IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^<p

1.0

I.I

1.25

1 1.4

1^ II 2.2

1.6

.-^

% ^^ >

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

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/

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

le pelure,

pon d

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:

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.

House of Commons debates

FIFTH SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT

SPEECH

J. MAETD^, M.P.

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 :—

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

< •

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,

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

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

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

♦•

(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,

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.

«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-

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:

:\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^

r
t

.s
(1
(I
ti

II
w

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

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,-

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'"

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

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»»