Skip to main content

Full text of "Sir Richard J. Cartwright's reply to the budget speech delivered in the House of Commons, Feb. 29th, 1884"

See other formats

irrus*£ <»fl dfomnums §tbate& 




Delivered in the House of CommoDS, Feb. 29th, 1884. 

Mr» Speaker, having been prevented by 
in express provision of an Act of Parlia- 
ment to that intent made and provided, 
from being present last year when 
the hon. gentleman made his financial 
.statement, I am not quite as familiar as 
I could wish to be with the course of the 
discussion in 188'J. But I will venture 
to say, although I was not present then, 
that I have very little doubt that the 
hon. gentleman on that occasion took a 
very differ^ nt tone, and struck a very dif- 
ferent attitude from that which he has as- 
.sumed tonight. Sir, it was not for nothing 
that the hon. gentleman in the pro- 
sent instance, found it necessary to apolo- 
gise and defend, and excuse as far as he 
could, as well as he knew how, the policy- 
of which he has been the exponent' for so ; 
long. • 

Some Remarkable Admissions.- 

] [o undoubtedly made some remark- 
able admissions to which I shall direct 
your attention and the attention of 
the House. The horn gentleman told us, 
and told us truly enough, that it is 

sle for his 

production and 

aanulacturers or 






policy to 

the loss of 

is pe 

prevent a decrease in the value of goods, 
nor could it check over-importations.. 
All true, Mr. Speaker. But why is it 
that these economic truths are now dawn- 
ing for the first time upon the hon.. 
gentleman and his followers i Were not 
those things as true when my honorable 
friend beside me, (Mr. Mackenzie) pre- 
sided over tlte affairs of Canada as they 
are to-day '(■ Were any allowance^ then 
made by — »ot the hon. gentleman who 
was at that time snug and safe at Fre- 
dericton while other hon. gentlemen 
were bearing the heat and burthen of the 
day — not by the hon. gentlemen, I say, 
but by the hon. gentleman who I see 
sitting beside him. Wkat excuse were 
they willing to make, for my honorable 
friend when precisely these very things' 
occurred, only in a far greater degree, in 
a: ar more intensified degree, and when 
in consequence of those things, my hon,. 
friend was obliged to struggle for some 
considerable time with financial difficul- 
ties. Sir, I hail it as a sign of improve- 
ment that the hon. gentleman at last, 
after a long time, is waking up to what 
the country is also waking up, that this 
policy, whatever it may be, is no panacea, 
that it won't save the dountry hard times, 
that it won't save the single man. Now 
onorable gentleman admitted 
rs ; but the honorable gentleman 
habit of not tellino- U g when 

7 7 

he makes these financial statements, all 
the expenditure which we are likely to 
incur in consequence of his policy. On 
the present occasion he told us, it is true, 
what we could guess without his telling 
u^, that, in addition to the estimates we 
have here, doubtless large supplementary 

nates are going to be brought down. 
We arc accustomed to that. It is a mis- 
fortune a misfortune from which I 
admit neither Government was quite free 
that besides the facts detailed on the 
first occasion of making the Budget 
statement, there are genera 1 ly other facts 
not then detailed, involving considerable 
additions to our expenditure. In my 
time, . I can only say, I tried to 
keep those expenditures as low as possible. 
I was not always successful, any more 
than the hon. gentleman. But the hon. 
gentleman gave us a hint that probably a 
million more than the estimates would be 
required. He dealt in the most gingerly 
fashion possible with the other question 
of how many millions this railway exten- 
sion policy of which he spoke w r as to cost 
— of what additional interest charge to 
the country it would involve. Now, 
surely the hon. gentleman, when making 
the financial statement, could tell us 
whether we are going to spend S4,000, 
000, or $8,000,000, or $12,000,000, 

"• the gu^se of a railway ex 
tension policy. Sure'y we ought to 
know that. Surely the hon. gentle- 
man will not refuse to tell us roughly— I 
I. that he should tell us exactly ; 
hat rarely be can tell us within a million 
or two what this railway extension 

v is likely to cost us. It is a ques- 
tion ff interest. It has been a question 
of 'mi a great many of the sup- 

porters of the bon. gentleman, and I 
think we ought to know what the final 
How many millions } 
Perhaps the hon. Minister ■ f liailv 

• many millions. We 
bav( .viih so many milli ns 

1 ••• -ly, ihi millions more or less 

toi in the least discompose the hon. 

