IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^<p 
 
 
 z 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 no 
 
 
 1 1.4 
 
 1^ II 2.2 
 
 6" 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 .V 
 
 
 .-^ 
 
 >' 
 
 / 
 
 % ^^ > 
 
 7 
 
 /^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 Thee 
 to th( 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checited below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( 
 Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Pagos detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualitd indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materia 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r~7r Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 r~U Pagos detached/ 
 
 r^^ Showthrough/ 
 
 r~~y Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 Thei 
 possi 
 of th( 
 filmir 
 
 Origii 
 begir 
 the li 
 sion, 
 other 
 first I 
 sion, 
 or illi 
 
 Thel< 
 shall 
 TINU 
 whici 
 
 Maps 
 
 differ 
 
 entire 
 
 begin 
 
 right 
 
 requii 
 
 meth 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
ire 
 
 J6tails 
 es du 
 modifier 
 er une 
 filmage 
 
 ies 
 
 f errata 
 d to 
 
 It 
 
 le pelure, 
 
 pon d 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Thomas Fisher Rare Boole Library, 
 University of Toronto Library 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 
 L exemplaire film^ fut reproduit grice d la 
 g6n6rositA de: 
 
 Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, 
 University of Toronto Library 
 
 Les images suivantes ont ^t6 reproduites avec te 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet« de I'examplaire film6. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commencant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte uno empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche h droite, 
 at de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'imaqes ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
n 
 
 House of Commons debates 
 
 FIFTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 J. MAETD^, M.P. 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BUDGET 
 
 OTTAWA, FRIDAY, lOrir .MAY, 1895. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I regret, that 
 having taken up the time of the House at 
 some length yesterday. I should again so 
 soon, have to address this Assembly, but I 
 have some remarks to make in connection 
 with the subject before the House, and I 
 suppose it matters very little whether I 
 make them, now or a few days later. The 
 hon. gentleman who has just sat down 
 (Mr. Dickey) has dealt more largely with 
 the question of the tJiriff than with the 
 question of the finances of the country. 
 I stwill ondeavour during the progress of 
 my remarks to pay some attention to the 
 arguments which he has brought forward, 
 but I shall leave it more in the hands of 
 those who follow me in this debate to dis- 
 cuss tliis question of tariff policy which he 
 has raised, because it is my intention to de- 
 vote myself more especially to the question 
 of the condition of the fluauces of tlio 
 country as elaborated in the speech of the 
 hon. the Minister of Finance. The Budget 
 speech was, as has been pointed out on this 
 side of the House, devoted entirely to a 
 discussion of our finances, leaving out al- 
 most entirely any consideration of the ques- 
 tion of the National Tolicy, which in pre- 
 vious years formed the great burden of the 
 Finance Minister's remarks. I must say 
 that I listened to the exposition of our 
 finances made by the hon. Minister with 
 great pleasure, and I have to say that he 
 certainly presented our financial position in 
 its most favourable aspect from his stand- 
 point. However that may be, his argu- 
 ments, his statements, and his illustrations 
 were, to my mind, most unfair and mis- 
 leading, and I shall endeavour to show that 
 his comparisons are inaccurate, and that if 
 they are carried out in the same direction 
 they tell entirely against him instead of 
 
 for him. I shall also endeavour to show that 
 many of the statements he made were most 
 inaccurate and misleading, for in some in- 
 stances he actually made misstatements as 
 to fact. How he came to do so I do not 
 know, but I shall try and prove everything 
 that I allege. Starting out with that, Mr. 
 Speaker, I beg to call attention to a matter, 
 perhaps small in amount, but indicative of 
 the method which the hou. gentleman 
 adopted in initiating his speech and which 
 he continued through it from beginning to 
 end, endoavouring to twist and turn the 
 figures found in the blue-books to prove 
 theories of his own. I contend, and I will 
 show, that he twisted them and turned 
 them in a way which was unfair, and, as I 
 say, misleading. The hon. Minister found 
 it his unpleasant duty to announce that 
 there had been a very serious falling off in 
 the revenue of the country for the year 
 1893-94, the principal falling off being in 
 the customs duties. The hon, gentleman 
 stated that in the excise there had been an 
 increase, very, very small indeed, microsco- 
 pic indeed, of $1.S,725 ; and this is a state- 
 ment which I claim to be erroneous, taking 
 it with the remarks which the hon. gentle- 
 man treated us to later on. The Finance 
 Minister had not only the unpleasant duty 
 to perform of calling the attention of the 
 House, and of the country, to the fact that 
 the receipts of the Government had very 
 largely fallen off for 1893-91 as compared 
 with 1892-93, but he also had to admit that 
 along with the falling off of revenue, there 
 had been a very la^-ge increase in exnendl- 
 ture, amounting to three-quarters of a mil- 
 lion dollars. And it was in explaining or 
 attempting to explain, how that Increase 
 had arisen that the hon, gentleman called 
 attention to a fact, which If he Is allowed 
 
to take croilit l'')V in explaining away his 
 increase of expenditure, must l)u used in all 
 I'airness on the othrr side f)f llic leiigci'. 
 I find fault with the hon. gentleman for 
 dealinff unfairly with the House and with 
 the country, and for nsiuf.'; the information 
 which ho had, to show in his favoin- In 
 the one instance, and in failins' to apply 
 that same information and the same arj;u- 
 me:.„ on the other side of the ledger when 
 it would tell against him. Now, I say that 
 instead of there being an increase in the 
 excise of !?13,725 as stated by the hon. gen- 
 tleman, if we are to adopt the argument 
 which he pu,; forward in explaining the in- 
 crease of ex])enditure. the excise really de- 
 creased .'i;72,l)29 as compared with 1892-93. 
 The hon, gentleman jtointed oul to us that 
 it had been a system of book-kee])ing in the 
 Finance Department in conniM-tion with 
 several matters, chiefly with regard to me- 
 thylated spirits, to allow the Inland Reve- 
 nue Department to disburse moneys which 
 they received, for the purchase of raw ma- 
 terial, not entering the gross receipts in the 
 Public Accounts, and then charging the ex- 
 penditure, but f'iuiidy enti'rlng th(> balinu'(>s. 
 Thai was lone in 1S92-3 with regard 
 to methylated spirits. If the hon. gentle- 
 man will look at the Auditoi" (!ene- 
 ral's rJej)ort he Avill see there set down 
 the total amount of the receipts from 
 methylated si)irits. with the amount ex- 
 pended by the department deducted, so 
 that the net proiils on the undertaking are 
 alone entered in the Public Accounts, 'ilw 
 hon. Finance Minister cjillod attention to 
 the change in the practice made in 189M-9! 
 by Avhicli all the receipt.s from methylated 
 spirits were ci'odited in the Public Accounts, 
 and all the disbursements were del)ited, 
 thus, as he pointed out, increasin;j: Die 
 amount of the disbui'sements by !?S(;,(i."i4. 
 Now, if the lion, gentleman does that on 
 one side of the ledger, lie must also do it 
 on tlie other side : if he says that his ex- 
 penditures were not really the amount 
 they apjiear to be, namely, three- quart(>rs 
 of a million dollars, but that amount less 
 $8n.('i.".4. on account of the change in book- 
 keeping between the years 1892-93 and 1893- 
 04. he must in all fairness make the same 
 deducticms on the other side of the ledger. 
 Then, the receipts from excise in 189;>-V»4 
 would have ta1;en tlicir place along with 
 the receipts from customs, and would have 
 shown a deci'ease of .'^72,929. It may be 
 thought that tliis is a small matter, but 
 it is simply an indication of the manner in 
 which the Finance :\Iiiiister has di<alt with 
 the pulilic accounts all through his Budget 
 speech ; and I will endeavour, in the pro- 
 gress of my remarks, to call attention to 
 other misleading statements of a similar na- 
 ture. Several times in the course of his 
 remarks, in endeavouring to account for 
 the appearance of that ugly and ill-visaged 
 elastomer, a deficit, which came to him in 
 1893-94 to the tune of ^1,210,000, and which 
 
 ho admits is about to come to him in 1894- 
 9.") to tlie tune of ii;4.riOn.(t(i(», the hon. gen- 
 tleman found it incumbent upon him to 
 give some reasons wliy the country was to 
 be at last confronted with that final ])roof 
 of incapacity in a (iovernment, as alleged 
 )>y him year after year. One of the rea- 
 sons given by him for the falling off In 
 the r(>vcnue was the increase in duties 
 m;ide l:ist yeai'. Twice in his s])eech ilie 
 hon. gentleman made that bald statement ; 
 but nowhere did he give any proof what- 
 ever of a statement so important for ihe 
 i-onntry to know or understand. Is it ti'ue 
 or untrue that the tariff, as amended in 
 1S94. after iiidiiths of discussion, after gn^at 
 .-igitation in the country, and after many 
 promises. decrea.;ed the burdens of the ])eo- 
 ple V \V;!s that one of the reasons for the 
 railing off in the revenue, as alleged l)y 
 the hon. goMtleman. or was it not V I shall 
 liave no trouble in jiroving most conclusive- 
 ly, from his own statements, that the 
 eiianges then made in the tariff did not de- 
 ci'ease taxation, but, on the contrary, re- 
 yulled in a considenible iurrease in taxa- 
 tion, so far as tlK> lirst nine months of the 
 present linaiieial year are ('oncorneil. 
 
 It boiiu 
 (Jhair. 
 
 six o'v'Iock. the Speaker left the 
 
 After Recess. 
 
 Mr. .MARTIN. When the House rose at 
 I six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I wa.s dealing 
 ' with the contention of the Finance Minister 
 that one of Ihe causes of tlie immense re- 
 duction in the revenue frian customs dur- 
 ing tlie current fiscal year was the fact that 
 the new tariff of last session had made a 
 reduction of taxation. I stated that I would 
 i show from the returns of the Customs De- 
 I partment published in the "Canada Ga- 
 i /.ette." that that statement was not cori'ect, 
 ] though it was similar to other statements 
 ; made by the hon. geiilleman for tlu> pur- 
 I pose of jiuiting a rosy hue upon the pre- 
 j sent condition of alTairs. Before dealing 
 \ <lirectly with lliivt, let me for a moment 
 rail the attention of the House to the state; 
 of tlie taritf jirevious to last session. It 
 \ will be remembered that in the session of 
 i 189.';, the (iovernment announced thiit the 
 I time had come i'or a revision of the Na- 
 j tioiial Policy tariff, and that during the re- 
 ! a^ss they intended to thoroughly look into 
 I the matter, to visit different parts of Can- 
 ; ada in order to find out just how far the 
 ; t;ii'iff needed amendment, and to make such 
 ! redncti(ms in it as the altered circimistances 
 I of file country rtniuired. In tlie recess fhe 
 I Ministers did visit various parts of Canada ; 
 in fact, they went all over the country, 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in search 
 of information. The session opened witli a 
 declaration in the Speech from the Throne, 
 as follows :— 
 
 J 
 
>* 
 
 While my Ministers do not propose to change 
 the principles on which the existing enactments 
 on tliis .subject are based, the amendments which 
 will be offered for your consideration are de- 
 signed to aiiniilify the operation of the tariff, 
 and to lessen, as far as can be done, consistently 
 witli those principles and with the requirenienta 
 of the treasury, the imposts which are now in 
 force. 
 
 In ciirrylns out Oils promise, tliv' lion. {!;»!ii- 
 tloinnn did brins down rcsohitions whii-li. 
 If i)nt into I'oroo, would liuvo lo.'^soncd sonio- 
 ■vvhtit tlio hnjiosts then upon the country, 
 lie wMhT not iillowod. however. 1o carry liis 
 l)olicy into force. II<' found tluit. .'^tron>; 
 iis the ( Jov(>rnnient wore. liiv;.ro as llielr nm- 
 jority in tlH> Hons;e was, tli(>r<» were other 
 forc(>s ;ind otlnjr intluence.s which had to be 
 dealt with before it was possilde to lessen 
 tho.se iiiiposts. or to make an alteration in 
 the tariff in the direction of redncinj;; taxa- 
 tion. He found that IIk; manufacturinu' class, 
 who had been bolstered uj) by this tariff, 
 iind whose existence d(>pended vii)on its con- 
 tiir.iance. h;id soniethiiijt; to say. Here let 
 me d(>:!l wltli th(> re]»ort of those penlleiniMi 
 whose interest it was to continue the eld 
 tariff, and to increase it r.-ither than re- 
 duce it ; and in the end 1 will endeavoiu* 
 to show whether the proniisos of hon. pen- 
 tlenien ojiposite. made in ■resi)onseto a siroiijj 
 fei'liii.tf whicli they found existinj; in Oainida 
 from one (>nd of the country to tlie otiier 
 were triumphant, or wluMlier tliose .uentle- 
 men at whose instance this tariff was 
 ltrou;:hl, into existtMice. for whose benelit 
 it has been continued all these Ion?: years, 
 and at whose instance amendments tmd 
 changes of various kinds and descriptions 
 were made, dictated the final tariff. There 
 is. as ^^•e all know, a [Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation, which has its headquarters at To- 
 rouTo. and whose bnsim>ss it is to look after 
 the interests of th(> manufacturers, to see 
 rhat the National Policy is sustained, and 
 keej) the (iovernment in line, and this asso- 
 ciathni held its annual meeting:, from the 
 report of which I read the following :— 
 
 At the time of the last annual meeting of this 
 Association the Finance Minister and the House 
 of Commons were struggling in the revision of 
 the tariff. There had been a fierce and unrea- 
 soning demand for such a revision as would, if 
 carried otit, have amounted to a revolution ; and 
 it required the best generalship on the part of 
 Mr. Fos'er and his protectionist colleagues and 
 supporters to withstand the onsets of the free 
 trade enemy. (^n March 27, the House, sitting 
 in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Foster 
 introduced his tariff Bill, which instantly became 
 operative. Quite a number of amendments were 
 from time to time made to this Bill, and before 
 Its final passage on July 26, It became modified 
 to an extent that givas much satisfaction to the 
 country — certainly to the friends of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 In accordance with the usage of this Associa- 
 tion, pravious to your last meeting, the Tariff 
 Committee of the Association, In the discharge 
 of their duty, entered upon a close and careful 
 examination of all matters brought before it by 
 members of the Association relating to the tariff. 
 
 J M H 
 
 The situation at that time was crkical. An ex- 
 citement, amounting to a furore, had been worked 
 up by the enemies of protection, and some who 
 nad previously declared themselves staunch ad- 
 herents of the National Policy, weakened. It 
 was evident, however, that some changes In the 
 tariff wore imperative, and that If they were not 
 inaugui;^ted by the friends of protection, tbo 
 (iovernmont could uot survive, and that the ene- 
 mies of protection would accede to power. It 
 was under these circumstance.^ that the Tariff 
 Comn-ittee entered upon their labours, having 
 the counsel and assistance of many of the most 
 experienced members of the Association, the re- 
 sult of which was the embodiment of their views 
 in a comnuinication to the Finance Minister (a 
 copy of which is here before you), which elicited 
 from him a kindly letter, in which he alluded to 
 it ns a well prepared brief in which all the mat- 
 ters therein discussed had been done full justice. 
 Perhaps it might be going too far to even sur- 
 n)ise the effect these recommendations of your 
 Tariff Committee to the Minister may have had la 
 the final arrangement of the tariff ; but it Is btit 
 an act of justice to the committee to direct atten- 
 tion to the large number of changes that were 
 made in the tariff along the lines suggested In 
 the recommendations, and that in many instances 
 the language used in both are substantially 
 identical. This is particularly noticeable as re- 
 gards the iron schedule, the duties upon textiles, 
 the duties upon drugs, chemicals, alcoholic pre- 
 parations, &c., as well as upon an extended list 
 of miscellaneous articles, and large and most Im- 
 portant additions to the list of non-dutiable 
 articles. 
 
