the Budget speech of the member 
 for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) 
 j in 1877, and proceeded to base upon that 
 i SIX ech further inference from other caJ- 
 I culations. He gave the bank note circul- 
 i ation down to date, fi-om 1879, the period 
 I since the inception of the National Policy, 
 i he gave tlie deposits in the chartered banks, 
 the increase in life insurance, but he did not 
 give the increase in the savings bank de- 
 posits. I will supply that deflciencv for him. 
 Taking the Controller's statement, I find 
 that the bank note circulation under the re- 
 venue tariff period, from 1868 to 1877. mne 
 years, increased 100 per cent, or an average 
 increase of 11 per cent a year. I find 
 that under the National Policy protective 
 period, from 1879 to 1894. 15 years, the bank 
 
 
note clroultitlon increased 75 per cent, j 
 or an average of 3 pe** cent per an- ' 
 num, as against 11 per cent per annum 
 (luring tho revenue tariff r)erlo(l. 1 And ! 
 that the d<"po8lts In the chartered bauKa [ 
 during the 9 years of the revenue tariff | 
 period from 18(>8 to 1877, increased 130 per | 
 cent, or 14i^ peir cent per year, and under | 
 the 15 years of the protective policy, from 
 1879 to 1894, the deposits in the charttTed 
 banks increased 165 per cent, or 11 per cent 
 per year, Ju.st 3% per cent loss than dm-lng 
 the period of the revenue tariff. I find 
 that life insurance increased in volume from 
 1872 to 1877— the hon. member for South 
 Oxford (Sir Rlchaiti Cartwrlght) did not go 
 back further thfin 1872, but these are the 
 flgm*es quoi,xxi by the Controller of Customs 
 —Increased 240 per cent during these 5 
 years, or ;an average of 48 per cent per 
 annum, while under the 15 years of the 
 National Policy, from 1879 to 1894, life in- 
 sm-ance increased 300 per cent, or 20 per cent 
 per year, less than half the increase imder 
 the revenue tarilf period. I find that tlie 
 savings btinks deposits increased in the 9 
 years of revenue tariff from 18r>8 to 1877, 
 400 per oant, or 44 and 4-lOths per cent 
 per year ; but under the 14 years of the 
 National Policy period, from 1879 to 1893, 
 they only increasetl 350 per cent, or 25 per 
 cent per annum, as against 44 and 4-lOths 
 per cent per annum under the revenue tariff 
 period. The Junior member for St. John 
 (Mr. Hazfn) referring to the rate of taxation 
 on tlio p(;ople of this country says that in 
 1878 it was $4.37 per head, and that in 1892 
 it was $5.81 per head, an increase, he says, of 
 " only " $1.44 per head, or $7.uO per family per 
 year, and the hon. gentleman seems to tliink 
 that this Is a very trifling increase ! Well, 
 Sir, we woidd not think so veiy much of 
 that increase were it not for the circum- 
 stances attending it. All of the $4.37 per 
 head of taxation in 1S78 under a rev- 
 enue tariff policy, went into the trea- 
 sury, and it was expended for the benefit 
 of oiu: people ; but what happens under 
 the policy of 1892, when the rate of taxation 
 is aUege-d to be $5.81 per head ? We have 
 in the latter year a policy stated to be ex- 
 pressly for the protection of the industries 
 of this country, and which by the admis- 
 sions of the Finance Minister, now increases 
 the prices of the home products to the con- 
 sumers. The $5.81 taxation in 1892 does 
 not represent one-half of the tux which is 
 taken oat of the pockets of the people imder 
 the National Policy. That tax of $5.81 went 
 into the treasury, but what is the amount 
 of the tax that went out of the pockets of 
 the consumers and into the pockets of the 
 gentlemen who are manufacturing for the 
 consumers ? It was at least double that 
 amount, so that for every $5 of taxation, 
 which goes into the treasury, $10 are given 
 to emich manufacturers at the expense of 
 somelx)dy else. That is the protective 
 principle. The Grovernment now propose 
 to adhere to this policy of protection, but 
 