' "i •>". I do not ; but 

the bill 


This is the time. Surely we ought to 
know. How many more millions are going 
to be added to the debt of the country., 
I think i Mr. Speaker, that they are not 
dealing quite fairly with the House and 
the country, or their own supporters, in 
keeping that inteiesting information at 
the back of their heads. Now, I do not 
suppose the hon. gentleman is going to 
repeat the process which he carried out 
in 1873. Then I recollect, he brought 
down a Budget statement; but, although 
he must have been well aware of what 
was in contemplation, he did not tell us* 
if my memory serves me, by $3,000,000 
a year, what was to be the total expen- 
diture under the new obliga ions which 
the country was going to. Sir, I do not 
suppose he is going to add $3,000,000 in 
the present instance to our expenditure : 
but he is going to add a considerable 
sum, and what the sum i*, I repeat^ we 
ought to know. 

The Spirit of Prophecy. 

Now, I would like to have heard from 
the hon. gent'em&n a little more fully, a 
justification of the present enormous 
taxation. I would like to have been in- 
formed, a little more fully than he has 
condescended to tell us, what his policy 
is going to be in the event of a large re- 
duction of imports : and I would like 
that for two reasons. The hon. gentle- 
man knows — indeed he admits — that it 
is a thino very likely to happen; and 
more, he, tells us that it is very desirable- 
Tie- year ot all years which lie held up, 
and always has held up as a model year, 
is that especial year in which our exports 
slightly exceeded our imports. Well, Sir, 
if his policy is going to be as successful 
in the future a,s it has been in the past, 
if our imports are going to 1x3 i educed 
ho as to just balance our exports, then it 
-s clear, on the hon. gentleman's own 
showing, that we must expect a very 
large redaction of revenue ; and we have 
some right to know how be proposes to 

meet that reduction, in such event. 
Sir, the hon. gentleman, in dealing with 
this question, and with the recent con- 
dition of the country, was in a difficulty, 
and a lather serious difficulty. By his 
own language, on the last occasion of his 
making a financial statement, he had 
practically estopped himself from Iflokinsj 
the situation in the face. On that 
occasion the spirit of prophecy descen- 
ded on the hon. gentleman — or 
rather, I should say a spirit of prophecy 
decended on him. There are differences 
in spirit which probably the hon. gentle- 
man did not understand. He was good 
enough to tell us then that we need take 
no fear for the future — carry on all sail, 
quoth the hon. gentleman, I am at the 
helm, and you are safe for seven years. 
Now, Sir, he has given several reasons 
for the depression which exists. I will 
give another: It was the misplaced 
confidence which his supporters in the 
House and in the country put in the hon. 
gentleman's prophetical vision on that 
occasion. Sir, I was a little at a loss to 
understand exactly what the hon. gentle- 
man's speech implied in the matter of 
depression. One-half of his speech, as I 
understand it, was taken up in showing 
that there was no depression, and the 
other half in assigning reasons for the 
existence of the depression. As my hon. 
friend knows, I am not a profound lawyer, 
but it does occur to me that there is such 
a thing as an objection to a plea for 
multifariousness. Are we in a state of 
depression, or are we not? I can hardly 
make out, from the speech of the hon. 
gentleman, what particular line he takes 
on the present occasion. It would not 
trouble me whether be took the one or 
the other, for this reason — that T can 
neither agree with his statement that we 
are not in a state of depression, nor with 
his explanation as to the causes which 
have brought about that depression. Sir, 
I do not believe, that there is a man of j 
business in this House or in the countiy \ 
outside who will say, that to-day Canada j 
is in a very satisfactory condition, com- I 
mercially or financially. At tfeis present 
moment, as the hon. gentleman must I 

know, men are apprehensive, men or not 
anxious to enter into new enterprises. 
I am sorry to say that the old enterprises 
are not giving as good an account of them- 
selves as we could wish. Now, I say- 
there is no sufficient cause for that. The 
check which we have encountered is ap- 
parently a slight one. One particular 
crop in one half of a Province- — true, a 
very important Province — has been a 
failure ; but I say that under ordinary 
circumstances that failure should not 
have produced the state of apprehension 
or the state of depression which un- 
doubtedly does exist to a very great ex- 
tent in this country. Sir, I will tell tbu 
hon. gentleman thf.t it is beginning to 
dawn on men's minds, even on the minds 
of his own supporters, that high taxes 
do not insure national prosperity, and 
that wise statesmen will count the cost 
before they throw tens of millions of 
dollars away to aid a company that , may- 
get into difficulties. Now we will take 
s )me of the tests that the hon. gentle- 
man has in former times, aye, and to- 
night, applied, and we will see to what 
extent those tests indicate the present 
condition of the countiy. The hon. 
gentleman sp nt a good deal of time in 
explaining how and why it was that the 
shrinkage in bank stocks was not to be 
taken as a matter of serious moment. I 
do not consider them myself as a matter 
of extreme moment, but I point this out, 
that when those stocks were high the 
hon. gentleman took credit for their 
being high ; he declared that was ot:e of 
the results of his policy. These stocks 
have shrunk to a veiy large extent with- 
in the last twelve months. True, there 
has been a rally in one or two of the 
most important of them within the last 
few weeks, and perhaps certain ^solu- 
tions which lately passed through this 
House might explain to those who wish 
to know why those one or two particu- 
lars stocks have rapidly ascended within, 
the last fortnight or month. Hut the 
fact remains, that the stocks, as a whole, 
are many millions of dollars less in sell- 
ing value to-day than they were this 
time twelve months. Why, even the 