 The hon. gentleiuan told us, when he made 
 his Budget sjieoch last session, that he cal- 
 culated that the reduction in revenue from 
 I'is lessening the bm-den of taxation, would 
 iiinount to .$1. .500.000 or -i^l. ((00.000. Now, we 
 are in a position, from the reports which we 
 h.'ive before us. to aitply the test of actual 
 results to the reductions of the Finance 
 Minister ; and we can well see that thi 
 Canadian ^Manufacturers' Association had 
 every reason to congratulat,> themselves 
 upon the manner in which the Finance Min- 
 ister had followed the instructions which 
 he found in his brief. It will be seen that 
 histeadi of reducing the tjixation of the 
 country, the hon. gentleman added con- 
 siderably last sessicm to the burdens of 
 the country. Tire dutiable goods imported 
 uji to the 81 St March. 3805. amounted to 
 ?42,979,130, and the free goods amounted to 
 $35,407,370, making a total on imports en- 
 tered for consumption of $78,446,500. Now, 
 :Mr. Sjieaker, there are two Avays of making 
 an estimate. We ran either take the duti- 
 able goods alone and compare the rate of 
 taxation with the previous year. If that is 
 done, there is a very slight decrease for 
 the year 1895. But hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site say that that is not fair, that their re- 
 ductions were not alone in the i-ate of 
 taxation. l)ut that they have added a long 
 list of dutiable to the list of non-dutiable 
 goods, thereby making a large reduction in 
 taxation. Accepting that method of testing 
 the matter. I take the total amount of im- 
 ports, $78,440,500. First, take off coin and 
 bullion, because coin and bullion is an im- 
 
portntiou which varies witlinnt any relation 
 whatever to tlie trade of tlio country. Sonic 
 3'ears it assnini's larjie jiroportinns and >;ues 
 np into .S4.()()0.00() or $r..Of)().00(), and other 
 years it falls to one-half or onc-(iuarter of 
 a niillion dollars, so that we can make no 
 fair comparison of one year with another, 
 so far as the rate of taxation is concerned, 
 unless you take out coin and bullion 
 from both periods. It so liappens thai the 
 amount of coin and bullion imported into 
 Canada in the period of the fiscal year end- 
 ing 31st March was very larjjo, indeed, 
 compared with tlie previous year, and lari^e 
 indeed, compared witii the .average in Can- 
 ada's history. I take that out and I think 
 the House will afiree that it is necessary 
 to do so in order to arrive at the rciU rati' 
 of taxation. Tlie amount of coin and bul- 
 lion imported to the 31st March was .$4,- 
 4'r)2.83r). That leaves the actual im ■ of 
 free goods and dutiable goods at i iro 
 
 of .$73,y9;j,(!(j.">. Tlie amount of c. ol- 
 
 lected upon that was $13,2TS.8.")3, . .a the 
 rate of taxation, as shown by these figures, 
 was IT 04 per cent. Now, the rate for 1894, 
 also taking out coin and bullion, was 17'7(!, 
 so tliat tiie rate of taxation for ISO."*, so far 
 as it has gone, and so far as we have any 
 return, taking the free goods and tlio du- 
 tiable goods together in both cases, and 
 excluding coin and bullion, amounts in the 
 one instance to 17-04 and in the other to 
 IT'TG, or -IS per cent more for the current 
 year ISUr, than for the year 1894. T'lider 
 those circumstances, what becomes of tlu' 
 prediction of the hon. gentleman that the 
 reduction in taxation would amount to .Sl,- 
 500.000 or .');l. 000.000. I am dealing with the 
 hon. Minister's estimate now, but the lig- 
 ures I have given are the actualities. They 
 show that on the imports up to dale, tlii> in- 
 creased taxation this year amounted to .S1.".">.- 
 188. If the raie of taxation on the amount of 
 imports— about .'>74,000,000 up to 31st March- 
 had been the same as prior to tlie readjust- 
 ment of the tarilT made by the hon. gentle- 
 man in 1894, the amount of money taken 
 out of the people of Cmiada would have 
 been $133,188 less. Under these circum- 
 stances, how have hon. gentlemen opposite 
 fulfilled their promises made last session to 
 the House and to the country ? How does 
 the hon. gentleman justify the statements 
 that he made more than once in his Budget 
 speech, that among the causes which had 
 contribv ted to the falling off in revenue dur- 
 ing 1895, was the reduction in taxation made 
 by the Government under the tariff of 1894. 
 The hon. gentleman, as I say, smuggleil that 
 statement into his remarks. He knew full 
 well that it could not be substantiated by 
 the figures, and he was careful, therefore, 
 to offer no proof whatever, but merely to 
 put it forward as a bald statement. He 
 says : We changed a number of specific 
 into ad valorem duties, we decreased the 
 burdens of the people, we lessened the tax- 
 ation to the amount of a million and a half 
 
 of dollars. But when we come to look Into 
 the figures showing the actual results up to 
 date— and I believe there is no reason to 
 suppose that there will be any Improve- 
 ment In this respect for the remainder of 
 the year, calculating on the basis of the old 
 tariff, tliough, of course, the new tariff will 
 increase tlie taxation and add something to 
 the revenue— we find that, instead of a re- 
 duction of taxation there has been an actual 
 increase, as I have shown. Up to the end 
 of 1895, that increase will probably amount 
 to .$200,000. I have read to the House the 
 statement of the Manufacturers' Association. 
 It shows that there was a furore in the coun- 
 try, and cliat if an election had been held and 
 the Government had not promised to give a 
 reduction in taxation, tiiere would have been 
 a change of Administration. The association 
 recognized that imliiic sentiment was against 
 the National Policy. The hon. the rreinier 
 of that (lay came out with a promise to lop 
 off the mouldering branches, and the hon. 
 the Fin.'ince Minister proceeded to lop off 
 those mouldering brandies. He brouglit his 
 tarilf before the House with long and elabo- 
 rate explanations showing liow h., proposed 
 to decrease the revenue in tliat direction 
 and tills direction ; hoAV he proposed to aban- 
 don largelv tlie iiernicious doctrine ol" speci- 
 fic duties ;in<l to adoi)t the fairer method of 
 ad valorem duties. But tlie Manufacturers' 
 Association interfered, and interfered in a 
 most practical manner. Tliey .sent their de- 
 putations here day after day ; and. Avhile 
 the members of this House were anxious to 
 proceed with business— I'arlianient liad been 
 called that year, as this year, at a most 
 inopportune time— the hon. Finance Minister 
 was not prepared to proceed with his tariff, 
 because he had to conl'er witli these depu- 
 tations. And, in t'.ie end, the I\Ianufacturers' 
 Association were so successful that their 
 brief, backed by the personal aiipearance 
 of their delegates, was accepted, and. in- 
 stead of a reduction of taxation— which they 
 tluMiiselves admitted was necessary in order 
 to keej) the Government in power— we find 
 tliat this tariff revision has resulted in an 
 actual increase of taxation. So there is a 
 very great discrepancy indeed, Mr. Speaker, 
 lietween the lion, gentleman's promise of a 
 reduction of a million and a half in taxation 
 and the actual result of an increase of $133,- 
 188 for tlie current year thus far. I might 
 further point out, Mr. Speaker, tliat if the 
 hon. gentleman's prophecy had come true, 
 if lie had really taken off taxes to the amount 
 of $1,500,000, as he professed to do when he 
 introduced hi.3 tariff last year. Instead of a 
 deficit amounting to $4,500,000, as he him- 
 self admitted the deficit to be, it would 
 have amounted to $0,000,000. As it is. 
 the deficit is surely ugly and lU-visaged 
 enough to suit even the hon. Finance Min- 
 ister. A deficit of $4,500,000 is almost as 
 much as the total of the three deficits under 
 the Mackenzie Government. The country 
 has heard from the hon. gentleman ever 
 
 
 » 
 
 \ 
 
 # 
 
 ,U 
 
h 
 
 ^ 
 
 < • 
 
 since lie became Finance Minister loud de- 
 nunciations of any Government having; a 
 delU'lt. Acconlius to him, the Mackenzie 
 (Jovernment were incapable, their policy 
 was a false one and one not calculated to 
 advance the Interests of Canada, because 
 It resulted on three sei)arate oc(;aslons in a 
 deficit. Tlio hon. gentleman in 180-i pro- 
 duced a deficit which, in his Budget speech 
 of this session, he is pleased *^.) call a small 
 delkit. It amounted almost to a milUoD and a 
 (piarter of dollars, almost as lai'ge as any 
 delicit of the hon. member f(jr South Oxford 
 (Sir Richard Cartwrlght). And this year he 
 pi'opost!s to bring foi'ward a delicit almost 
 large enough to swallow tlie tliree deliclts 
 wldch the Mackenzie Goviuument had in 
 l.ST»>, 1,S77 and 187S. The lion, gentleman, 
 however, has hit upon a new means of 
 accounting for a detlcit. He says : I did 
 liav(^ a delicit in 1S!>1. but it was only a 
 small one, about a million and a quarter ; 
 Imt I hiid also a sinking fund. I wiped out 
 the delicit with a sinking fund, for we put 
 more immey in the sinking fund than we lost 
 in the deficit. Surely if that argument Is an 
 excuse for the hon. gentleman it should be 
 iin excuse for their opponents. While the 
 r^Iackenzio Government had deficits, they 
 also liad sinking funds. Their sinking fund 
 would have paid 57 per cent of their deliclts. 
 while the hon. gentleman's siid<ing fund 
 would have paid 03 per cent of the deficits 
 he has had. So he can claim no particular 
 advantage on that ground. The hon. gentle- 
 man, however, flunks that he completely dis- 
 poses of tlie position in Avhich he finds him- 
 self Avith regard to deficits, decrease of re- 
 venue, falling off of imports— a state of 
 atTairs which he himself has described time 
 and time again in tliis House as showing 
 Incapacity on the j^art of tlie Government— 
 by saying : I took off the sugar duties, and 
 if I had not done. so there would have been 
 this large sum of money— and as to the in- 
 accuracy of his calculation of tliat amount, 
 I shall have something to say. Now that may 
 be a fair way of looking at the matter, but 
 if it is a fair one for one side of the House, 
 surely it must be fair for the other. The 
 hon. gentleman made a great many com- 
 parisons in his Budget speech by which he 
 has ])roved to his cwu satisfaction that the 
 Government is going In the right direction. 
 He compared the present year and the past 
 year with tlie year 1889. Now, In the year 
 18S9 the lioii. gentleman himself was in 
 power. He has shown by these compari- 
 sons how very badly the Government was ad- 
 ministered in 1889, and how much better 
 they are conducting affairs in 1891 and 1895. 
 Now. Sir, I think that is a very unfair and 
 misleading comparison to make. If the 
 lion, gentleman wishes to contrast the 
 National Tolicy with a tariff for revenue, 
 let him contrast the years in which a re- 
 venue tariff was in force, with years in 
 Mhich the National Policy was In force. As 
 the hon. gentleman has failed to do that. 
 
 I have prepared some figures In that direc- 
 tion, I put it tills way : Sujipose the Mac- 
 kenzie (jlovernment had had during the 
 years they were in power, the same d\ ties 
 wldch the hon. gentleman congratulates 
 himself on having in 1894. The hon. gentle- 
 man showed by his comparison that he is 
 a very much better man, indeed, that his 
 Government have a very much better policy, 
 a very much better tariff, in 1894, than they 
 had In 1889. Now, In order to make a com- 
 parison, I do not propose to take the bad 
 year of 1889, but I will take his model year 
 of 1894, the year upon which he bases his 
 comparisons, and I ask you to consider for 
 a moment what would have been the result 
 if Mr. Mackenzie's Government had adopted 
 a rate of taxation during their period of 
 office as high as that upon which the hon. 
 gentleman congratulates himself so much 
 In 1894, which rate as appears in the Trade 
 and Navigation Returns, at page 11, was 
 17-13 per cent. Now, in 1874, the rate 
 of taxation, as shown on the same page 
 of the Trade and Navigation Returns, ^vas 
 11 -oL', or 5-81 per cent less than it was iu 
 1894. Now, Sir, if the hon. member for 
 South Oxford had been taxing tlie people 
 of Canada in 1874 at the same rate that 
 the Minister of Finance taxes the people 
 of Canada in 1894, the surplus which he had 
 in that year of i(!S8S.770 would have been 
 converted into a surplus of .$8,290,958. Now, 
 that is not applying the rate of taxation In 
 that year wltli the rate which the Fi- 
 nance Minister had in 1839, his higli water 
 mark, but comparing it with the year 1894, 
 the year in relation to which he takes a 
 large amount of time In the Budget speech 
 in glorifying himself and his Government 
 in having brought down the rate of taxa- 
 tion, which I find here to have been the 
 (>iioi-mous rate of 21 Mm. as compai-ed with 
 the moderate rate of 17-13. a reduction, as 
 lie rig'itly claims, of over 4 per cent. But I 
 say, taking his model year, taking the year 
 when the hon. gentleman's well-known 
 economical motions, as he calls them, have 
 been productive of some effect, the year 
 after he had performed that great act of 
 patriotism in removing the sugar duties and 
 ill refraining from taking all thes(> millions 
 of money out of the people of Canada — I 
 say. compare the rate of that year with the 
 rate of taxation at 17*13, and give t'.it- hon. 
 member for South Oxfoi-d that same rate 
 of taxation on the imports which he had 
 in 1874, and see what the result will be. I 
 make a comparison of tlie year of the hon. 
 member for South Oxford with the Minister 
 of Finance's year of 1894, it is a compari- 
 son of the time when the Liberal policy as 
 it is to-day, was in force. Hon. gentlemen 
 opposite have had a great deal to say as 
 to what that policy is. What is the policy 
 of the Liberal policy ? The policy of the 
 Lilieral party is a policy of taxation for 
 revenue. Now, Sir, let us take the same 
 system of comparison and see how the sur- 
 