 I' w B 2 
 
 they are going to retluce the revenue. The 
 Minister of Finance stated— although he waa 
 contradicted by the Minister of Marine— that 
 they were going to retluco the revenue, and 
 therefore they coidd not aftonl, and did not 
 Intend to proce<Kl with public works. In 
 other words, they proposed to reduce that 
 part of tlie taxation whicli go<'s into the 
 treasui-y, and which being expended, and 
 coming back to tlie people in the way of 
 public works, pi-ovideil it is honestly expend- 
 eu. might do the people some goo<l. But, 
 Mr. Speaker, the Government propose to 
 retain the vicious principle of protection, 
 which takes out of the pockets of the 
 people taxis which no man knows the 
 amount of, and transfers them to the pockets 
 of other people, who are enabled by the sys- 
 tem of legislation under whicli we live, to put 
 their hands into the pockets ot their neigh- 
 ours. This is legislation against the masses of 
 the p(K>ple and In favour of the classes, legis- 
 lation whit ; . according to the Minister of 
 Finance', is a policy of d» velopnient. The 
 Minister <vf Finance states now that high 
 tiixatlon increases the cost of gixxls. For 
 years he and his followers have been telling 
 us that high taxation diminished the cost 
 of goods, and we used to ask them some- 
 times : if that is the case, why not put on 
 the duties still higher, and we will get goods 
 still cheaper ? Now, I want to know from 
 these hon. gentlemen when they were rig it. 
 Were they right last year when all of tiiem 
 said : high taxation reduces the price, and 
 when they compared the cost of ai tides of 
 to-day with the cost of articles in 1878 ? 
 They flourished these comparisons triumph- 
 antly before the House and the people, say- 
 ing : Look what the National Policy has 
 done : It has reduced the pri(>e of everything 
 you have to consume. And now they go 
 back upon themselves in one short year, 
 and propose to reduce these very taxes 
 which have been so benefiting the people. 
 When were these gentlemen right and when 
 wrong? Are they right now? Then, what 
 arrant humbugs have they been from 1878 
 down to the present time, in going before 
 the people and telling them that theh* high 
 taxation poUcy has had the effect of cheap- 
 ening goods. Let them take whichever horn 
 of the dilemma they like. But they say the 
 circumstances are changfed, changed circum- 
 stances are their exciise for reducinr; this 
 tariff. How have the circumstances changed 
 since last year? Wherein has been this ex- 
 traordinary change of circumstances by 
 which that which reduced the price of goods 
 last year increases the price of goods this 
 yeai- ? I will tell you, Sir, wherein the 
 changed circumstances are ; they are in the 
 fact that hon. gentiemen are in danger of 
 being tm-ned out of office. The changed 
 circumstances are in the fact that the people 
 of Canada are getting their eyes opened as 
 I a result of the sound knowledge that has 
 j been disseminated by the Liber ^ party 
 i throughout this country with reft ence to 
 
10 
 
 fiscal questions and political ecoi )m.v. The 
 I)eoi)le are learning that taxation does in- 
 crease tlie price of goods. They have learned 
 it so effectually that they have instUled it 
 even into tne mind of the Finance Minister; 
 and he comes down tliis year, abandoning all 
 the past professions of his colleagues and 
 his supporters, and puts them in the awlc- 
 ward dilemnia of having to say that no 
 longer does taxation lower, but it increases 
 the price of goods. T have shown the hon. 
 gentlemen their changes in rioliey. They have 
 been in favour of commeicial union; they 
 have been in favour of reciprocity; they 
 have been in favoiu* of protection; some of 
 them have been in favour of annexation. 
 They have changed their policy as many 
 times as there are days in the week. But 
 there is one thing in regard to which these 
 hon. gentlemen never ''hange their policy; 
 that is, in their desire to stick to office. They 
 win do anything if they can only find out 
 what the people want. Whichever way the 
 v'nd is blowing, their sails are always set 
 in that direction. No one could more readily 
 face north by south, which is what they are 
 doing to-day. Their tariff increases the 
 price of goods and their tariff does not in- 
 crease prices. These hon. gentlemen will 
 do anything in order to maintain themselves 
 in office. But they are a little too late. The 
 people have caught on, and imderstand that 
 In making th 'se reductions in taxation, these 
 hon. gentlemen are not stacere, and that 
 their motive in making them is simply to 
 endeavour ♦^o keep the votes of the people. 
 ^ The Finaact; Minister put this new tariff 
 forward as a farmers' tariff particularly, 
 and he laboiu-ed with a long argument to 
 prove that the farmers have been enormous- 
 ly benefited by the National Policy. In his 
 Budget speech be quoted some figiu*es in the 
 attempt to prove that the National Policy, 
 by excluding animals and their products and 
 agricultural products from this counti-y, and 
 reducing the imports of that class of goods, 
 has materially helped the farmer. These 
 are his words :— 
 