Baal Mi niveal stock sold oo tho 13th 

of Pehrua-y, last year, at -OS J- and to- 
day, aooordinir to the lion, gentleman, 
H fe abW 1 88 or 189, I forget which. 
There .* a large sh'inkage there, even 
k ; h present figures, if he likes. 
I'tuit the hon. gentleman just now al- 
lud'-i to the number of bankruptcies. 
1 do not in the slightest decree con- 



ma tier of con- 
bttion, Hut at the same time, as 
!- Icman chooses to bring the 
-ion up, I may remind him that ac- 
cording to one authority, the amount of 
< rtrpfeci i in Canada w;>s §15,949,000, 
for I8c3, and according to another 
&22,13 5,000, If, as 1 suspect, 
the latter included the failure of tho 
tn J o r iu natf Exchange Bank, 3 am ln- 
r.nma to chink that the latter sum is the 
"r -r and mor^ prop', r one to take in 
st- nutting the extent of the bankruptcies 
inOafiAcfo ri 1883. The hon. gentleman, 
ion serves me, was 
not <•*•!-!-•* i -a --lying that the bankrupt- 
I n I -.»'• 1877 or- L878 wen* double 
aller sum mentioned. I 
k from recollection, but I am positive 
*.h.»t in none of those years aid they reach 
<>00.000 or $32,000,000, which would 
be double of % 16,949,000. I will not. at 
moment, dwell on this other test 
ft the hon. gentlen an gave last year 
8 prosperity ot the manufacturers or 
tontentment "t the people. I may 
bmt ■ ) both those heads. 

t allow me, Sir, to 
: he is v»rv 
eliei ea that, .*«t this 
'1 cities of Canada 
rly the employ 

prosperou - or 

n ; sorrow and 

( Ontario 

id ii h i 

' r» that it is a 


for .i pai f of 

mo'.m \'i r 

fond of 

ill come 

of the increase of population and the 

increase of traffic on our railways. I 

suppose the hon. gentleman is aware 

that for months back the trade of our 

jiaincipal railways has shown a great and 

alarming decrease. That surely is not, 

| in hi* opinion, or in that of any other 

■ hon. gojifcleman, a proof that this country 

| is at this moment in a very prosperous 


Increased Trade with (Jreat Britain. 

i But I desire to say a few words on a 
: matter to which the hon. gentleman aUu- 
; ded in this connection, and to which, if I 
! am not mistaken, some of his colleagues 
i have very often alluded, and that 
| is, the extent to which this hon. 
j gentleman's policy has increased our 
; trade with Great Britain and dirai- 
! nished our trade with the United States. 
Now I do not suppose that the hon. 
j gentleman made that statement with any 
\ intention to deceive the House. I do not 
| accuse him of doing that. But I say that 
the hon. gentleman w r as hardly fair in 
making a comparison between the year 
1883 and the year 1876, in the matter of 
the trade of the two countries. One was 
a prosperous year ; the other was a year of 
considerable depression. However I would 
pass that over, but I will call the atten- 
tion of the House to this, that when 
the hon. gentleman spoke of the imports 
from tho United States in the one year 
and compare tbem with the imports from 
the Tinted States in the other, ho wholly 
and entirely forgot to inform the House 
that under the present Tariff, imposed by 
himsolf, tho nominal imports entered for 
our consumption from the United States 
almost exactly represent our true imports, 
whereas, in 187G, as everybody familiar 
witit the Trade and Navigation Returns 
know.-, our nominal imports from the 
( oited Stairs include a great many 
millions of dollars for .goods that were 
entered in transitu, and simply passed 
through this country on their way to* 
Great Britain. That fact vitiates entire- 
ly the hon, gentleman's comparisons from 
it, I will go back a little fur 