"',1 
 
 plUH of tlio lioii. nuMiibor for SotUh Oxford 
 in .187ii will fare. Ncry few people in tlie 
 t'ountry Iviiow timt the lion, nieinlier for 
 Soutli Oxford over had a surplus. To judue 
 from tlie l'>udjjret speeches of lion, treiitle- 
 in(>n oi);i(»slte, one would think that the 
 lion, iiieniher for Soiitli Oxford Ii.id a sne- 
 ee.sslon of ujxly and ill-vlsan;ed defl>'its ; imt 
 la ISTi lie had a siifplns, he had aiiuthei- 
 suridiis in lS7r», and I am goin^ to api>ly tiie 
 same methnd i>i' coiiipaiisoii, which 1 claim 
 Is a straitrht forward one, not a tricky, mis- 
 leadinp, and unfair coniiiarisou. such as 
 the hou. p:ei;tleinan nia<l(> all throUKh his 
 Budget speech, and which I am here to ex- 
 pose. Let us inli<' the rate of taxation 
 In 1..S04. the model year after the snyar 
 diLlies liail disa|)pi)ired, whii'h was IT'K'. 
 In lS7r» the lion, member for South Ox- 
 ford impose<l niioii the people of (\ina<la a 
 rate of taxiiiitni of 1-''S", only, coiiipared 
 with wlijlch 1894 had an addition of 
 4;>n ])er cent. Let us take the im- 
 ports as they actually were that year, 
 and let us a])]ily to those imi)ovts the raie 
 of taxation wliicli the lion, p-ntieman had 
 in 1804, and let us put that rate of taxation 
 Into the hands of the hon. inemlier for 
 South Oxford, and his modest surplus of 
 }^0.*!-"'i,(i44, by that species of comiiarison, 
 sijrincs into a suri)lus of .i;(>.()70,24d. 1 say 
 that Ids surplus of less than a niilliou, by 
 tiiat metliod of compiirison, would ha ve 
 been. ;it thai time, a surjdus of .>;^('),07().000. 
 The next year, 187(1, one of lliose utrly and 
 ill-visa>ied customers came to Canada, ami 
 the hon. ftontloman had a dotlcit of .^LOoii,- 
 78.". Hy tlu> same system of coniparisou. 
 puttins; into his liands I'or a nionient the 
 rate of taxation which the hou. ^onth man 
 ploriiii's liimself upon so much in ]S!)4. and 
 that deficit disjiiipears eidii'ely, and is re- 
 placeil by a siirjilus of .Sl,."!)i.87<). A;,';ilii, 
 in 1877 the lion. jreHt'emaii. by kee|)iii,;- 
 down tlie taxation, by refusin;*- at tliat un- 
 fortunate time, in tliat period of depres- 
 sion, further to burden the people of Can- 
 ada witli more taxation, had a rate of 
 only l.'Mi ]i(n' cent. Tnat taxation was In- 
 crca,sed soinewliat. but only modeiately. 
 Let us a!.'ain hand liim for a moment the 
 taxation which tlie lion, gentleman iilumes 
 himself so much uj>on in 18Ui. 17'1."i iter 
 cent, or a diiTerenc<> of 4-l(). .•ind we lim". 
 that the deficit of 1877, Avliicli amounted to 
 $1,4()0.027, becomes a surplus of !?2.488,2!)2. 
 
 Apain, in 1878. 
 South Oxford. 
 
 when tin.' hon. nieinbor for 
 throu,<;li stress of circum- 
 
 stances over whicli he had no control, Iiy 
 virtue of the cyclone of depression whicli 
 had spread over the Tinited States, and 
 which Avas tlien being felt in Canada, found 
 it neeessary to increase the taxation, he 
 raised the rate to 14%"., or .'MO less tlian 
 tlie hon, gentleman had in 1804. Now, if 
 we apply tiie same test .again to 1878, we 
 find that" the deficit of IfA ,12S.UC, which exist- 
 ed in that year di. '■•up pears, and in its place a 
 surplus coniftfl to hand of .$l.r.09.0iO. 
 
 Take the whole live years of Mr. Mnekon- 
 zlc's administration, and give the Finance 
 Minister of that day the rate of taxation 
 which we have glorilied in tlie Hudget 
 speech now under considt;ratlon, and he 
 would iiave accumulated— I will not say 
 jiccuniulated, but he would have taken out 
 of the people a surplus of .';^2(». l."t2.4(M;. or 
 an avenige surplus each ye;ir durhig that 
 l»(>riod of .'<4,(U!0,48I. 'I'hat is what I caM a 
 fair comparison, tliat is using tlie records 
 of the country for the purpose of showing 
 tlie ditl"orenco between a system of taxation 
 such as that adopt(Ml liy the lion, member 
 for South Oxford and that adopt(Ml by hon. 
 n-embcrs on tliis side i»f tiie House. 1 wisii 
 to make another ((imp.'irisoii, which 1 (•laiiii 
 to lie a fair one. Tlie hon. gentleman li:is 
 cl.'iimed great credit for the rate of taxation 
 that existed in 18!>4. T,et us give to liini an I 
 his predecessors in those years following 1.S7S 
 ui) to tlie present time that rate of taxation 
 instead of the rate they actually linposo<l 
 on the people, and let us see where we 
 would land, where the suriilus would go 
 and what kind of deficits tliose hon. gentle- 
 men would iiave had. I am not giving them 
 tlie rate of taxation wliicli tlu* hon. member 
 for South Oxford (Sir Uicluird Cartwright) 
 imposed in 1878. but I am taking their own 
 model rati; of 1804, wliicli is glorilied so 
 niucii, and aiiplying it to eacli year, eom- 
 laenciiig with 1870. In that year the actual 
 liite was 1(;-J0. or 1 •<>.". less ihaii in is;) I, 
 Tlie delicit for tliat year was actually .Sl.- 
 0;!7.000. Tlie deficit would have been less 
 bv the increased taxation, and would have 
 been .i:i,llU,00(). In 1880 the rate of taxa- 
 tion took an enormous spring upwards and 
 iH'C.'imc 1!>'17. or 2'0l more than in ISMl 
 The actual (h^ficit of 1879 was .><1,,'4:!,227, 
 If the Minister of I'inance in 18,80 li.-id lieen 
 as great a man as is tlie Fiiiarice .Aiiiiister 
 to-(iav lie would have had a delicit instead 
 of .Hl!r.4;}.22(i. eipial to the sum of .%"..S8,S,o:59. 
 In 1881 the hon. gentleman's predecessor 
 had a surplus. It was a large op:j— the rate 
 of taxation was large also. Tlie rate was 
 20-10. The surplus was .S l,i:;2.7in. If the 
 hon. gentleman's rate of taxation had been 
 .•liiplicd, ii v,-ould li;iv<' fallen lo sl.:;-J0,4JS. 
 In 1882 the lion, gentleman again liad a 
 surplus, the amount being .'i«(!,;n(>..'t.~>2. With 
 tlie same figuring timt surplus would have 
 fallen to $3.00."),(;(5,".. In 18,s;:{ we h.ad a largo 
 sni'plns. the largest surplus we ever had. 
 viz.. .$7.0(i4.402. At tlie 1804 rate the surplus 
 would have fallen to .'?4.0.'-^;:!.477. In 1884 
 there was a niodei'ate surplus, the sum being 
 .S7r)4,2.")."'» ; but if tliis method of comparison 
 was apjdied. instead of liavinrf a surplus of 
 something over half a million tliere would 
 liave been a deficit of !<870,272. The rate 
 of t.Mx.Mlioii was 18'(h. or 1-."1 more. In 1,SS."> 
 the rate of taxation was 18-(!1. The actual 
 deficit was $2,240,000. whicli would have 
 been inci'eased to l?3,7()0.107. In 1880 the 
 r.'ite of taxation was 10-r>0-it was always 
 going up— or 2'37 more, the actual delicit 
 
 
 'Ik 
 
<ik 
 
 beltijr !iir..8;M.r)7u*. Thl>*, was miu-li hwmn' tlinn 
 till' cDinltliiod (U'lii'itH of tlie lion, member for 
 Uxfofd for tlii'oo years. It would liuve bo- 
 come 11 deHclt; uii(l((r the 181)4 nite of Ij^S,- 
 ll)4.noi) In 1887, there was a Huridii.s of 
 !r'J7,.'5i;{. Tlint AvouM have been (;liatij?ed 
 into tlio eiiorinoin detlell ol .f 4, 244,4(17. In 
 18S8 the rule of uixallnn reiiciiiMl 'J! -.".7. I 
 I'lii t,\UiiiK these llKures from the bliK'-books 
 and not de[)endln>r on my own ealcniatlon.s; 
 they will be fonnd on i)a^'e 11 of I lie Trade 
 vhd Navigation Iletnrns, ljil)le 7, where th' 
 rate of taxation is Kiven for each year ui) 
 to 18!U. In ISSS liicre was a deiit-H of 
 .$810,o;5_', whieli would Imve been inoreased to 
 .SVwti.li:!. In 1S8!». (he nilc w.is 121 •(;.',. That 
 was the y^'ar whicli th(< lion, jireiitleman 
 nuist In.ucniously and unfairly look "as a year 
 with wlii 'i to mala' a comparison, a year 
 when tlij lion. K^'atieman and his 
 (.Jovoi-nmeut had ;roiio l;o the full extent iu 
 wrinj;la>r taxation out of the poojile. 
 Tliey were (ma bled by that system to pro- 
 duce 11 modeiate sni'])lns ^A' ,S1,8( !."»,(>;!.'» whi<li 
 I sav would have been chanjii'd. bv the 
 18!)! ta.s:ati(iii. into a deticlt of .i!:{,Ul)L.',204. 
 A);ain. in 1MK), wlien the taxation rate was 
 UI and Jl-lOdihs, the siii'i»lns that year of 
 !?;j,Ssrt.8!)t, or nearly .*i;4,0()(),(KI(t would actually 
 liave been chaii^red into a deticit of .*<711.- 
 941 Ayain, in 181>1. wlien the rate of tiixa- 
 llon Wi(s 20'<H!, iii(> surplus of that year 
 wliicli was .$2.2.').""),74.'{ would have liecomo 
 ft deticit of !i;i,(»S,",2(;i). In 18!)2 the rate of 
 ta.vjition w:is I7'."<!. (he surplus lieiu;; .$1.").- 
 07S. it would have become a deficit of 
 !?;M7.o;!1. In 18y;{ the rate of tax.-ition wiis 
 •al'uul the .same as 1.SU4, namely. 17".'{8, and 
 the surjilus of tlmt year was .'<;i..'?.'>4,iV)(J, 
 whicli would have l)een retlnced to a .sur- 
 plus of .fl.(i.'0,2;)4. In 18!M~-I take the 
 dellcit as it was. because we cannot com- 
 pare tliat as we have .not to the vear— in 
 1H\)U it was .'i;i.211,;{:i-J. and in lSt>.">, I do 
 not ad<l the iiu'reas(>. it v.as not viH'y larf;". 
 and 1 leave it at the actual dclicii as it is. 
 of $4.. ".1)0.01 10. Mr. Speakei-. I have 1o 
 ai)olo).;i/.e for inllictinj^' so many li.uures 
 ui)on the House. Tlie.v are, no doubt, very 
 dry, but it is necessar.v to >;ive them for 
 the ])urposo of meeting: the mislead in?; and 
 unfair comparisons and statements made 
 by the lion, yentlemau (^Ir. Foster) in liis 
 Budget speocli. Tnke, then, the total for th'> 
 seventeen years from 187!) to 18!>.">, inclusive, 
 aiid we Avould have a total deticit durinn- 
 these years of )i!2('>,(;27.417. or an averapre 
 deficit ever.v year of .^i^l ..">(>(!. .".18. Let us 
 eom])ai'e them. Now, we have got the ihxufx 
 on ;t fair basis. We liave got Mackenzie's 
 Administration on tlie 1804 basis, and we 
 liave got the Administration of tlie lion, 
 gentleman and his predecessors on the same 
 basis. If the Finance Minister chooses one 
 year to liave a rate of 2VA. and another 
 year to liave a rate of 17 13, it is very easy 
 for him to say : Oh, we are saving tlie 
 people this much. But it is .just as fair 
 to put it the other Avay and say : While you 
 
 charge them so much in 1SJ)4 with your 
 17'1.?, you I'harged them so much more for 
 tlie other years than you yliould have charg- 
 ed them. One argument is Just as fair ns 
 another. But hei'e is a fair comparlsou. 
 Here wo reduce Ixith Admlnlsiiatlons to the 
 same terms, and what do we llnd on this 
 basis V I have to apologize for devoting 
 so much time to a matter whlcli J do not 
 lake any stock In at all. I do not take any 
 stock in the assciilon of the lion, gentle- 
 man (.Mr. Foster) that a deficit or a sur- 
 plus, either one way or the other, Is niiy 
 test per so of the prosperity or success of 
 the Administration of tlie day. It may 
 mean many things. It may mean that the 
 Administralioii have seen lit to I'liormotisly 
 increase the burdens of the people. It may 
 iiieiiii that the imports iire v(>i'y Largely In- 
 (^•eased. If the ini;)oi-ts are largely In- 
 ci-easetl, an'l the rate of taxation remains 
 as small as it Wiis before, that means pros- 
 l»eilty, that means tliat this money would 
 come into tlie treasury without any addl- 
 lion to the t.-ixatioiis of the )>eo[)le. But 
 the lion, gentleman does not put that for- 
 wfird. and he nev(!r has |)Ut it, forward in 
 ills Budget speeches. He lias imt forward 
 the liare. bahi statement, that because tlio 
 hon. niemlier for S(»uth Oxford (.Sir Richard 
 Cartwriglit) in certain years, namely, 1870, 
 1877. and 1878, without taking any account 
 iit all of tlie greater taxation, actually had a 
 deficit ; that, tlierefore, the Finance Min- 
 ister of the ISIackenzie Administration was 
 a bad fiiitincier. and that the policy of the 
 (ioveniment was a bad j.oiiey. it is liardly 
 ner-('ss;iiy for me to take uj) the time of 
 the IJouse in order to dispose of the con- 
 tention of the hon. g<'ntleman (Mr. Foster), 
 and to give the comparisons Viased on the 
 lion. gentl(Miian's suggestion, and show 
 where they lead us. I say that if the hon. 
 g(!iitlenian (Mr. I'oster) liad liad, during 
 all these seventeen years the same rate 
 of taxation which existed in 18!)4-95, the 
 average delii-it of tlie iiresent Government 
 would have lieen ■'^l.ntjil.olS, and that if 
 the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir 
 Richard Cartwi'ight), during his five years 
 of otlice, had had the same rate of taxation, 
 his average suri)lus would have been $4,- 
 o;',0.481. You will see tliat the lion, member for 
 South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwrlght) has 
 a "plus" sign against his name by this 
 method of calculation, and tliat the hon. 
 Finance Minister t^Ir. Foster) has a 
 " minus " sign opposite his name. On that 
 test, which the hon. gentleman himself has 
 put forward in his Budget speech of this 
 s(>ssion, and in his Budget speeches of 
 every session since he lias been Finance 
 ^Minister, I say that you will find, by 
 adding tlie two amounts together, that the 
 member for South Oxfoi'd (Sir Richai'd 
 Cartwriglit) and his Administration were 
 ,$r>.r)0().799 each year better than the hon. 
 gentleman opposite and his Administration. 
 Let tis take it in another way. Mr. Speaker, 
 