 I wisli to adduce some figures to show wliat has 
 been done for the agricultural interests of this 
 country. In 1877, the people of this country con- 
 sumed, of agricultural products, animals and their 
 prochuts ; from Great Britain, $56,588 worth ; 
 from the United States, .^'16,066,963 worth ; from 
 other countr'es, .$7,798 worth, making a total of 
 $16,1.31,349 worth. in 1878 these imports for 
 home consumption amounted to $15,050,9.30. and 
 in 1879 to $10,420,.S44. The National Policy did 
 its work, and the result w.is that the impot tation 
 of these products fell to 84,240,849 in 1891, to 
 $3,092,452 in 1892, and to §2,741,7.33 in 1893. In 
 other words, in the three years, 1877, 1878 and 
 1879, there was an average annual import of these 
 products for consumptitm of 813,867,541, wliereas 
 m the last tln-ee years there was an average annual 
 import of the same materials for home consumption 
 of 13,358,344. 
 
 Mr. CAMERON. That is the best part 
 of your speech. 
 
 Mr. BORDEN. If the hon. gentleman 
 who interrupts me Is capable of being con- 
 vinced, I will endeavour to convince him. 
 I am quite confident of my ability to con- 
 vince the Finance Mimster of the utter and 
 absolute fallacio'^sness of those figures. I 
 find, in the Trade and Navigation Returns, 
 that the total imports in 1878 were $99,327,- 
 962, and the imports for home consumption 
 .'i;96,.S00,483, leaving, as the amount entered 
 not for home consumption, $3,027,479. I 
 presume that the hon. gentleman basefl his 
 conclusion upon these figures. But if he 
 had taken the trouble to turn to the exports, 
 he would have found that the total exports 
 for that year were $72,975,988, and the total 
 exports the produce of Canada were $65,- 
 864,880, leaving the exports not the produce 
 of Canada at $7,111,108. Now, if the hon, 
 gentleman will deduct from this amount of 
 $7,111,108. the $3,027,479 worth of goods 
 entered and not for home consumption, he 
 will find that he has made an error in the 
 amoimt entered for home consumption of $4,- 
 083,629. If the hon. gentleman will go to the 
 year 1878, he will find, in the same way, that 
 there is an error of $9,282,668. And if he 
 will take the year 1879, he wiU find that 
 there is an error of $6,732,825. Now, the 
 hon. gentleman has added those three years 
 together and made his calculation ; and he 
 says there is an average of $13,867,541 wortli 
 of animals and their products and agi-icul- 
 tural products imported into Canada in those 
 years, 1877, 1878, and 1879 ; and he says that 
 he reduced them, by means of the National 
 Policy, in the last three years, 1891, 1892, 
 and 1893, to an average of $3,358,344. That 
 is, he gave to the farmers of Canada a mar- 
 ket of $10,500,000. But let us take thp 
 flgm'es and look at these errors. I find 
 that the hon. gentleman included in his 
 calcidation for the years 1877, 1878, and 
 1879, $20,097,122 of products which were not 
 the products of Canada, or an average error 
 of $6,699,709 for each of those three years. 
 In order to make it more clear to hon. gentle- 
 men, I submit the following statement : — 
 
 1878. 
 
 Total imports $ 99,327,962 
 
 Entered for home consumption 96,300,483 
 
 Not for home consumption S 3,027,479 
 
 Total exports $ 75,875,393 
 
 Produce of Canada 68,764,285 
 
 Not produce of Canada $ 7,111,108 
 
 Deduct 3,027,479 
 
 Error — Entered as for home con- 
 sumption $ 4,083,629 
 
11 
 
 1878. 
 
 Total imports 8 93,081,787 
 
 Entered for home conaumiition 91,l!t9,.577 
 
 Not for home consumption S 1,882,210 
 
 Total exports $ 79,323,667 
 
 Produce of Canada 68,158,789 
 
 Not produce of Canada $ 11,164,878 
 
 Deduct 1,882,-'10 
 
 Error— Ent'd for as home con. . . S 9,282,6.58 
 
 1879. 
 