.her. I will take the year 1873, which 
is a fair year of comparison with this 
year of 1883, and ae this point has been 
made a great deal of by the hon. gentle- 
men in this House, and on the other side 
of the Atlantic, I call the special atten- 
tion of the House to the effect which the 
present policy has on our trade with 
Great Britain and the United States. In 
1878, a year which compared fairly with 
the year 1883, our imports from (treat 
Brit -in were $68,522,000 ; our true im- 
ports from the United States in the same 
year, deducting those goods which passed 
in transitu, although they were, under 
the old form, entered for consumption, 
were $40,488,000. Our true exports to 
Great Britain, of cur own products of the 
same }'ear, were $31,486,000 ; our true 
exports to the United States of our own 
produce, deducting short return;-, were 
$37,262,000. What were the facts last 
year — facts well worth knowing] Our 
imports from Great Britain were $52,000, 
000 ; our exports to Great Britain, of our 
own produce, were #39,672,000. Our 
Imports from the United States in these 
goods, which really and actually entered 
into consumption, were $56,000,000 ; 
our sales to the 'United States were 
$35,963,000, as before, striking out short 
returns. Now, Sir, what is the result ? 
Why, the result is this, that asl >et ween the 
yeai*3 1873 and 1883, we purchased from 
Great Britain $16,500,000 less in 1883 
than in 1873, and we purchased from the 
United States $15,500,000 more than we 
did in 1873. We sell to Great Britain, 
of articles of our own production, very 
nearly $8,000,000 more, and we sell to 
the United States $1,250,000 less: so 
that if it does matter particularly, the 
trade between ourselves and Groat 
Britain and ourselves and the United 
States is, at the expiration of the decade 
of ten years, £40,000,000 worse under 
the hon. gentleman's policy than it was 
in 1873. Now, the hon. gentleman 
knows that I am taking those statements 
from his own Trade and Navigation 
Returns. He knows that they cannot be 
controverted, and that they do not show 
the whole of the facts, because it is well 

known to everybody that, in !$73j under 
the old policy, we carried on a large con- 
traband trade with the United States, 
selling them several millions of dollars' 
worth of goods that did not appear in 
our returns, and now, under his policy, 
the United States sell us several mill. oils 
oi dollars worth of goods that do not 
appear in their returns, or ours either. 
Sir, I do not insist very much on the 
question, because I do not regard it, as 
the hon. gentleman appears to do, of very 
groat moment, but it is of moment in thiK 
way, that the hon. gentleman here and 
the hon. gentleman's col leagues elsewhere 
have pointed triumphantly to the facts, 
as they stated them, as proof that this 
was a Tariii which, favoured trade with 
Great Britain, and to a considerable ex- 
tent diminished trade with the United 
States. Now the House, gentlemen on 
this side and gentlemen on that side., 
can judge for themselves how just was 
the boast that our present policy had 
increased our trade with Great Britain,' 
had diminished our inuW with the United 
States. The hon. gentleman Jaii great- 
stress on the amount Of deposits in sav* 
ings 'banks. Now,, as far as it goes, that 
is a good sign, i am not going to dis- 
pute, that, position with the hon. gentle- 
man. But I will call the attention oi 
the House to one or two^acts. First of 
all I call the attention of the House to 
this, that a good -deal of these extra de- 
posits in the savings bank were obtained 
by the hon gentleman by paying interest 
largely in excess ot the corTent market 
rate. When the banks would only give 
8 per cent., the hon. gentleman continued 
to give I. That is to say, he continued 
to pay more for money at call, about one- 
third more, than those who were dealing 
in that commodity thought it was worth. 
Moreover, it is a great mistake to sup- 
that the money which we borrow from, 
the people only costs us 4 per oent. All 
the expenses ot' management, amounting 
from a quarter to a half per oen^, on the 
present deposits, have to be added. 
Moreover, it' he adopts the ordinary rules 
of banking, if he preserves in gold, as he- 
ought to do, a sufficient reserve to meet 


unexpected calls which may come upon 
him, a considerable sum would have to 
be kept in hand — not on deposit in the 
banks, that would not answer in such a 
case, but in gold — without paying interest. 
So that, altogether, the result would be 
that the hon. gentleman is borrowing 
money at, and pays about 25 per 
cent more for it than he would if he had 
borrowed it for a long term from the public 
here or in England Then, there is another 
consideration. The hon. gentleman, it is 
true, has got some 8-0,000.000, or more 
perhaps, from the people of this cout.try 
at call, and a large sum, also at call, in 
the shape of the note circulation. Now, 
I do not regard the no f e circulation as 
likely to bo a serious source of embarrass- 
ment, but it is quite on the cards that the 
hon. gentleman one of days may be 
called upon for a considerable portion of 
these deposits. I do not say that it will 
happen. None of us can venture to say 
what will occur, but I say there is a 
chance of such an occurrence, and under 

00 circumstances is it wise or prudent to 
borrow a considerable sum of money at 
call, and to pay considerably more for it 
than you can obtain the money for for a 
fixed period of definite duration. Then, 

all sure that the fact that the 

pie of (.'ami da are not able to employ 

that large sum of mom y to better advan- 

. is at all a proof 

things are hi a prosperous condition. 