8 
 
 I mil nlmost nl'rald to lay before the eoun- 
 try tlie ustouinllnK lesultH of the following 
 coiii|tiirlsoii. Is not this ii fair HUUKestlou, 
 Sir V I liHve IxMMi Klvhi^ 'o tlie hoii. iiieiu- 
 bor for Soiitli Oxford (Sir Uh-hard Ciirt- 
 wrljjhi) the rate of taxation for ISDl u|)oii 
 which the rinnnco Minister jriorilles Idni- 
 Helf HO nmcli. Let ine turn around and, in 
 all fairness, ;,'ive to tlie I'Mnaiiee Minister 
 (Mr. Fo.ster) tlie ral(> of taxjition which tlie 
 hon. nieniher for South Oxford liad in 1S7S, 
 and hit US see wliore he would he, then, 
 The rate of taxation In 1S7S was 11 •.'5 per 
 cent. Take (liat for IS"!), when the rate 
 was I'j 1(), and there would have lieen a 
 dellelt of $;{.(;oi,070. I hope 1 have 
 made myself clear. I am slvlnp: the amount 
 of money that; the Conservative (Jovernment 
 would have not in th(\se years, su|t]>osin.L,' 
 thoy had not Increasod the rate of taxiv- 
 tlon, sup|)oslii>: tiiey had left the taxati.)n 
 where we say It ou),'ht to lie on a revenue 
 basis ; on a basis not for protection, but 
 for revenue, a basis that would extract as 
 small an amount os possible out of 
 the pockets of the jieople. consistent witli 
 the obtttininj; of a revemi(>. The rate 
 was then 14-o;} per cent, and I am 
 going to apply It to each year. Under that 
 rate. In 1880 the dellcit wotild have been 
 $5,613,:28."> ; In 1881, the deliclt would have 
 been $1,510,531 ; In 1882 there would have 
 been a surplus. Hon. fjentlemen will re- 
 member that there was a large surplus in 
 1882 ; but there would have been a nnjderato 
 one of .'^•tl. •!..". I!). In ISS.", there would also 
 have been a surplus-I llns^'cr on 1883. be- 
 cause it Is the last year in which there 
 would have been a surplus— of .^l,l(;(5,22n. 
 Now, we have a lonj,' list followinj: of most 
 ugly and lU-visaged delicits, whicli the hon. 
 gentleman would have got if he had ad- 
 hered to the r(>venuo rate of ll'O;! jier cent ; 
 in 18S4 a delicit of .fU.-J.-V.^ST^ ; in ISSr,, <ir,.. 
 944,177 ; in 1886, $11.282.8.'^)9 ; in 1887, $7,- 
 519.289 ; in 1888, !f8,.-n4.703 ; In 1880. .$0,- 
 503,0-18 ; hi 1890. $4.210.(;74 : in 1891. .S4,49S,- 
 967 ; in 1892, $3,973,378 : in 1893. $2,722,- 
 562 ; in 1894. $4,717,245 ; in 1885, taking the 
 rate as the same as In 1894, though it was 
 really as I have shown sliglitly higher, and 
 estimating the imports at $10(),UOO,0()0, which 
 Is somewhat more than they will come to, 
 as I think the hon. gentleman will admit, 
 the deficit at the end of the vear would be 
 $7,46(».000. Now. what about tlie totals ? 
 Supposing the hon. gentleman had had that 
 rate of taxation during those years, he would 
 have had surpluses in two years amounting 
 together to $1,579,778, and combined deficits 
 umountlng in all to $83.3.".4.640, or one-third 
 of the present enormous national debt. Xow, 
 I want next to consider the amount of money 
 which the hon. gentleman during these 
 seventeen years has taken out of the people 
 of Canada— because that is really the im- 
 portant question all the time. This dally- 
 ing with figures, with surpluses and deficits, 
 Is a mere trick of the hon. gentleman, to 
 
 try to show that the .Mackenzie Adminis- 
 tration was wrong ; but the real (inestlou 
 wliidi we must always bear In mind in 
 the.se llnanclal Investigations, is : how much 
 do the people pay V Now, bow are we to 
 arrive at the answer to iliat (luestlon V In 
 this way. I am going to try to find out how 
 much more money hon. geiillemen opposite 
 liMve tak(>n out of the iieople of ('aiiada than 
 tluf .Maclceuzle .\diiiliiistration would have 
 •liken if their policy of 1878 had been cou- 
 tiniii'd. How <l<) we get at that V We take 
 tlie total delicits as they would have been, 
 and the total surpluses as they were. Xow, 
 I have shown that the total delicits. If the 
 s!iiiH> rate of taxation had been continued, 
 would have been $Sl,774,H(;2. The net sur- 
 plus which the lion, gentleman has at his 
 creilit at the jiroKeiit time Is .$9,785,139, 
 Add these two sums together, and you 
 have, I claim, the amount of money that 
 this GoverniiKMit have tsUcen diredly out 
 of the peo;)le of Canada. I am not saying 
 a word about those millions and millions of 
 dollars tiiav li;ive been t:iken out of tlie peo- 
 ple of C:iii;idji which the revenu(> never got ; 
 nor am I dealintr with any estimate. I am 
 making a calculation which cannot be 
 wrong, which is backed up by the actual 
 imports. These two amounts together 
 give the enormous total of $91,5(;o,001, 
 an aiuonnt of money large enough 
 to iiay otT one-third of the national debt, 
 and leave about eiglit millions of dol- 
 lars in the treasury. Now, I have en- 
 deavoured to dispose of some comparisons 
 instituted by the hon. gentleman, and I have 
 made the charge that his comp;irisons were 
 unfjiir and his figures misleading. I come 
 iioAV to that portion of his speech in Avhich 
 he glorilies himself first and Canada next 
 upon the credit which Canada had In the 
 money markets of the world. I do not know 
 where he got his figures, but certainly they 
 wen; most incorrect ; misleading is not the 
 \vor<l ; they were actually wrong, and I pro- 
 pose to prove that they were. Tli(> hon. 
 ^rentienian said that at the time he made 
 his loan in the old country, which he stated 
 was at the rate of 3% per cent, the Ameri- 
 can Government made a loan at the rate 
 of ?j% per cent. Now, the real fact, which 
 he omitted to mention, is that the American 
 (Government made a loan in a different 
 market— in the American market ; and in- 
 stead of the rate being, as he clnimod, 3'''t 
 por cent, the actual rate at which the 
 American Government floated that loan of 
 S;50,000.0()0 was 2-87 or 2% per cent. T do 
 not understand how the hon. gentleman could 
 come into this House and make the state- 
 ment h" did. I must, I suppose, attribute 
 it to ignorance. It would not be parlia- 
 mentary to say that he deliberately mis- 
 led the Iiouse. and I must out of charity 
 say that he did not know any better. If the 
 hon. gentleman will look at the " Statist," a 
 financial paper published in London, of the 
 1st of December, 1894, he will find there in 
 
 -'■t 
 
 4r 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
pliilu KiikIIhIi that tlio now Amorlcnn loin 
 was lloiUoil at a i)rlcH wliU-li uiii<l«! the iMtt> 
 of Interost to tin- (iov«'rniii»Mit --ST or 'J"; 
 l)fr rent. At llic pr(«s(Mit tiini; then' ap- 
 pears to ho ii dlspoMltlon on tho ^illu'r Hide 
 of the IIoUH(> to dci'i-y cvcryt'itntf KnK- 
 ilsh Of t«)niu'ct»Ml with Enwland, mid 
 to hiok for iiMjih'nlioii, and I hui>- 
 jtoso also for facts, to the United States. 
 If the lion, (jentleiiian Is n'.t saliHiled with 
 that lin-iielal or^jaii, let hlin look at the 
 New Y(.;-k " Herald " of 27th November. 
 lSf)4. and ho will Und there precisely the 
 sanio fitateniont. Now, If the hon. (gentleman 
 Is not satisfied with that. I will >?lve hlin 
 the partU'iihirs of the? American loan, and 
 he can calculate the rat(? for himself. The 
 American loan paid what was, for a nation 
 like The Knited St.Ues, a liirKo rate. It wms 
 lloated at a rate which was a lar^e rate 
 for them to pay In the present condition of 
 the money market. They oujyht to got their 
 money at less than two and seven-elghliis 
 per ci3Ut. If they had had the kind of loan 
 to offer which our Finance Minister was 
 abh^ to offer to the lOiiKllsh people, they 
 could have got their money a great deal 
 ♦•he.'iper, but they were pledged to borrow 
 their money at tlve per cent, under a statute 
 which provides that it shall be repayable 
 In coin. The llnancial world knows that 
 there is a great agitation on the other side 
 In favour of free silver, and that the dan- 
 ger always exMsts, under that statute, of the 
 Americans deciding some day, as they can 
 do legally, to pay borrowed money in silver, 
 which is coin. Let me mention another mat- 
 ter. Our loan runs for forty- four years, 
 whereas the American loan runs only for 
 ten years. It is e(iually well known In 
 financial circles that a loan running for a 
 large number of years is worth consider- 
 ably more than a short loa.i. Under those 
 circumstanco.s— being redeemalde in coin 
 and only running ten years— the American 
 loan was allotted to a syndicate at 117-77, 
 which produces a rate of interest of 2'S7. 
 The American loan was therefore at a great 
 disadvantage. The treasury was bein;: 
 depleteil of its gold. It was necessary for the 
 credit of the country to replenish the trea- 
 sury, and the Government had only statu- 
 tory authority to issue this kind of bond. 
 This Ijan was put upon the market and bid 
 for. and the highest bid was made by the 
 syndicate to which it was allotted, on the 
 27tli November, at the figure I have given. 
 On the 29th November— two days later— the 
 syndicate announced that thej' had sold 
 !?.".000,000 out of the .$50,000,000 at 119, and 
 that they had raised the price of the balance 
 to 1191/^, thus clearing out of the trans- 
 action a cool million of dollars. This shows 
 how unfair and misleading was the com- 
 parison made by the hon. gentleman. The 
 hon. gentleman took another means of 
 glorifying himself and his party, and I men- 
 tion It, not because of any intrinsic value 
 
 It nniy have, not becauHo of any Itupressloa 
 It could make on the country, but to show 
 tliu unfairness of tiie lion, gentleman, to 
 show the ilellberate manner In which, with 
 malice aforethought, knowing the facta, ho 
 sought to mislead the House. He referred 
 to failure: In ("sinada to hIhmv how success- 
 ful Ills \dmlnlstratlon was compared with 
 the imbecile Adinlnlstratlon of Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie. In 1890, he said, the failures for 
 the v<>ar, according to Dun, Wlman it Co.'s 
 acco'unt, represi'uted liabilities of $18,000,- 
 000, and in 1891, they were only .f 17,000,- 
 0(K>. Hut seeing that he was comparing one 
 bad year with another bad year, or one 
 Conservative year with another, which is 
 the same tiling, he says I will give a fair 
 coniiiarison and take the avi-rage from 
 1874 to 1878. In 1874 the liabilities were 
 .i;7,79(l,(X)0 ; In 1878 they were .$23,908,000— 
 an increase of 210 per cent. Take the aver- 
 age from 1874 to 1878, and you will find It 
 was .$22,209,(K)0, and from 1890 to 1894 It 
 was only .$1(!,(;90,0()0. I draw attention to 
 tills to show how unfair that hon. gentleman 
 was. He knows that the failures of 1874 
 were $7,()90,OOO, and that In 1875 they had 
 risen enormously to .$28,843,000. Why did 
 not he give the cause V The cause is clear. 
 In the early part of 1875 an insolvent law 
 came Into force. The hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site have Introduced an Insolvent Act. Let 
 them put that Insolvent Act Into force this 
 session, and I will make next year a com- 
 parison between 1894 and 1895 which will 
 knock into the shade the comparison be- 
 tween 1875 and 1874. Will that be any re- 
 flection upon the hon. gentleman ? No, It 
 will merely show that when an insolvent 
 act Is pas.sed, all the insolvents rush 
 into Insolvency In order to get a re- 
 lease from tlielr lia'dlitles. The hon. 
 gentleman seizes tl).> evidence of the 
 fact that there was that Increase and that 
 falling again in 1880, when the InsolvPV:'- 
 Act was repealed, down to $7,988,000. H'.- 
 knowingly and wilfully takes tlir" figures fee- 
 years when there way no insolvent act, ana 
 compares them with Mr. Mackenzie's years 
 when there was an insolvent act, and at- 
 tempts to make us believe that the contrast 
 Is an evidence that under his Administra- 
 tion and policy, Canada had prospered as 
 compared with the period when Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie was in otilce. Why, the only fair 
 comparison to make would i)e between 1880 
 and 1893, in .icither of which years was 
 tliere an insolvent act. In 18"0. the failures 
 wore only $7,988,000, while in 1893, the 
 hon. gentleman's policy had brought Can- 
 *^ion that the failures had 
 . That is a fair com- 
 ) take one year with an- 
 same circumstances. If 
 comparisons which are 
 
 a da to such a po * 
 risen to $15,610,' 
 inwi.^on to make- 
 other under the 
 you cannot make 
 
 reasonable, fair and right, you admit that 
 the propositions you are attempting to es- 
 tablish by the comparisons you make, are 
 
10 
 
 nntruo. Now. the lion, geiitleinaii has afiaiii 
 biiiuiilu rorwiinl tli<> saviiijjs bank matter, 
 and at<;emiito(l to prove, Ly reference to the 
 statigHc's of those banks, t'uat +ue policy of 
 the Gov('rnnu>nt has been eni.nently yu<;- 
 "essful. It has l)oen pointed out before. 
 aii>i I shall not delay the House by showing; 
 it again, how tlie nccnmulationr of savings 
 may be u sign at one time of prosperity, 
 and at another of depression. It is true 
 that if a country is prosperous, and those 
 persou.s who are not in a position to invest 
 their money in any other way put it in the 
 savings bank, that shows an increase of 
 prosperity. But it is also proved that when 
 the policy of the i-oumry lias lirouglit 
 about commorcial disaster, when i»eoi)le hjsc 
 confidence in ordinary investments, they 
 put their money ." ito institutions which 
 th(>y think are sound, but where tlie in- 
 terest is low, in order to pvv'vcnt the 
 loss of their money in ordinary speculation. 
 2now, let me '.akc sonic of (lie .spei-iiic liu- 
 ures. and show from these very lij.ines 
 of his tuat the hon. gentleman's policy is 
 mistaken. I do not put this forward as a 
 proof that the hon. gentleman is wrong ; 
 but I am prepared to take the same tig- 
 ures tliat he u«('s and show that they lead 
 to a wholly different conclusion from tliat 
 wliicb he readied. I dn not say that I 
 have any faith in this comparison, but it is 
 the kincl of c(Uiip;'.ri,-'on tlint the lion, gen- 
 tleniiin himself makes. I'ake. for instaiK-e, 
 the deposits in the cli.irtered banks from the 
 year IScT. I .'.rot tliesi- ligures from the 
 1 ear-Book. If I were going to malce a com- 
 ])arison tliat I wanted to repose faith in. 
 I do not know l!i;it I should adopt thes 
 ligures with great ((uifidence. I'.nt for the 
 purpose I liave in view, they m;iy be as- 
 siuued to be correct ; at any rate, they 
 are ligures referred to by the lum. gonlle- 
 man himself. Tli(> deposits in the cliartcr- 
 ed banks from 1SG7 to 1873 amounted to 
 $54.3!)7,23() on the average. In tlie period 
 from 187-i to ISTS tlic average deposits in 
 the chartered banks—and this was a pei'lod 
 of ruin, desolation, incai)acity of govern- 
 ment and everything that was bad. accord- 
 ing to llic lum. gentleman— laid risen to 
 $73,92(i.28r>, an increase over the previous 
 pt liod (if (iver ?.li per cent. Now we coni" 
 into tue time of hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site. In the live years from 1S7!> to iss.",, 
 the average deposits in cliartered ))anks 
 amonnte<l to ."?!)4.Jin,t;4ri. an inci-ease of only 
 27 per cent, 'i'ake tlic next period of five 
 years, and you find that the average of de- 
 posits was $111,131,142. an increase of IS 
 per cent. AJAvays getting a little less, yon 
 see. slK^wins.". accordin? to the hon. genil(>- 
 man's own argument, tliat the countj'y was 
 gradually ajiproaching ruin and ehaos. But 
 in the last perioii. from 1SS9 to 1.80.". they are 
 actually getting back to the Mackenzie 
 standard of 3(1 iiei- cent. During iliiit peri :d 
 the average deyiosits were $152,008,320. And 
 if the hon. gentleman and his predeces- 
 