 Total imiwrts .' S 81,964,327 
 
 Entered for consumption 80,341,608 
 
 Not for home consumption § 1,()22,719 
 
 Total exiwrts S 71,491,25.5 
 
 Produce of Canada 63,i;%,611 
 
 Not produce of Canada S 8,351,644 
 
 Deduct 1,622,719 
 
 Error Ent'd as for home con .. 8 6,732,925 
 
 Error, 1877 -S 4,083.629 
 
 do 1878 9,282,668 
 
 do 1879 6,732,925 
 
 Total S 20,09it,222 
 
 Average error for 3 years 6,699,740 
 
 Now, I challenge the hon. gentleman to 
 verify the figures I have given. And I asli 
 what is to be thought of a gentleman oc- 
 cupying the high position of Minister of 
 Finance, who comes down to Parliament, af- 
 ter carefully preparing his speech, and makes 
 statements of that liind. I do not believe 
 that he made these errors wilfully, but that 
 simply he did not take the trouble of veri- 
 fying the figm-es, so anxious was he to come 
 to the conclusion that his National Policy 
 has been productive of this immense advant- 
 age to the farmers of Canada, Let us go on 
 a little further. The average error In each of 
 these three years was $6,G99,707 ; and we 
 know that all these goods must have come 
 from the United States. Taking the other 
 side of the accoimt, and looldng to the de- 
 tails of the imports, to find where the mis- 
 take has arisen, what do we find ? Take the 
 year 1878. The imports of wheat in that 
 year amounted to $6,510,131 in value, an 
 amovmt almost exactly corresponding to the 
 hon. gentleman's error. The wheat which 
 was brought into Canada, handled by Cana- 
 dian merchants, and exported at Montreal, 
 giving work to our shipping, is included 
 in the reductions the hon. gentleman claims 
 credit for. In shutting out this export of 
 16,500,000 of wheat which came Into Canada 
 and did not enter into competition with 
 Canadian produce at all, he therefore claims 
 that his National Policy gave a market to 
 that extent to our Canadian farmer. I have 
 given $6,699,000 as accounted for out of this 
 
 $13,800,000, which still leaves about four 
 millions to be accoimted for, before I get 
 down to the sum he says he has succeeded 
 in reducing the trade of Canada to in these 
 particxilar lines— tl at is $3,358,000. TVTiere 
 do I find the explanation of that ? I look 
 up again to 1878 to find the exports and im- 
 ports of Canada in these articles. I find 
 that Canada exported to the United States 
 barley, beans, and peas to the value of 
 $4,401,104, and brought back, with the money 
 that resulted from their sale, corn and corn- 
 meal to the value of $4,153,281. Now, I 
 think I have reduced the amount down to 
 the point to which the hon. gentleman says 
 the National Policy reduced it. This $6,- 
 500,000 worth of wheat, which came in and 
 gave work to the people of Camida and put 
 money in their pockets, this $4,000,000 worth 
 of bii.iey, which was profitably exported to 
 the United States and paid for by the corn 
 and commeal which Canadians, wanted or 
 they would not have purchased it— that is 
 the profitable ti-ade to the country which 
 he, on this side, and McKinley on the other 
 side, shaking hands together, have succeeded 
 in taking from the Dominion and the United 
 States. But the hon. gentleman is respon- 
 sible for the larger part. He is responsible 
 for the $6,510,131 worth of wheat which was 
 exported through this country and which, by 
 his policy, he has shut out. The hon. gentle- 
 man proposes to protect the farmers. How 
 does he propose to protect them ? Is it by 
 making their litem ^ire cheaper. Our farm- 
 ers like to read, in these days there are 
 cheap publications of all the great works, of 
 all the classical works, which have hither- 
 to come into this country at a certain rate 
 of duty. And the 1 on. gentleman proposes to 
 help to develop the agricultural interesta of 
 this country by taxing this literature double 
 w^iat it was taxed before. And so, in this 
 way, everji;h{ng that the farmer uses is 
 taxed from 20 to 80 per cent, and, as I have 
 already pointed out, his flour, corn, cxjrn- 
 meal, and coal oil are taxed. I have pointed 
 out already the hardships suffered by the 
 people in the Maritime Provinces in these 
 matters. The hon. member for Queen's (Mr. 
 Davies) has pointed out a special grievance 
 with reference to fertilizers. He claims— 
 and I repeat the claim— that the farmers of 
 the Maritime Provinces should have every 
 encouragement possible. The hon. gentle- 
 men might well, therefore, reduce his tariff 
 and make fertilizers free in order to en- 
 courage agriculture, which is severely handi- 
 capped by the want of profltjible markets, 
 and consequently low prices. But the hon. 
 gentleman retains 10 per cent, and the 
 manufacturers as well as the farmers 
 complain of this. And I will teU the hon. 
 gentleman, who seems Inclined to treat 
 this matter rather lightly, that both the 
 farmers and the manufactm^rs complain 
 that he has not put artificial fertilizers on 
 the free list. I have had letters from manu- 
 facturers in the Maritime Provinces— which 
 