1 would rather say it was a proof that we 

i .' biug the stationary si 

tha' culty in employing 

Canada o good ad • ntage. I 

that a -kJm an would 

1 mount of money on 

banks in 

i ! • proof thai the 

as he would 

■ do. If they w< re, it would 

>ui and used in other ways, in 

I develop- 

;t hundred different 

> be betfe r employed, I 

■ th< >'• really prosperous, 

to the hon. 

i Lq more 

in which he 

; may find it rather difficult, at some time 
; or other, to recover it. 


I Repudiate Animosity to Manufacturers . 

i Now, I agree with the hon. gentleman 
iione respect. The hon. gentleman said 
that this was a in it time to review our 
position, a fit time to consider the plat 
forms of the two parties in this countrv 
with respect to its financial man- 
agement. As I understand it, the 
platform of the Liberal party was, and 
is, that it is the duty of a wise Govern- 
ment to keep down the taxes and to keep 
down the expenditure of a country, in the 
position of Canada, as low as it fairly can. 
We say also, fcir, that it is the interest of 
the people of Canada that, so far as the 
Government can make or keep it so, Can- 
ada should be a cheap country to live in, 
a country where a man's wages should go 
far, a country where a man could obtain 
a good return for the money he has to lay 
out, and, for that reason, we say it is a. 
folly to impose heavy taxation on the 
great mass of the community for the tem- 
porary benefit of a small portion of the 
manufacturing interest. I repudiate 
most utterly, for my Belt and for my 
friends here, every imputation that we 
have the smallest animosity towards the 
manufactures of Canada. I repudiate 
that entirely. 1 say that we are the true 
friends of the great bulk of the manu- 
facturers of Canada. I say we are 
their true friends, and I say that every- 
thing that tends to impoverish the bulk 
of the people, who are the customers of 
the great mass of the manufacturers, 
tends to endamage the great mass of the 
manufacturers. 1 say that the hon. 
gentleman's policy is trebly foolish in this 
respect, in view of the fact that Canada 
has an enormous stake in developing the 
great country to the north west of us ; 1 
say that his policy is especially adapted 
to retard and impede that development, 
and to put every possible obstacle in the 
way of the unfortunate sottler who may 
trust Ids fortunes in the North-Wcst 
under tho present Government. In 
all these points, tho policy of the 

hon. gentleman, as defined by him- 
self and by his colleagues, is directly 
in opposition to ours. They hold that 
it is well to heap up taxes and to heap up 
expenditure ; they hold, and the Minister 
of Finance, has often explained, that it 
Is the interest of tho people that things in 
Canada should be dear ; they hold that it 
is the interest of the great mass of the 
population that a small number of persons 
should be subsidized at their expense ; 
they hold that the way to help and to 
develope the North-West is to put 
on taxes, and to make the small 
capital at the settler's command go 
as short a way as possible. On all these 
points we have ever taken issue with the 
hon. gentleman- we take issue now, and 
we will continue to take issue, and we 
will do our best to explain to the people 
on all occasions- how exceedingly they 
have been deceived by the sophistries, not 
so much of the hon. gentleman as of those 
who sit beside him, and who, as I said, 
uoceeded five or six years ago in convert - 
ng the people for the time to their view 
of the matter. Now, Sir, I will say one 
thing for these gentlemen, they have lived 
up to their creed, they have done their 
utmost to raise taxation to the highest 
point, they have done their utmost to raise 
the expenditure of Canada to the highest 
point, and it is not the first time, either. 
NTow, we have had five years' experience, 
und I say as well as the hon. gentlemen, 
that the time has come when we can see 
what we have really done, and also at 
what cost it has been done. Sir, the hon. 
gentleman defines his policy as a great 
experiment. He said the truth. It was 
a great experiment, and it was an experi- 
ment which at the time it was tried had 
everything in its favour. We had hard 
times -by no fault of tho late Adminis- 
tration ; we had the example of the 
United States, which no doubt had a 
very great influence on many of our 
f>eople ; we had the clamour of a small 
and influential class who saw their own 
private interest in assisting the hon. 
gentlemen ; they were able to make 
magnificent promises ; promises cost 
nothing, and they made them freely, and 