 sors liad been able to keep the country up 
 to tlie liigli standard of Mr. ^Mackenzie, 
 the dei)osits would have been .$187,807,917. 
 So tlieie was a loss there, a discnpancy 
 telling against the hon. gentleman and in 
 I'aN'our of the ^Mackenzie (Jovernment of 
 .$35,709,507. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are 
 going to decide the question of jirosperity. 
 the (luestion of tlie success of tlie lion, gen- 
 tleman's policy by making comparisons, 
 are not tlie conip;irisons I make as tail- .as 
 tliose of hon. gentlemen oi)i)osile '.' Now, 
 take tlie deiiosits in tlie savings banks. 
 <iovernment and special. I will take one 
 1 Conservative jieriod and coiniiare it with 
 ' anoth(H' Conservative iieriod. In the lirst 
 ! iieiiod I shall refer to— that fiv-m lSr,s to 
 j 1S7.') -while the country was under a Con- 
 1 servative Adminisiration. they liad tlie iire- 
 I sent Lilier.al ]iollcy. a taritf for revenue. 
 In 18(18. tlie deposits in the Government 
 I savings banks and siiecia! savings banks. 
 I like the IMontreal District Bank, were $.1.- 
 0."7,('>07. In 1873, umler this t.-triff for re- 
 venue, they liMd risen (o $12.0.",3.Sst. an 
 increase during tliesc live yeai's of ■J."■'^ in-r 
 cent. Now. take the ligures for the National 
 Policy period, from 1S7S down to 1803. 
 In 187S the deixisits were S14,l-J8.1,Sr>. If 
 they had increased at the rate of 255 ]>er 
 cent every five years, they would have 
 amounted, in 1803, to $234,2(5 1,7.'53, as 
 a.'.'.-iinst wliat tliey a-f'.ally were. $.14.07;!.- 
 101. a deliciency of $170.."0l.2:',O in the six- 
 teen years of the National Policy, inider ;i 
 Conservative Administration, as comiiarcd 
 v.-jth tlie tiv(> ye;irs of th(> tariff for revenue 
 policy mider a Ciaiservative Adniinisl ration. 
 Now, is not that a fair cumparisf)!! 7 Does 
 not that show as much against tl)(> lion, 
 g'entleman ;is !iis ti'.rures sliowed in ids 
 l.'ivour V The hon. gentleman went on to 
 make some more c(nii]iarisons. He toolv tlie 
 years bSOO to 1S01 and i-omii:ired them wiih 
 tlie years 1874 to 1878. The reason he gave 
 for tliat seemed peculiar. He did not 
 undertake to say it exa'tly— 1 cannot lind 
 tliat lie niiiih^ tlie absolute statemer.t -but 
 he left the inference that tlie years 180i» to 
 1804 were years of depression .and of lianl 
 times like tlu.se of 1874 to 1S78. He says : 
 Oiiposition i);ii>ers say so : ( >])]>osition siieak- 
 ers siiy so. The hon. gentleman sjient a 
 long time on this comjyai'isoii. .■md he drew 
 the most disastrous coiiclnsirms as to the 
 period when the lion, memlter for South Ox- 
 ford (Sir Itichard Cartwriglit) was ^Minister 
 of Finance. But if it is not true that the 
 years 1800 to 1.S04 were years of depres- 
 sion, tlien this comimri.-on wholly I'ails of its 
 object. NoAV. the lion, memlfcr for South 
 Oxford, in his Budget speech during years 
 of deinession. regf.iarly admitted that he 
 vv-as in a i)eriod of hard times, that Can- 
 ada was suffering from dejiression wliicli 
 was world-wide, following with us, as it 
 always does and alway> will, a i>erio<l of 
 severe dejiression •; the T'nited States. But 
 the hon. Finance Mhiister has not been 
 
 1 
 
 
♦• 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 
 (loiiiff tliat. What lie did say in tliese years 
 from 181)0 to 18f)4. wliicli lie said are spolieu 
 of by the Opposition as years of depres- 
 sion V 111 ISJMt. lie said tliis in tlie Speecli 
 from tlie Throne : 
 
 I may fairly congratulate you on the coutlnu- 
 ance of tho progress aiul prosperity of the coun- 
 try. 
 
 I'lior to that tho Xalioiial I'olicy had been 
 at work and we had tieen told of <,';inada's 
 yroat prosperity. Tliis year tlie (bjvernor 
 General eonyratulates the country upon tlie 
 continuance of that prosperity. In 1891, 
 the Siieech from the Throne contained the 
 followinj? : 
 
 The season !n which you are assembled has 
 opened auspiciously for the industries of the 
 people. 
 
 In isn2 : 
 
 It affords me much gratiilcation to meet yoi. at 
 the cov.'.niencement of a parliamentary session, 
 and to ho able to congratulate you upon the 
 general prosperity of the Dominion. 
 
 ^^'as there anythiiii;' of that kind in tlie 
 SiKM-ches from the Tlirono in 1871, IS'iT). 
 18T<>. 1S77 or 1S78 V In tsno. another ol' the 
 yeiiiv, wliich the lion, fientleman now snj's 
 are sjioken of as years of depression, the 
 Siieoch from the Throne says : 
 
 It affords me pleasure to congratulate you upon 
 th.} continued progress which tho history of the 
 past year unfolds with regard to Canada. The 
 Inci'case in trade, as Illustrated by the e.tports 
 and iin])nrts during tho period for wh'ch the offi- 
 cial returns have been prepared, has been •I'lO'^t 
 gratifying and that increase lia^ couiinued down 
 to the pre.-ent time, with promise that the volu 'u- 
 cf trade during the current year will exceed 
 tliat of any year in the history of the Dominion. 
 
 In 1891 
 
 we read 
 
 a pa in 
 
 Canada'.s progress continues with every mark 
 of statjiiity and i)ermanence. 
 
 The lion. >?entleinan takes those years in 
 which those remarks were made, and he 
 proceeds to glorify liiniself and demolish 
 his op|)on(Mits with a coinparisr)n with those 
 (Klus- ye.'irs which were admittedly years 
 of pjiiiic and dc])ression. I would like to 
 say liere that while the hon. gentleman has 
 always been makin.i; the contention tliat 
 these years were ^ood years, it has not 
 been cliarped on this side of the House that 
 there was a depression such as existed dur- 
 inj;' tlie Mackenzie regime. What we charge 
 is that durim,' those years, the effect of the 
 Xatioiiiil I'dlify Lias been to imiioverisli (he 
 peojtle. not that tliere was a world-wide 
 de)iression wliich had reached Canad.a, not 
 tliat times Aver(> hard for the reason that 
 they were hard between 1874 and 1^78. but 
 that they were hard from our own actions, 
 that population was not increasin.irv that 
 the tra<le of the country was lanfruishing 
 from causes within our own control. Our 
 criticisms w<'re comjiarative. The hon. 
 gentleman used those terms, "comparative 
 and absolute," and our criticisms as to the 
 
 [leriod between 1S90 and 1894 were com- 
 parative. We compared the country as it 
 would have been, and uiiKht have been, 
 tinder a proper policy of tariff for revenue, 
 with the country iis it actually was under 
 the pernicious National Poli-y, a policy of 
 robbing tlie people for the bonetit of the 
 few. The hon. gentleman is now face to 
 face with t ircnmstances similar to those 
 which confronted the Mackenzie Govern- 
 ment in 1874, and during tlie whole period 
 tliey Avere in otHce. I shall draw atten- 
 tion, before I get through, to the fact 
 that all this depression wliicli lias come 
 from causes beyond (uir v-oiitrol, the panic 
 in the t'nited States occurred in 1893. The 
 hon. gentleman congmtuhited tlie country 
 in 1893, and also in 1894. on the fact that 
 we were not touched by tliat panic in Can- 
 ada. Economic students were well aware, 
 and it was pointed out from this side of 
 the House, that the depression in Canada 
 wliicli conies from our close altiliation in 
 trade witli tlie Tnitcd States, has always 
 iilfected us in Canada later than it did the 
 people of the United States. The lion, 
 gentleman comes here in 1895 and admits 
 tlia„ he is in a period of depression, and 
 lie gives the proper reason for it, namely, 
 the fact that there wjis a panic in 1893 in 
 the republic to the south of us. Wh.'it the 
 lion, gentleman said was : If you had been 
 wise sTatesineu in 1874 and 1878 .vou would 
 not liave allowed the depression in the 
 United States in 1873 to visit tliis cmuitry 
 as it did visit us ; if you had had the 
 National Policy during that period the de- 
 luession wimld have been warded off. 
 Since that time there has l)e<m no repeti- 
 tion of a depression until now, and it is 
 for us to exiindiie into the >ul)lic record 
 and see when tho National -\ilicy, which 
 I have shown in still in force in tliis coun- 
 try, has been ai)i)lied at this time to ward 
 oli' from Canada tlie effects of tin- panic of 
 1893, and the gentleman said it would have 
 wjirded off the effects of tlie panic of 1873 
 if it had beeu brought into existence by 
 the Macke'izie Ciovornineut ;it that time. 
 But before I do that. 1 shall deal bi'ietly 
 with the lion, gentleniiin's comparison, 
 which li(> made with such pains and at 
 such length, between these two jieriods. I 
 think I have made it plain that this is an 
 unfair com])arison to commence with, that 
 the two periods are not at all alike in their 
 characteristics. But even suiiposing they 
 were, T iiropose to sliow tliat his tiuures are 
 misleading, that his comparison is unfair, 
 and that tlie conclusions which be draws 
 from his own i)i"emises cannot be subst-au- 
 ti.ated. In the first place, the iion. gentle- 
 man unfairly takes tlie iieriod from 1874 
 to 1879. Now, so far as the Mackenzie 
 Government is conr'erned. I disclaim any 
 responsibility for the year 1879. According 
 to hon. gentlemen opposite, their sins were 
 enough during the period tliey were in 
 otlice. They came into oftice in November, 
 
12 
 
 1873, and they weut out of office in October, 
 1878, so that the hon. gentleman should 
 have taken the period from 1874 to 1878, 
 Instead of the period from 1873 to 1879. 
 I intend, in making corrections in the hon. 
 gentleman's figures, to take the real figures 
 for the Mackenzie Administration, and not 
 include in them the year 1879, during a 
 considerable portion of which tlie National 
 Policy was in force. The lion, gentleman 
 says that during this period the exports fell 
 $18,000,000. The House will find this very 
 elaborate exposition in the form of a table 
 at page 503 of the hon. gentleman's speech, 
 and a great deal of stress is laid upon it ; 
 so that I intend to talco a few ni'nutes in 
 trying to show how inaccurate his state- 
 ment is. In the first place, he makes a 
 statement that the exports fell .$18,000,000. 
 Now, 1 take his own figures, as furnislied 
 to us this session in the Trade and Navi- 
 gation Returns, and I find that the exports 
 in 1873 were .$89,789,922 ; the exports in 
 1878 were $79,323,007, a total falling off of 
 $10.466,0(X), as against the figures put into 
 the table by the hon. gentleman of $18,000,- 
 000. The hon. gentleman said the exports, 
 during the Mackenzie Administration fell 
 off $18,000,000. 1 think it is most unfair 
 for the lion, gentleman to make a statement 
 of that kind, almost doubling the figures. 
 Now, that "NA'as a period immediately fol- 
 lowing the panic of 1873 in the United 
 States. There was. we must admit, a fall- 
 ing off of $10,4()0,(X)0, or an average each 
 year of $2,093,000 during that period. It is 
 not a good showing, but the causes for it 
 have been exiilaiued time and again in this 
 House, and the valid excuse put forward 
 was that it was something over which 
 Canada had no control. How is it to-day, 
 after the panic of 1893 ? And how was it 
 in 1894, the year during which, according 
 to the hon. gentleman, it was not felt in 
 Canada, at least during a large part of 
 that year ? The exports fell off in that 
 year by $1,039,000. or at the rate of 50 per 
 cent as much as they did during the Mac- 
 kenzie period. But wlien we come down to 
 the yeai- iSd~, when, for the first time, 
 the Minister ot Finance is prepared to 
 admit that we ari following our neighbours 
 in this crisis, we find that the exjiorts for six 
 months of that yoai-. foil off $5,005,203. 
 While during the whole period of five years 
 under the Maekcnzii* .Sdministratiou tl '? total 
 exports, which the hon. gentleman paraded 
 here ^s'ith so much rejoicing and glee, only 
 fell off ten million do-' rs, whil.-^ in a period 
 of six months, under similar circum.stances, 
 the hon. gentleman's exports fell otT at a 
 rate which at the end of the year would 
 equal the amount for the whole period of 
 five years under the Mackenzie regime. The 
 I'eturns given up to 31st Mai-ch. make the 
 showing worse than that, the decline in- 
 stead of being $7,500,000 was close on $8,000,- 
 000. So that at the end of the year there 
 will really be a falling off from this cause 
 
 equal to the sum I have indicated, for whicU 
 the hon. gentleman is not responsible and 
 for which I do not blame him, but \vhat I 
 do blame him for is the attempt to make 
 the Mackenzie Government responsible 
 under similar circumstances. If it is a high 
 crime and misdemeanour against good policy 
 for the Mackenzie Government to sliow a 
 falling off of $2,000,000 a year, how much 
 greater must the crime and misdemeanour for 
 hon. gentlemen opposite to have a falling off 
 in one year from the same cause, under the 
 same circumstances, of five times as much, 
 or ten million dollars. I should like to call 
 tlie attention of the Finance Minister to 
 his statements about exports as reported in 
 his speech, that exports fell eighteen mil- 
 lions, that the unports were eighteen mil- 
 lions, and in the period from 1893-94 the 
 exports rose twenty-eight millions, and the 
 imports rose twenty-eight millions. I take 
 it for granted that this is an error of the 
 printer. As I do not possess the hon. gentle- 
 man's figures I am not able to criticise ■^i}:-^. 
 but I doubt not if I had them I would fluu. 
 them equally as inaccurate and unfair. I 
 draw attention to this fact, and if I adopted 
 the same method of criticism which tlie hon. 
 Minister attempted to apply to me when I 
 rose to speak, I would deal at considei'able 
 longtli with the enormous discrepancy be- 
 t^^ cen the real facts and those presented. The 
 hon. gentleman, howevei-, is not to blame for 
 those figures, and I point out the inaccuracy 
 to him. However, in 1894, when this de- 
 pression caused by the panic in the United 
 States began to work, the imports for con- 
 sumption fell off $8,011,047 ; in 1895. a half 
 year only, it fell off $6,321,607, or if the fall- 
 ing olf continued at the same rate for the 
 year, 1895 will show a total falling off of 
 .$12,000,000. Now, whei'o is the efiicacy of 
 the National Folicy ? I admit the cause ; I 
 say the cause is the depression in the United 
 States reacliing Canada, asi it always does, 
 a year or two later. Hon. gentlemen oppo- 
 site have contended year after yeai-, in 
 season and out of season, that it was the 
 duty of the Government to prevent that de- 
 pression, and that there was one sovereign 
 remedy, which if applied at the proper time 
 and in the proper way when the depression 
 1 ched us in 1874 would have Avarded it off. 
 I ask the hon. gentleman opposite why he 
 has to come here and admit that with this 
 National Policy in full foi'ce and vigour, 
 the amendments to it having been dropped 
 at the time and the revision having been 
 passed over, the taritl' liaving been inci'eased 
 slightly last session instead of decreased, 
 the hon. gentleman finds it inoperative to- 
 day ? The total falling off will reach the 
 enoi-mous sum of $12,000,000 in one year. 
 I am obliged not to criticise his figures, be- 
 cause, as I have already explained, I do not 
 know what the hon. gentleman stated on 
 that point. The hon. gentleman next said 
 that the duties during the period from 1874 
 to 1878 fell off to the value of $1,400,000. 
 