12 
 
 I would read to the House if time permitted 
 —complaining that while their profit has 
 been reduced by taking off one-half of the 
 protection given them, the duty on the raw 
 materials they use has scarcely been re- 
 duced at all. And what do these manufac- 
 turers say ? They say : We do not want 
 any protection ; we go with the farmers for 
 free fertilizers, if the Government will give 
 us free sulphuric acid. The duty has been 
 reduced from five-tenths of a cent to four- 
 tenths of a cent, scarcely any reduction at 
 all. "VMiy do not the Government abolish 
 the duty on sulphuric acid ? It is not be- 
 cause they get any revenue from it, for I 
 have looked carefully over the returns and 
 find that the revenue collected last year was 
 a paltry $800. I ask therefore that the hon. 
 gentleman will consider this, because it is 
 an important question. And when tlie manu- 
 facturers of these fertilizers say they are 
 willing to have free trade, in hea ^ en's name 
 let the hon. gentleman come down and give 
 fair play to both the manufacturers and the 
 farmers, by making raw material free. 
 A special reason is suggested here to-day — 
 and that same reason has been suggested to 
 me in letters which I have now in my hand — 
 that there are people beh-"" 1 the Cabinet, 
 and very near the Cabinet, who have an 
 interest in the manufactory at Capleton, and 
 that the Government will not reduce the 
 duty upon sulphuric acid because this manu- 
 factory at Capleton is able to make its own 
 acid and to export it. Of course the hon. 
 gentleman is not aware of it, but I -would 
 ask him to look into that question and ascer- 
 tain why the rest of the people of this coim- 
 try shOTild be taxed in order to support a 
 small industry in a remote part of the prov- 
 ince of Quebec. Now, Sir, I think I have got 
 pretty weU to the end, and I have no doubt 
 
 thait you, and the members of the House are 
 very glad to hear me say so. One word, Sir, 
 in conclusion. Hon. gentlemen opposite 
 have come down now with a definite state- 
 ment of their policy. They have thrown 
 down the gauntlet and declared that they 
 will fight it out on the question of protec- 
 tion or revenue tariff. We join issue with 
 them and we are happy to have the oppor- 
 tunity of fighting that issue out before the 
 peopl'\ Whether they will stick to it, or 
 whe er before the elections they will fly 
 some r ew kite, as they did in 1891, I do not 
 know. But of this I am certain, that if they 
 will stick manfully to what they say now is 
 their fiscal policy, and will go to the people 
 upon that issue, Liberals need have no fear 
 of the result The people are beginning to 
 understand, Mr. Speaker, what the word 
 " protection " means. The great mass of the 
 consimiiers have learned from the mouth of 
 the Finance Minister himself, by his own 
 admission, that taxation increases the price 
 of commodities. Then, Sir, protection is 
 taxation ; taxation of the most obnoxious 
 kind. Taxation means increase of the 
 prices of commodities to +be masses, the 
 taking of the wealth of the many for the 
 benefit of ttie few. It means, as we have 
 seen in tliis country, the building up of " 
 monopoly ; it means a blow at the liberty of 
 the subject. And what is the policy on this 
 side of the House ? That policy is revenue 
 tariff, a policy under which not one dollar of 
 money shall be taken from the pockets of 
 the people more than goes into the treasury, 
 not more drawn into the treasury than is ne- 
 cessary to carry on the Government econo- 
 mically and honestly. Mr. Speaker, I have 
 no hesitation, so far as T am concerned, In 
 awaiting the issue when it shall be tried out 
 before the people of this country. 
 
 i 
 
 (