therefore they did succeed in persuading 
the people of Canada to try the experi- 
ment which, as the hon. gentleman says 
they have just been putting into action. 
Then, when the experiment was tried, 
they were favoured by a rather remark- 
able combination of accidenl s. I do not 
j suppose the honorable Minister of 
\ Finance, although he has said some 
| rather strange things, although h« has 
| advanced some rather curious theories — I 
; do not suppose that he, although I have 
I no doubt some of his f ollowers are quite 
capable of saying it, and perhaps of be- 
lieving it— I do not suppose the hon. 
gentleman is going to tell us that the 
fact that in 1879, and shortly after, money 
became extraordinarily cheap and plenti- 
ful in New York, in London, Paris, 
Amsterdam, and almost in all the great 
centres in commerce in the world, was 
produced by the National Policy adopted 
in Canada ; and yez, Sir, that was a very 
important factor in the condition of the 
people of Canada, that undoubtedly 
proved a great benifit, and they reaped 
a great advantage from the fact that 
money at that time had became cheap 
and plentiful in all the money centres of 
the world. Almost at that same time, 
there took place, as every man knows, a 
great revival in the United States. Now' 
I am always happy to agree with the hon. 
gentleman if I can ; it is not often, I am 
sorry to say, that I can do so ; and I en- 
; tirely concur with him in saying that, the 
prosperity of Canada is very intimately 
connected with tho prosperity of the 
United States ; but I do not believe, Sir, 
that the fact that we imposed very heavy 
taxes in Canada had a great deal to do 
with the other fact, that trade and com- 
merce throughout the length and breadth 
of the United States revived in 1879, 
and I hardly think the hon. gentleman 
himself will venture to say so. Then, 
Sir, added to these things, we had, as 
I everybody knows, extraordinary good 
; harvests and extraordinary good prices — 
| produced by the National Policy, were 
; they ? No ; but by the fact that, unfpr- 
| tunately in England, Ireland, and on 
I the continent of Europe, they were bad 

harvests at the identical time that we 
had good ones, so that we had at once un- 
usually good prices and an unusual 
quantity of things to sell. Then, Sir, 
theNorthAV<-t was opened up, and be- 
yond all doubt for a time that gave a 
great impetus to trade and business in 
Canada. Had it been wisely and well 
done, had it been wisely and well admin- 
istered, it would have continued to 
give a great impetus up to this time. 
And Sir, last bat by no means 
Least; the hon. gentleman had the advan- 
ia?" of coming into otnee and reaping the 
fruits of live years of honest and prudent 
Administration under my hon. friend 
from East York (Mr. Mackenzie, 

Advantage of five years good Govern* 

{Sir, I am astonished at the ingratitude 
of hon. gentlemen opposite -as regards 
myself, 1 do not expect much gratitude 
from them - I waived my claims ; but 
they ought to be grateful to my horn, 
friend beside me. If the hon. gentleman 
supposes for one moment, if the hon. 
Minister of Customs supposes that lam 
here as a craven apologist, he makes a 
i ' I '. I am here not merely to 
defend but to justify and to maintain the 
whole conduct of my hon. friend during 
tiis Administration. 

Mr. BOWELL. Andtbdefend your 
own cendurt ' 

i prop»ired to do 1km h. 

Mr. BOWELL, ft is not verygener- 



. for generosity. This 

on of generosity, but of fact 

ad truth. Bir, I do not denj there was 

depr of ray hon. friend's 

Vdm i f'ji- re necessarily 

is ten times more 
1 ited St:*.-. - than in Oanada at 

vir. m -k. M/i.v itiitifccii 

i do noi deny that my lion, friend 

I do not claim for him 

bi 1 1 infaUil I i nj he made 

mistakes, and more, Sir, I will tell tin- 
horn gentleman what were the mistakes 
my hon. friend made. My hon. friend, 
in the excess of his zeal for the public 
service, greatly ovcr-exertod his physical 
strength ; that was one mistake. My 
hon. iriend, in the excess of the kindli- 
ness of his heart, was far too generous to 
hon. gentlemen opposite ; that was 
another mistake. I admit, also, that in 
the excess of his patrotism, he somewhat 
over-estimated the sense of honesty and 
intelligence of a certain portion of 
his countrymen. Now, Sir, those are 
faults which I will admit on the part of 
my hon. friend ; and to do justice to the 
hon. gentlemen opposite, I will further 
say that they are faults that there is not 
the slightest danger any of them, collec- 
tively or individually, will ever commit. 
Sir, I am prepared to maintain, here or 
elsewhere, that whatever my hen, friend's 
mistakes may have been; his policy was 
substantially wise and just and good, and' 
that it would have been in finitely better 
for Canada had it been carried out from 
that day to this. Sir, it was a great mis- 
fortune that, prior to 1873, Canada 
neglected the warnings and the cautions 
which were given to htr by that ho*, 
gentleman and his friends. It was 
Canada's folly that, in 1878, she held him 
responsible, because those identical results, 
had occurred, which he had showed must 
occur in certain contingencies, if those 
warnings were neglected or disregarded. 
It has not been the first time — it won't be 
the last — when men like ray hon. friend, 
for doing all that mortal men could do 
for the benefit of their country, have 
found themselves treated with ingratitude 
by the country. 