 : 
 
13 
 
 «f 
 
 
 The exact figures are $1,222,037. It 
 is all very well for the hon. gentleman 
 to say, I am going to deal in round figures ; 
 he let himself down easily in that way 
 several times during his speech. Perhaps 
 it is more pleasant to give round figures 
 than the actual amounts, but the Finance 
 Minister when he refers to $1,222,000 as 
 being $1,400,000 in round figures, this presen- 
 tation of the case, telling against the Opposi- 
 tion, is most unfair and misleading. So the 
 hon. gentleman delil)erately gave wrong 
 figures, or he did not know what the correct 
 figures were. If he did not linow what the 
 figures were, he should have known and he 
 should have referred to the blue-book. Tlie 
 truth is that the hon. gentleman prepared his 
 tables and delivered his speech largely as a 
 campaign document. It goes forth to the 
 country with the hon. gentleman's frank 
 upon it and with these unfair statements. 
 I correct them here, but my words will not 
 reach the persons whom this speecli wdl 
 reach. We have here one statement after 
 another that Is incorrect. We have here, as 
 I have pointed out, an amount of ,$1,222,- 
 037 spoken of by the Finance Minister as 
 $1,400,000. If that is fair criticism and a 
 true exposition of the finances of the counti'y, 
 then I am utterly mistalcen. The next state- 
 ment made by the hon. gentleman is that 
 during tlie Mackenzie Administration the 
 debt increased ,$40,000,000. Well, the hon. 
 gentleman knows when he puts forward the 
 statement that almost every dollar of that 
 sum was incurred in carrying our liabilities 
 imposed on the country during that period, 
 reference to which brings a blush of shame 
 to every true Canadian, that period of the 
 Pacific scandal. Is that a true statement for 
 the hon. gentleman to put in a campaign 
 document ? He might as well say that the 
 :Mackouzie Administration added $40,000,000 
 to the public debt— indeed that is really what 
 he says ; and yet the hon. gentleman knows 
 that it is absolutely untrue. He knows that 
 as administrators of Canada thoy were 
 bound by every pledge to carry out the 
 promises into which the preceding govern- 
 iiipiit had entered, and that in adding $40,- 
 000,000 their predecf^'-.sors really added it. 
 Yet for the mere purpose of bolstering up 
 himself and his party, the Finance Minister 
 jnit forward that false misleading state- 
 ment in a speech which was intended for a 
 campaign document and intended to in- 
 fluence the votes of the electors in the elec- 
 tions which will shortly come on. Next, the 
 hon. gentleman makes a statement on 
 his own side, and says that during 
 his period the taxes have decreased 
 $6,000,000. I cannot find that in the figures. 
 It is a very high sounding round figure, 
 $(5,000,000, and I have looked for it. I will 
 exclude coin and bullion, which I think the 
 House will agree with me from the expla- 
 nation I gave before it is fair to exclude, 
 for you cannot take coin and bullion, be- 
 cause one year It is $5,000,000, and another 
 
 year it falls to half a million dollars without 
 any apparent relation to the trade of the 
 country. Take out coin and bullion and 
 get the 1894 rate of 17-76, so you will see 
 that between 1889, wlien the rate was 21-80 
 and 1894, when the rate was 17-76, there was 
 between those two yeai's a decrease of 
 taxjition, of 4 04 per cent. Calculate that 
 upon the amount of the imports, $113,093,- 
 983, and you find that the saving of taxa- 
 tion instead of being $6,000,000, is $4,568,- 
 997. Is it not taking a good deal of latitude 
 to raise, for the purpose I have set forth, 
 an amount of four and a half million dol- 
 lars to six millions, or in other words add- 
 ing 331/j per cent. I do not see how the 
 hon. gentleman can justify that. I do not 
 see what right the Finance Minister, hold- 
 ing the responsible position he does, and 
 also the highly honourable position of leader 
 of this House, dares to say, that the taxa- 
 tion was decreased during that period six 
 million dollars, when he knows perfectly 
 well that it was only decreased $4,568,097. 
 I li'vve alluded to the fact that the hon. 
 gentleman had a great deal to say as to the 
 sugar duties. He takes great credit to him- 
 self for what he has done with regard to 
 sugar, as a partial apology, I suppose, for 
 the reimpositioTi of the oue-lialf cent per 
 pound, and largely for the purpose of 
 glorifying the Conservative Administration 
 during tlio time Avhich he has presided over 
 the Finance Department. He says on page 
 ."54 of " Hansard," after, taking in the glass 
 (luiies and the anthracite coal duties, and 
 the sugar duties which were taken off, that 
 the saving to the people of Canada was 
 $23,060,902. Now, I will show by the most 
 convincing figures that that statement is 
 cMiorniously wide of the mark. In 1891. the 
 rate was 20-07. The sugar duties were taken 
 off on the 24th June, 1891, so that we com- 
 menced the financial year of 1892 when the 
 rati' was 20-07. Tu 1892 the rate, always 
 omitting coin and bullion, was 17-84, or an 
 actual reduction of $2,508,077. In 1893, the 
 actual rate was 18-37, oi- an actual reduction 
 of $1,957,904, The hon, gentleman says, I 
 took tliose duties off sugar, anthracite coal, 
 and glass, and I saved tuat much to the 
 people. Well, one would naturally suppose 
 that that was a clear saving, and I take it 
 on that basis. But I cannot look at it In 
 that way. We have got to look at the ac- 
 tual saving as it Avas in tliat year. Whether 
 other luties were increased, or how it was I 
 am not prepared to say, because it cannot 
 l)e shown from the returns ; but you take 
 tlie actual taxation for each one "of those 
 years, as I am doing, and you will wind u;^ 
 with the exact amount which the hon. gei5- 
 tleman saved during the periods 1892, 1893, 
 181)4 and 1S95. In ISO.'}, it was 18-37. a 
 the saving was $1,957,904. In 1894, it Wa 
 17-76 and the saving was $2,519,538, JR\ 
 1895, it was 17-94 up to date, and the sav- 
 ing, $1,575,865. Add these all together and 
 you get the actual figures. The hon. gentle- 
 
u 
 
 man (Mr. Foster) has got it down to the 
 odd dollar, and he says at page 554 of 
 " Hansard," that during those periods he 
 saved the pepoie of Canada taxation to the 
 amount of ii!23,GG0,902. The actual amount 
 that he did save, calculated as I have done— 
 the only fair way of calculating it, and I 
 defy the lion, gontlouian to i)ick otie sing](> 
 hole in this H-alculation— was .$8.(')21,.')S-i. 
 Now, the hon. gentleman again returned to 
 the subject at the end of his speech as a 
 prelude to his announcement that he put 
 on a half cent a pound on sugar, and he 
 makes the calculation again there. I would 
 lilce to know how the lion, geiitleniaii can 
 tell us to-day what the sugar duties would 
 have been in 1892, 1893. 1891 and 1895, with 
 no other information to guide him, except 
 the total number of pounds impo 'od in each 
 of thes(> yearn. Avhcn wo rciiuMiibor the 
 fact that the sugar duty was not a duty 
 of so inuch a pound. It was a duty varying 
 from ^1 to $1.90, according to the polaris- 
 copic test of tlie sugar, and ihe hguy»>s 
 which the hon. gentlenian has do not show 
 how much sugar was imported at the .'?! 
 rate, or at any amount) nj) to $1.90. I liave 
 looked over the returns and I have found 
 that in the different years, 1889-90 and 1891 
 for example, there was a grej.t variation. 
 Seme years a large amount came in at the 75 
 degrees, and a similar amount at the higher 
 degree, so that from year to year llie taxa-- 
 tion varied very much indeed, and how 
 could the Finance Minister make the esti- 
 mate down to the odd two dollars without 
 guessing V P>nt the hon. gentleman did not 
 put it forward as a guess, and he said it 
 was quite the actual thing. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. I have listened to the hon. 
 gentleman making very many very extreme 
 statements and some that were. I think, al- 
 most unparliamentary. It is (jnite useless for 
 me to call him to or<ler. because he seems to 
 make these statements as part of his si)ecch. 
 Now, just in reference to tliat, it strikes 
 my mind that if he will read " Hansard," if 
 " Hansard " is correct, he will find that 
 when I was giving the sugar duties, I 
 gave them as the average of tlie duties for 
 1890-91. If I did that. I am quite sure 
 that is a sufficient explanation to the House 
 of the basis upon which I calculated. Any 
 gentleman may quarrel with the calculation, 
 but he has no right to use hard language 
 |With reference to me. But it is all a matter 
 pf taste. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. I will r ad the hon. gen- 
 tleman's exact words. He may have in- 
 tended to say that, but he did not say it. 
 
 Mr. :MARTIN. I could not possibly read 
 tlie revised edition, because it is not out 
 yet. I will comply with the hon. gentle- 
 man's request, and read it as I have it 
 here, and he can correct it afterwards. We 
 know the hon. gentleman's Avay of alluding 
 to clerical errors. He has always a way of 
 getting out of things. It is curious tha.t I 
 liave made so many miparliamentary state- 
 ments, and that this is the first one he has 
 objected to— see how he grabs at it This 
 is what he did say : 
 
 III ISDl. under the new tariff, there were im- 
 porteil fourteen million odd pounds of sugar, the 
 duty on which, talking an average at the old 
 rate 
 
 He does not say the average of 1890-91. 
 
 .Mr. FOSTER. Let it go at that- 
 average of the old rate. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN : 
 
 -the 
 
 \- 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. The lion, gentleman has 
 n^ right to say that I did not say it. The 
 hob. gentleman holds in his hands the un- 
 revised version, which is just as it is tukeu 
 by the reporter here, and is liable to error. 
 He 'might as well say that the reporter 
 made the error as that I made it. 
 
 —the duty on whioli, taking the average of thp 
 old rate, would have been $L!iT,447 ; in IS'J'J, the 
 quantity v,'as 827.000,000 pound-s, the duty ou 
 which would have been ifo, 200,000 ; in 181):5 the 
 (iuantity waa 252,500,000 pounds, the duty on 
 which would have been $4,000,000 ; lu 1S04 the 
 quantity was 303,000,000 potuids, the duty on 
 which would have been $4,821,000 ; in 1805 the 
 actual import and the estimated receipts ou the 
 same basis would have shown, imports, 310,000,- 
 
 000 pounds, the duty on which, at the old ratg, 
 would have been $4,010,700. 
 
 Now, there was no old rate, absolutely. 
 There was a rate which varied, for we 
 know how much of this 310,000,000 pounds 
 was 75 degrees, according to the polaris- 
 cope test, how much was 70. how- much 77, 
 and so on ; and we could carry out the 
 calculation and get it down, as the hon. 
 gentleman did, to odd dollars. But the 
 hon. gentlem.'tn has not attempted to make 
 sucli a calculaticm ; he simply said at the 
 old rate. The duties existed for a long 
 period before 1890-91, and how did he get 
 at the average V There was a chance to 
 get at round figures ; but, in order to leave 
 the impression that he was making an ac- 
 curate statement, he took an estimate and 
 got down to the odd dollars. I am very sorry 
 if I have said anything unparliamentary. 
 
 1 have been very anxious not to do so ; 
 l)ut when the hon. gentleman says that the 
 American loan was tloated at 3% per cent, 
 while it was actually tloated at 2% per 
 cent, what am I to say ? I say it is .an 
 incorrect statement, and if the hon. gentle- 
 man did not know that it was incorrei't, 
 he ought to have known, for he came here 
 and spoke of it as something that ought 
 to glorify himself and the Government. 
 Or, what am I to do when he converts 
 .'?1,220,000 into $1,400,000 ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Has the hon. gentleman 
 the least glimmering idea that the reporter, 
 in taking down a mass of figures such as 
 are contained in my statement, might make 
 an error in the nigures ? 
 
 ^H: 
 
15 
 
 :\Ir. :MARTIi\. it is a little curious that 
 tlie errors are all in the hon. geutleinaii's 
 favour. I have not fouud a slu.ule one 
 apainst him. I found one error tliat was 
 palpable, and I mentioned it ; but I take 
 for Krauted that the reporters have done 
 In his case, what tiiey do in mine and 
 every one e!se"s— tliat wlien lie was speak- 
 ing from tables, carefully prepared, tliey 
 Kot tliose from him and copietl them into 
 " llansnrd." so tluit " Hansiinl " is not 
 likely to be incorrect, except in tlie case 
 wldcli I pointed out, which Avas due to <^he 
 slip])inir down of one line, and was evi- 
 dently an error of the printer. Let the hon. 
 gentleman ,s;ive any excuses he likes, when 
 the country understands the hon. gentle- 
 man's statements, they will not have the 
 effect he intended tliem to have ; because, 
 when he adusits the fiicts which ^ have 
 mentioned here, his lUids'et speech falls to 
 the ground, and these grand periods iUid 
 glowing sentences based on inaccurate 
 statements, will be considerably discredit- 
 ed. Let me take up another point wliich 
 the hon. gentlcninn d(>iilt with, wliit'li is 
 just as misleading— a mere juggling with 
 ligurcs. He said the net ini^iest is de- 
 creasing. I will read exactly what he did 
 say ; and if he is misreported in tins in- 
 stance, as in the others, he can make another 
 Budget speech and correct all his mistakes. 
 He says : 
 
 If j'ou will take the actual interest, y^" will 
 find that whereas In ISOS we paid 4 -at per cent, 
 in tSI>4 wo paid 2 91 per cent. 
 
 Now, I am going to deal with tiiat state- 
 ment, and I an: going to show how very 
 bad the hon. gentleman is if this statement 
 is worth anything at all, as I do not con- 
 sider it is, as 1 say, I talie no stock in 
 these propositions. I merely deal with 
 them to show that they do not amount to 
 anything. I say this is a proof of the hon, 
 gentleman's W'ckedness if he puts tlieni 
 forward as proof of our Avickeduess on tliis 
 side. I will put them forward to show tliat 
 he is entitled to no credit, but that the 
 credit should be all the other way. I 
 wonder if tins is a sign of that great linaa- 
 rial management upon wliicli the hon. 
 gentleman plumed himself in one of those 
 glowing periods— a magnilicent policy— i 
 admirable linancial management. If we ! 
 are going to get down to questions of taste. ; 
 I have not been taught that it is good j 
 taste for a man to come here and blow ' 
 himself up for admirable linancial 
 agement— to wit, my management. 
 Is what I call bad taste ; I do not 
 what the hon. gentleman calls it. 
 