Mr. WHI T E { Ha stings). It was your 
friends who turned him out. 

think the people made a great mistake in 
deposing my hon. friend in 1878; and 
I will tell the hon. gentleman more, that 
perhnps in his he.-irt of hearts he is be- 
ginning to think that too. Now, Sir, 
how stands the case today? The hon. 
gentleman has given us his explanations. 
• f bells um, if I took down his words 

aright, that one cause, anions other things, 
of the present depression, is the fact that 
our lumber industry is not as good as it 
was. < Now I will just call his attention 
to this. It may )*: true, F dare say it is 
true, that during the ensuing six months 
our lumber industry may slacken, but I 
see in the returns laid on the Table, 
inat whereas, during the last six months 
of 1882, we had exported of products of 
the forest. $18,090,000, wo had exported 
in the last six months of 1883, 
$18,183,000 worth. Now, Sir, that can- 
noc be urged as proof of any present 
depression. There may be risk in tuture 
—I am not prepared to say there is not ; 
but the fact that we sold §100,000 worth 
of lumber up to 1st January, 1884, more 
than up to 1st January, 1883, shows 
that that is not a cause of the distress 
which has occurred up to the present 
time. He talks also of over-production 
and of the poor harvest. Well, I will 
agree that all those things are factors in 
the matter. But there are other causes, 
and I will tell the hon. gentleman and 
the House what those causes are. 

Reasons for Depression. 

Canada to-day is distressed, there is 
no doubt of it, and 1 am afraid the rea- 
sons are these. First of all, because a 
great deal of the money of the people has 
been taken from them by excessive, 
unjust and oppressive taxation. Next, 
8ir, because the policy of the Govern- 
ment has caused a great lock up of capital 
in manufactures which were not wanted 
in so small a country as this. Then, Sir, 
a very considerable loss, as to which I 
will have a good deal to say hereafter, 
has been caused by the emigration which 
has taken place from Ontario and Canada 
at large, also largely caused by the policy 
of hon. gentlemen opposite. The 
fourth cause is the locking up of capital 
which has taken place in the North- West, 
for which also I will show those hon. 
gentlemen are responsible. And the 
fifth cause is the inoreased cost of living, 
for which the hon. gentleman's Tariff and 
and its indirect results are seriously 

I responsible. 1 do not deny that the poor 
; harvest in western Ontario has done its 
i share ; but 1 say that of all those causes, 
far the greater number and the more im- 
portant ones are directly attributable ts 
the policy of the present Government. 
Now, Hir, we come to the question of fehe 
iirst causa — the onerous taxation — and 
here then; are a few considerations 
to be presented to the House. Iher^ 
is the nominal taxation, the amount paid 
into the Treasury ; there is, in the next 
place, the amount taken out of the pocket* 
of the people, which does not go into the 
Treasury, but which is paid to a few 
hundreds of men scattered throughout tho 
Dominion. The hon. Finance Minister 
disputed some of the assertions of the hon. 
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) 
;is to I he extent of that. I do not suppose 
any intelligent protectionist can be found 
who will deny the plain and simple fact 
that, whether protection in itself be good 
or bobad, Whether protection does or docs 
not make us an adequate return — from 
the very nature of the case, protection 
-must be costly, from the very nature of 
the case if you impose a taxation of 
20, 30 or 10 per cent., as the case 
may be, to exclude certain goods, 
and cause others to be manufactured in 
the country, just in proportion as you in- 
crease the manufacture you must impose 
a large additional tax on the ;>eople. I 
do not suppose the Minister of Finance 
himself will venture to deny that pro- 
position ; I am sure those of h s supporters 
who have looked into the question will not 
venture to do so. Now, I am not going 
to speak of the indirect effects of protec- 
tion ; I am going to speak of the things to 
which thehon. gentleman has alluded him- 
self. And first of all, we will take the arti- 
cle of sugar. The hon. gentle man gays that 
sugar is very cheap to-day. It may be sa 
The hon. gentleman was good enough to 
tell us that it is cheaper to-day inan it 
was four or five years ago. It may bo so* 
That does not affect the argument at alL 
Our position is this: under the Tariff of 
the hon. gentleman, sugar is much dearer 
than it need be, after deducting the sum 
which goes into the Treasury. To- 