 Mr. LISTER, 
 bugle. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. Yes. The hon. gentleman 
 could not find any one on his side of the 
 House to blow his bugle for him, and so 
 he blew it himself, aud I must say he is 
 
 man- 
 That 
 know 
 
 It is blowing your own 
 
 the best blower on that side of the House. 
 He says the net interest is decreasing. If 
 that is so, how does the Deputy Miuister, in 
 ills report bear him out V lly saying that 
 the interest -on the gross debt during 1893- 
 94 increased from 3'20 to 3'31, even undei" 
 tlie hon. gentleman's own administration. 
 'J'here must be something seriously wrong 
 there. Tiie net interest, also, increased from 
 •J -88 to 2 '91, although the hon. gentleman 
 tells us tliat tiiere never was a time when 
 money could be got ar, such a low rate. 
 But I am going to take this net Interest 
 business and see wliere it lauds the hon, 
 gontleiiian. In 1886 the net rate of Interest 
 was 4 51 ; in 1878. at the end of that ter- 
 riltlc period, it was reduced to 3 -OS. or a re- 
 duction of -S.', ]H'V ctMif. \.)w. in 18S4. the 
 net rate of interest was 2-7(). Ten years 
 later, in 1894, it had riscm to 291, or a*^n in- 
 crease in ten years of -15 per cent. I under- 
 stand perfectly well how that came about, 
 l)ut the hon. gentleman has put it forward 
 !is an evidence of able linancial manage- 
 ment and great prosperity under his admin- 
 istration. He said : 
 
 If you take the actual interest, we paid 4-51 
 per cent in 1868, vheroas in 1S!)4 we paid 2-91 
 per cent, showing a large decrease. 
 
 Tlie hon. gentleman would have it under- 
 stood that his administration had been de- 
 creasing the not rate of interest. I have 
 shown tliat the net rate of interest, commen- 
 cing in 18(38 and ending at tlie close of the 
 Mackenzie period, A\as decreased 83 per 
 cent, whereas in the ten years from iaS4 to 
 1894 it was not decreased -it all, but was 
 increased 15 ]ter (eiit. Tlie, , comparisons 
 of the lion, gentleman are worthless. The 
 onl.v fail- comjiarison yon can make is be- 
 tween two things of the .same kind— one 
 (irit and the othei- Tory. Take similar cir- 
 cumslances, take the .same rate of taxation 
 and then talk about your surplus ; or take 
 the same rate of taxation and talk about 
 your deficit. Take the same circumstances 
 and look at tlie effect of your policy : but 
 to point to a decrease from 1808 to 1894 as 
 an evi<lence of very strong financial position 
 while omitting to point out that in 1884 the 
 net rate of interest was ,v,^ of 1 per cent less 
 than in 1894, ten years later, is trifling with 
 the intelligence of the House. What does 
 the net rate i^f interest amount to ? It de- 
 pends on circumstances, such as the amount 
 of money in the savings banks, such as the 
 amount of money to be obtained from dif- 
 ferent investments, which all have to be 
 eonsidered in any comparison worth mak- 
 ing. But the hon. gentleman saw the 
 figures there, they looked in his favour, and 
 he promptly gave them to the House. Now 
 the hon. gentleman lias made a supple- 
 mentary statement with regard to railway 
 subsidies. I am quite unable to make the 
 tlgures -,'iven by the hon. gentleman corres- 
 pond with the figures given in the Public 
 Accounts ; but, as the hon. gentleman has 
 
 ( 
 

 .A^^i.i.^..., 'rT''ynmm 
 
 m^m^smw^ 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 t 
 
 .s 
 (1 
 (I 
 ti 
 
 II 
 w 
 
 16 
 
 Insinuated his intention to correct some of 
 tliese mistakes of tlie repoiter, and perliaps 
 tliis is a mistalie of the reporter. I tliink it 
 is important that we should know from 
 him before we are done with the Budcot 
 debate, the exact financial position of Can- 
 ada. It is important that we should have 
 tlie correct lifrures. He says that tlio rail- 
 way subsidies under contract and not paid 
 amount to $2,2,')7,059. Now, 1 find in the 
 Public Accounts, at page xcii. that 
 those railwaj* subsidies amount to 
 $3,485,175. He says also that the rail- 
 way siTbsidies not under contract, amount 
 to )i!2.587,2r)7. Look at tlie I'ublic Accounts 
 on page xcv, and you will find that 
 the railway subsidies of that kind 
 not under contract, amount to ^-i,791,4()<). 
 There is just some possibility, perhaps, of 
 the hon. gentleman's saving himself there, 
 because he says tliose raihva.v subsidies not 
 under contract, which the Department of 
 Railways enumerated here, are likely ti> be 
 put under contract. If tliat be the explana- 
 tion of the second discreitancy, we ouglit to 
 have, before Ave are done with this matter, 
 a detailed stntoment from the hon. gentle- 
 man as to whieli of those subsidies (m that 
 l)age are, ficcording to the Departme>it of 
 Railways, likely to be put under contract, 
 and which are not. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER, 
 crepaucy. 
 
 I have not seen the dis- 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. I must, then, have been 
 very obscure in my remarks. I say that, 
 according to the hon. gentleman's statement, 
 the I'ailway subsidies under coutrac.'t 
 amount to ^2,257,059, and that, according 
 to the Public Acctmnts, they amount ic ^'S,- 
 485,175. According to the hon. gentleman, 
 again, the railway subsidies not under con- 
 tract amount to ^2,587,257, and accordi.ig to 
 the Public Accounts, the same railway sub- 
 sidies amount to $4,791,400. Now, if I have 
 made no mistakes in arithmetic, the hon. 
 gentleman's total amounts to $4,844.8ir), 
 while the total given by the Public Accounts 
 amount to .?8,276,575, or a discrepancy of 
 $3,432,259, and I may say that the $8,000,000 
 given in tlie Public Accounts corresponds 
 quite correctly with the statement given in 
 ausv.'er to the hon. member for South Ox- 
 ford by the Minister of Railways this ses- 
 sion. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Therefore, you find a dis- 
 crepancy ? 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. What is the date of the 
 Public Accounts ? i 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. They are for 1894. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. V>hat is the date of my ! 
 statement ? 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. The hon. gentlem.an's 
 statement is for the present time. Doc^ he 
 
 mean to say that the otliers have been r^Id 
 in the meantime ? 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. I mean to say .iiat you 
 cannot compare the 30th June, 1895. wlrL a 
 date in May, 1895. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. If that is what ilio hou. 
 gentleman meant, he did not make that 
 plain at all. 
 
 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. May I 
 be permitted to say that the statement made 
 by the Minister of Railways had reference 
 to the same date at which he male the 
 statement 
 
 :\Ir. FOSTER. It is not the Minister of 
 Railway's statement that the hon. gentle- 
 man is criticising, it is mine. My statement 
 was to date. 
 
 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. The Min- 
 ister of Railway's statement was to date. 
 The question was asked up to date. 
 
 Mr. jMARTIN. The hon. gentleman may 
 have a way out of that, but certainly be 
 has not a way out of the next point I am 
 coming to. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. There was no way into it. 
 
 Mr, MARTIN. I have the hon. gentle- 
 1 man's own authority for it in " Hansard." 
 He made this careful statement of the lia- 
 bilities of Canada with a view to the in- 
 creased taxation which he proposed to put 
 : on in order to meet those liabilities— capital 
 and interest on capital. Tlie hon. gentle- 
 man is not in tlie position which we are 
 on this side. He comes to deliver a Budget 
 speech with a full knowledge of the linau-^ 
 ces of tlie country as they are. He comes 
 fully prepared, after having had plenty of 
 time for jn-eparation. and we have the right 
 to suppose tliat, if tlie lion, gentleman is the 
 admirable Finance IMinister he pretends to 
 be, these statements are coiToct, What do 
 we find, on his own admissions ? We find 
 that he has not said a word about the Trent 
 Valley Canal or tlie Hudson l.iy Railway, 
 the two and a half million dollars for which 
 has become a lial)ility of the country, so far 
 as an Order in Council can make it. 
 But he admits sums tlmt. in making uj) that 
 statement, he forgot : The fast Atlantic line 
 inoiuis an oxiieiidlture oC .$7,500,000 ; the 
 Hudson Bay Railway, under the statute 
 of 1891, a liability which he admits should 
 liave been included. .$1,000,000 ; Kingston 
 and Smith's Falls Railway. .i;2."'.0,(;S0. So 
 that, afror all tills preparation, after all 
 this careful inquiry, tlie calculations of the 
 lion, gentleman for the year 1895-9(! are 
 not correctly l)ased. He has to admit, now 
 that lie forgot altogether these liabilities, 
 amounting to i):9.3.50,(!80. If that is the hou. 
 gentleman's idea of an admirable financier, 
 why it is a very different thing from mine. 
 I tliink it is one of the most essential 
 points that the man who handles tlie dol- 
 lars and cents for a financial concern should 
 
17 
 
 e III" on Tt>l& 
 
 J Miat jou 
 1895. whL a 
 
 lat ilio boD. 
 make tbat 
 
 T. May I 
 eineat made 
 id reference 
 B male the 
 
 Minister of 
 lion. }rt!ii^l6- 
 [y statement 
 
 T. The Min- 
 vas to date, 
 (late. 
 
 itleuian may 
 certainly he 
 t point I am 
 
 1 way into It. 
 
 hon. sentle- 
 
 " Hansard." 
 
 It of tlie lia- 
 
 \v to the in- 
 
 jiosed to put 
 
 litios— capital 
 
 hon. fjentle- 
 
 liich Ave are 
 
 ver a Bndjiet 
 
 of tl)e flnan-. 
 
 He comes 
 
 lad plenty of 
 
 ave the right 
 
 itloman is the 
 
 2 pretends to 
 t. ^Yhat do 
 IS ? We find 
 
 out the Trent 
 
 .ly Railway, 
 ars for which 
 juntry, so far 
 n make it. 
 ikinji up that 
 ; Atlantic line 
 ..')()0.()0() ; the 
 
 tlie statute 
 idmits should 
 ; Kingston 
 l;2."iO,(>SO. So 
 on, after all 
 lations of the 
 18!)r»-9f) are 
 o admit, now 
 se liabilities, 
 at is the hon. 
 
 l)le linancier, 
 ig from mine. 
 .ost essential 
 idles tlie dol- 
 oncern should 
 
 
 know what the liabilities of the concern 
 are, what It has got to pay next year and 
 the nature of the obligations it is assuming. 
 But when a financier, supjiosedly after care- 
 ful preparation, makes a Budget speech be- 
 fore tills House, and then is obliged to come 
 a few days after and tell u« that ho has 
 made a clean mistake of ten million dollars 
 in his calculations, it makes a strange com- 
 mentary on the hon. gentleman's modest 
 testimonial of himself. I shall not take U)) 
 the time of the House for more than a 
 few moments longer. I wish to advert to 
 the hon. gentleman's plung(> into ecouomy. 
 It is one of the planks of the Liberal plat- 
 form that there should be economy in the 
 public expenditure. The hon. gentleman 
 has adopted that, to a certain extent— at 
 least lie says so — and I wish to examine 
 for a few moments his proposals in this 
 respect. I wish to point out again how 
 very far— the " Hansard " reporters, I sup- 
 pose I must say— are r stray in their trans- 
 cript of the hon. gentlen xn. I think we had 
 better have ti e " Hansard " Committee take 
 up the subject, because if they cannot re- 
 port the Budget speecli. a good deal of 
 which is written out in the shape of tables, 
 etc., I am afraid there must be something 
 wrong witli the " Hansard " staff. I remem- 
 ber last session listening to a speech of 
 the hon. ^Minister of Railways, in which, 
 speaking of economy, he took up depart- 
 ment after department, and. while admit- 
 ting that ecouomy was a good thing, asked 
 wliat could be done. The hon. gentleman 
 has rdiown the Minister of Raihvays that 
 some' hing in this direction can be 'done. 
 Having got the admission from the hon. 
 gent enian, it will perhaps be easier for us 
 to puow hereafter that something substan- 
 tial ought to be done instead of accepting 
 the more flea-bite which the hon. gentleman 
 has offered in tliese Estimates. The tirst 
 thing I have to remark upon is tlie falling 
 off in the item of immigration. Now. Mr. 
 Speaker, I object to that at once. That is not 
 the kind of economy the Liberal party pro- 
 pose. They do not propose to reduce the 
 expenditure of the country by taking away 
 from the efficiency of the public service, 
 by refusing to make those expenditures 
 from Avhicli tlie people get a benefit, or 
 ought to get a benefit. It is their proposi- 
 tion that millions are squandered in this 
 country uselessly, that the departments are 
 crowded Avith clerks who have nothing to 
 do, that the Civil Service is manned with 
 those who have been appointed merely for 
 political reasons, and who are incompetent 
 for the position they occupy— or it may 'e, 
 appointed for charitable reasons, or sorae- 
 thing of that kind. And we propose to 
 economize by preventing waste and by cut- 
 ting off useless expenditures. We do not 
 propose to economize by reducing an esti- 
 mate like that for immigration. I must ad- 
 mit, however, that if the hon. gentleman 
 takes my view of the success, of the im- 
 
 migration expenditure, he Is quite justified. 
 For I consider this money is practically 
 thrown away. But of course the hon. gen- 
 tleman does not take that view. He claims 
 that the hon. Minister of the Inti^rlor is 
 pursuing that vigorous immigration policy 
 which he started out to develop ; and, hold- 
 ing that view, he deliberately cuts off $70,- 
 000 from an appropriation of $200,000. I 
 may say that that proposition will not meet 
 the approval of the people of Manitoba 
 and the North-west. What they want Is 
 immigrants, and that is not the kind of 
 saving the Liberal party propose. Well, 
 tlio hon. gentleman touches a branch of 
 the expenditure in whicli there is every 
 chance for economy— civil government. And 
 what does he do there ? He makes a reduc- 
 tion of .i;30,000. He takes a little "nibble at 
 It. In 1878 my hon. friend from South Ox- 
 ford spent for civil government $823,396. 
 In 1894, the brilliant financier who lerds the 
 House at the present moment spent $1,- 
 402,279, an increase of nearly $600,000. 
 And he comes here and says : I have be- 
 come the apostle of economy ; I propose 
 to cut this expenditure down to .$30,000. 
 There is a clianee for him if he really wants 
 to economize, if he really wants to save 
 the people's money and himself the onerous 
 duty of placing more taxation on the peo- 
 ple. Let him deal with a strong hand with 
 this enormous increase made within the last 
 sixteen years. Then, In legislation, at page 
 569, we find one of those errors, clear as day- 
 light, which the hon. gentleman will have to 
 lay on the " Hansard " reporters or upon 
 some clerk. He says he Is going to reduce 
 that by $22,000. But, judging by the Estima- 
 tes, it would seem to be a reduction of $80,000. 
 But, Mr. Speaker, It is not a reduction at 
 all ; and if the hon. gentleman knows what 
 his new estimates are, he has again mis- 
 led the House, has again put forward a 
 statement which cannot be substantiated. 
 There is no reduction, for this reason, that 
 In 1894 there were expended on legisla- 
 tion, $202,000 for voters' lists, and that has 
 been struck out altogether so that, on the 
 whole, there is an increase of $120,000 for 
 legislation. Now, I say that legislation is 
 altogether different from Immigration. 
 When we used to discuss the question of 
 finances in Manitoba, when I had occa- 
 sion to deal with finances In opposition, 
 we used to divide the public expenditure 
 Into two classes, one we called for the bene- 
 fit of the people, and the other for running^ 
 the machine ; and we always claimed that 
 the Government spent too much in running 
 the machine, and too little for the benefit 
 of the people. Now, If you are going to 
 classify these matters, immigration comes 
 into tlie class for the benefit of the people, 
 and legislation for running the machine. 
 The hon. gentleman cuts off iR70.000 for 
 immigration, and he puts $120,000 on to 
 legislation. Then we come to militia. The 
 hon. gentleman makes a cut there of $263,- 
 
18 
 
 398. Now, I must saj' that I sympathize 
 with the hon. ^'cntleinan in that case. I 
 have long thouglit there was a chance for 
 oconoiny ; but it seems to me one of the 
 strangest things in tiie world to have a 
 Militia Department, a .NUuister of Militia, 
 a General, all tlie paraphernalia of an army, 
 schools, clotliing, olticers, colonels, majors. 
 brigadiers, adjutants genoral, drill sheds, 
 guns, a full-tledged department, everytldng 
 In the militia, except the soldiers. The hon. 
 gentleuiiin proijoscd in liis estimates to 
 cut out the soldiers, lie woidd liave every 
 other requisite for the defence of Canada 
 except the one unimportant Item of soldiers. 
 But tlu> Dominion Association knew some- 
 thing about militia If the (Joveniment did 
 not. Perhaps there is some excuse for 
 the Minister, as he liad not been long in his 
 department. Tlie (luvernmout did not 
 
 know anything aliout militia, and they did 
 not know that it was necessary, for the 
 purpose of having an effective militia, to 
 have some soldiers. The Donuniou Asso- 
 ciation came down liero and pointed out to 
 the Minister of Finance and tlie :Minister 
 of ^lilitia, and then tlioy said : Well, we 
 think you are right, we tliiuk we had better 
 have some soldiers ; and. the hon. gentle- 
 man proposes to violate the solemn pledge 
 which he made on tlie tloor of this House 
 only a few days ago, that under no possible 
 circumstauii's would there be supidement- 
 ary estimates in order to get tliese soldiers, 
 in order to have that trifling addition to tlie 
 Militia Department, as well as all these 
 other things 1 iuive mentioned. The lion, 
 gentleman make.' a cut in railways and 
 canals. Now that was very easy to do, 
 because I find tliat there are !f2.'50,095 of 
 items that were in last year that have dis- 
 appeared this yeai". But the decrease is 
 not in salaries by any means. If the lion, 
 gentleman had dismissed a lot of useh'ss 
 men that he has throughout the country 
 on these railways, he would have been do- 
 ing something good ; but he has cut off tlie 
 expenditure in public works, in canals and 
 railways, which expenditure, if it had been 
 applied properly, would have been for the 
 benefit of the people. Instead of making 
 a change, he actually makes an increase 
 here again of about $.50,000, while he claims 
 a decrease of !i>183,000. The great bulk of 
 the hon. gentleman's savings come from 
 public works, the very last department on 
 which the hon. gentleman ought to econo- 
 mize, on the principle I laid down tliat 
 economy should be practised in the expendi- 
 ture for running the machine. The money 
 that goes to the people, that develops the 
 country, that improves navigation, that 
 erects useful public works, that erects pub- 
 lie buildings where they are required, is 
 not the kind of expenditure which the Lib- 
 erals propose to reduce. Tliey propose to 
 expend that money in a great deal better 
 and more proper way than hon. gentlemen 
 opposite, who have proposed to make their 
 
 reduction in the other direction. The hon. 
 gentleman makes the great bulk of his re- 
 duction in this direction, and from the ex- 
 perience we have with the hon. gentleman, 
 I am afraid not much real reduction will 
 be maile in this respect. It Is very easy 
 for the hon. ;;f)ntlemau to strike these items 
 
 out of Ids estiiiuiles. It is also very easy 
 to go on and promise to do work and com- 
 
 ; iiieiu-e it, and ihen bring in tin? eslimutes 
 after tiic elections. Tliat is what the lion, 
 gentlemen have done before. They have 
 
 I been paying no attention to I'arllament. 
 I'arllament is the very last authority they 
 
 i have considered in the question of expendi- 
 
 '] ture. They knew tliat all they had to do 
 
 I was to put an Item in and have it go 
 through, whether I'arllament was sitting 
 
 1 or not. They were -always prepared to 
 promise a public work hero, a public Avork 
 there, to enter Into enormous obligation on 
 
 : the part of the country, knowing full well 
 
 ; that all they had to do would be to come 
 
 i to thi' House and i)ut it in tiie estimates. 
 
 ' I say that is no test whatever. It would 
 be some test if the lion, gentleman had 
 undertaken to cut down the cost of running 
 
 I the machine, liad actually got rid of those 
 barnacles, got rid of tliose Incapaljles. We 
 
 : could see that, but what they have done 
 Is to strike out this expenditure for public 
 
 I work, telling the country tliat they are 
 economizing instead of adding to the public 
 works. Tlie next matter tliat I see is 
 Mounted I'olice. Well, I shall leave the 
 hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. 
 
 ' Davini to deal wltli tlie question of reduc- 
 tion in tlie number of the Mounted Police. 
 
 j Now, I find that since the Mackenzie ve- 
 
 j irime tlu^ inci-ease in tlie expenditure of 
 tlie country has been .'i;l4,081,807. That is 
 tlie iiicre.Mse in 1S!)1 as compared with 
 1878. Now, It must be admitted there should 
 have been some increase. It umst be ad- 
 mitted tliat if the Liberals had been in 
 l)ower tliere would liave been an increase, 
 but If we allow tlie (Jovernment to increase 
 the expenditure in proportion to the popula- 
 tion, we make them a vQvy lilieral allow- 
 ance. But that is not necessary, because 
 the population can be increased by a very 
 considerable percentage more than the ex- 
 penditure is increased. It is just like a 
 wliolesale business. Every wholesaler will 
 tell you that when his total volume of busi- 
 ness Is small, the ratio of expense to profit 
 is large, but as their total volume of trade 
 increases, they do not have to Increase their 
 expenses In anything like the same pro- 
 portion. The sjime rule ajjplies to govern- 
 ment. As the population Increases the ex- 
 penses of government do not increase in 
 the same proportion. Therefore, I say that 
 if we allow au increase of expenditure in 
 the same proportion as the Increase of 
 population, we allow a good deal more than 
 should be allowed. I think that allowing 
 22 per cent for an increase of the popula- 
 tion during that period la a very liberal 
 
—yw'" 
 
 19 
 
 estimate. From 1878 to 1894, 22 per ceni 
 is more than the actual Increese, so far as 
 we have auy statistics to guide us. Now, 
 $5,170,091 in expe'uUture would have been 
 a iiorniiil increase, whereas the actual In- 
 creuso w;i.s .>:;l-1.081.8(57, maklnj; $8,911,173 
 per annum by which these gentlemen have 
 Increas . the expenditure with no possible 
 excuse. Now, I say it is a most moderate 
 proposition for the Liberal party to make 
 —I am not saying this, of course, on behalf 
 of tlie Liberal party because I have no 
 authority to do so— but I put it forward as 
 one principle of our policy, and I say it is 
 a most moderate proposition to make, that 
 no government, actuated by a desire for 
 real economy, upon coming into power, 
 should make a saving of less than one-half 
 that amount, or, putting it in round figures, 
 four million dollars per rinnmn. 1 shall be 
 very much disappointed, Indeed, if the Lib- 
 eral Government, which is soon to come in- 
 to power, does not nialce a saving of 
 $4,0(X>.()()0 per annum on the expenditure. 
 Tlie Minister of Railways says that prac- 
 tically there are no controllable items. The 
 uncontrollal)le items are five in number : 
 Interest on the public debt, cliarges of 
 management, sinking fund, pensions, sub- 
 sidies to provinces. All the other expendi- 
 tures of the Government are controllable, 
 the expenditure I'm- public M'orlvS, for raiJ- 
 M'ays and canals and for other departments. 
 It would be better if tlie expenditures on 
 certain departments, such ng civil govern- 
 nient and legislation were reduced, because 
 they can be largely reduced without doing 
 any damage to the public service ; but they 
 are all controllable, and among them it is 
 very easy for a capable and economical gov- 
 ->rnment, which we shall soon have in this 
 country, to make a moderate saving of 
 $4,000,000 out of .$8,911,173, which hon. gen- 
 tlemen liave unduly incurred. The reason 
 that hon. gentlemen opposite are not ready 
 tc> grapple with tliis question is because they 
 are incapable. Tlie country has come to 
 the eonclu!»ion that the Government of the 
 day are incapable to meet the problems 
 forced on them in Canada's interest. The 
 hon. gentltMoan who preceded me dealt with 
 the question of the National Policy, and I 
 shall leave that to be dealt with by the hon. 
 gentleman who will follow me. I have only 
 a word or two to say with respect to the 
 cliarga he made, and which has been made 
 by others that the policy of the Liberal party 
 had been changed and had become a policy 
 of free trade. I wish to say no to that 
 statement. I say the policy of the Liberal 
 party, so far as the tariff is concerned, is 
 the policy of Canada as it was in the Con- 
 servative ])eriod from 1808 to 1873, and as it 
 was in the Liberal period from 1874 to 1878. 
 I have said myself to the people of the 
 North-west Territories that the Liberal party 
 have made a pledge that when they came 
 into power every vestige of protection would 
 
 disappear from the tariff. I meant by that 
 statement that I understood the Liberal 
 leaders meant that where there Is an item 
 of taxation, the effect of which is protective 
 only, or so far as it is protective only, that 
 is to exclude exports 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Prohibitive. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. That such would be done 
 away. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Then you need not do away 
 with much. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, Of course we would have 
 to raise our revenue, as in previous years. 
 It is not proposed by the Liberal party to 
 change the fiscal system in Canada 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Hear, hear. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN— as it was understood to 
 prevail from 1868 to 1878. They do not In- 
 tend that. They intend to raise a revenue 
 by a tariff for revenue, and where a tariff for 
 revenue has the effect of giving protection 
 to those industries which jlre suited to Can- 
 ada, all right. Reference was made by the 
 Minister of Militia to an old speech deliv- 
 ered by the hon. member for Brant (Mi*, 
 raterson), in which he stated it was his 
 policy to encourage industries natural to 
 tills country. That is still the policy of the 
 Tiiberal party. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Robbers. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. No, it is no robbery, and 
 no plunder for the Government to take from 
 the people that money which is necessary 
 to carry on tlie affairs of the Government ; 
 but it is robbery, it is pL.nder for hon, 
 gentlemen to put an item in the tariff which 
 brings no money into the treasury, but 
 places large sums in the pockets of million- 
 aires, sugar millionaires, cotton millionaires, 
 whom the hon. gentleman's policy has ci'e- 
 ated. 
 
 Mr. LISTER. Who are the Government 
 of the country. In fact. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. The hon. gentleman re: 
 ferred to the visit made by IMr. Laurier to 
 Winnipeg last fall and the meetings held 
 there, and he declared that Mr. Laurier 
 stated that the policy of the Liberal party 
 was free trade as it was in England. The 
 hon. leader of the Opposition made no such 
 statement What my lion, friend did was 
 to outline the policy as I have attempted 
 to lay it down, and what he did point out 
 was, that while as regards a fiscal policy 
 the Conservative party look for their inspi- 
 ration to Washington and' to the American 
 Republic to the south of us, the Liberal 
 party look for their inspiration to grand 
 old England. 
 
 Mr. DAVIN. I will point out to the hon. 
 gentleman that in the Winnipeg " Free 
 Press " of 5th September last, he will find 
 
20 
 
 f 
 
 a verbatim report of the speecb, In which 
 Mr. liUurler Hays that his policy la free 
 trade as they huve It In England. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. I heard Mr. Laurler speak. 
 I do not know whether the House will call 
 it a matter of taste or not, but I really think 
 if I bad been Finance Minister I would not 
 have alluded to Mr. Laurler's visit to Win- 
 nipeg. The Finance Minister, accompanied 
 by the Minister of AKrlcultiirc, came to Win- 
 nipeg— a Minister of the Crown, and one of 
 its leading Ministers came to the city, which 
 had uninterruptedly sent supporters of his 
 Government to this House since 1879. The 
 hon. gentleman came there witli everything 
 in his favour, for the purpose of holding 
 a public meeting to glorify liimself and his 
 Administration. He had a torch-light pro- 
 cession, and he held a meeting In a large 
 hall, and I am within the mark when I say 
 that never at any time were tliere present to 
 listen to the words of wisdom and eloquence 
 of that gentleman more than 300 or 400 
 people. Mr. Laurier, sitting In tlie cool 
 shades of Opposition, came to Winnipeg 
 and held a meeting there In the large rink, 
 which is capal>l'» of holding 3,000 or 4,000 
 people. At half-pnst seven, the meeting 
 having been called for eight o'clock. It was 
 not possible to get a seat, and there were 
 more people when the meeting was ready 
 to commence, hanging on the roof to listen 
 to the words of wisdom that fell from that 
 great statesman, than there were to listen 
 to the Finance Minister. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. What has that to do wl^h 
 what he said ? 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. What he said was merely 
 following out what he has been saying to 
 
 the people of this House and throughout the 
 country for years. The people came to hear 
 Mr. I.aurler because they had heard of him, 
 because they knew ho was the leader of the 
 great Liberal party. While I charge hon. 
 gentlemen opposite with being incapable to 
 deal with the questions of the day, I have 
 the greatest pride In sitting here, a member 
 of this House and a nieraber of the Liberal 
 party which has at Its head a gentleman 
 wlio i.s capable in every sense of the 
 word of lining the grisxt ottlce which 
 Is waiting for him so soon as hon. gen- 
 tlemen <)i)iioMlte give the word. It is 
 Impossible, since the Hon. Mr. Laurler 
 became the leader of the Opposition In this 
 House to point to one single mlatake that he 
 has made as leader. He has the unquall- 
 fled support of over:\'' single man who sits 
 behind him in this House. He Is a man, 
 Sir, who during all these years has been 
 able to lead so successfully his party 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON (Leeds and Grenvllle). To 
 defeat. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. 
 
 :Mr. LISTER, 
 funds. 
 
 No, never to defeat 
 You squander the public 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. Down In Quebec. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. No. never defeat, but to 
 real success. The man who Is capable of 
 leading In such splendid style, his party in 
 opposition, proves himself possessed of those 
 qualities of head and heart which fit him 
 for the position of Premier of this Canada 
 of ours, a position in which the Liberal 
 party, aided by the votes of the independent 
 electors of the country, propose to place him 
 at an early luoraeut, Just so soon as hon. 
 gentlemei opposite give the word. 
 
 / 
 
 ,'( 
 
 * '4 
 
 Bss>s»»