day, I am informed by men of high 
standing in the trade, you could put down 
at Montreal, free of duty, those classes 
of sugar which are most in demand in 
Canada, at the rate of $5 per 100 lbs. I 
am informecl by those gentlemen also, 
that if they buy those sugars from Can- 
adian refineries they have to pay $8 per 
100 lbs., being an excess ot £3. We 
consumed in 1883, 152,000,000 lbs. of 
sugar. I will allow a large percentage, 
12,000,000, to go into the accounts for 
the waste in converting that into such 
sugar as the people require: but every 
man can see for himself that if you could 
buy that sugar at 5 cents per lb., duty 
free, and are obliged t© pay 3 cents more 
to the refiner, what the cost to the peo- 
ple of Canada that extra 3 cents per lb. 
is. It is $1,500,000. Of that 
sum $2,467,000 went into the 
Treasury, and $1,500,000 was lost. 
That is the state of the case now 
under the hon. gentleman's Tariff. So, 
Sir, we find this result. In 1878 we 
imported 108,0(0,000 pounds. Our duty 
then was largely below our duty now 
our duty then was about 25 per cent less 
than it is to-day on the grades of sugar 
which go into consumption. In that time 
wo have added about 30 per cent to our 
consumption, and we have added 25 per 
cent to our duty, and the result is that 
we have received $1 00,000 less monev. 
"We obtiined $2,567,000 in 1878, with 
a lower scalo of duties, on 108,000,000 
Jbs. of sugar; on 158,000,000 lbs. in 1883 
ve received $2,470,000, although we have 
added largely to the duties. There is an 
illustration, if the hon. gentleman wants 
it. I do not mean to say there may not 

ome counterbalancing advantages to 
be offered, that some trade may not be 
brought to Montreal by that policy, That 
is not the point. I am not arguing 
wkether protection is good or not. But 
that protection costs the general public 
many millions more than actually goes 
into the Treasury. The same is true. 
tthough not to the same extent, of coal. 
<VxJ is a raw material to manufacturers. 

rj jnan knows when you place a duty 
rtSde thai .'.he amount paid into the 

Treasury does not measure the amount ta- 
ken out of the pockets of the people. Every 
one knows that if the hon. gentleman has 
succeeded, as he thinks he has, an I perha- 
ps he has, in causing about $20,000,000 
werth of textile goods to be man- 
ufactured here, presumably, giving 
employment to 14,000 or 15,000 
persons, that has only been done 
by imposing a duty, probable of 30 per 
cent., certainly not less than 25 per cent., 
on all consumers of the goods. And 
therefore, I say in estimating the tax- 
ation of this country you must add many 
millions to the sum actually paid into the 
Treasury in fact we must add an 
amount which we cannot satisfactorily 
measure. The hon. gentleman is in this 
dilomma. If he disputes these figures, if 
he thinks he does not give employment 
to 14,000 or 15,000 persons, that he has 
not succeeded in causing our manufact- 
urers to produce that quantity of goods, 
what then becomes of the home market 
which was to recompense the rest of the 
people for the amount of taxation to 
which they were to be subjected. Lei 
the hon. gentleman make his selection. 
I repeat that I am not arguing as to 
whether protection is good or bad, but 
simply as to w T hat it actually costs the 
people of the country. 

Canada Heavily Taxed. 

The result is is this: Canada to-day 
is a very heav ly taxed country. There 
ace other countries more heavily taxed 
than we are, perhaps, but not many. Let 
us compare our position with that of 
England and with that of the 
United States ; and let us bear in 
mind that it was not always ho ; that 
Canada started on tho race of national 
life very lightly burthenod, indeed, by 
comparison with other countries. Now, 
I have never contended, 1 do not now 
contond, that it is possible to avoid all 
increases as a country grows in popula- 
lation. I am willing to admit, that as 
tlir eountry increases in population, a 
\ ery considerable increase of expenditure 
is necessary and legitimate, But, Sir, I 


ask the House is this a reasonable state 
of things? In 1867, Canada commenced 
ner career with a total population, as 
shown by the Census Estimate, of .5,375, 
000. Canada's total taxation then was 
$13,500,000. In 1883, deducting In- 
dians, the population is probably about 
4,300,000— certainly not more than 
4,375,000 — and the taxation according 
ro these returns had swollen to $35,800,- 
000. Our population had increas- 
ed not quits 1,000,000, or 
barely 1,000,000; our taxation 
faadincreased by $22,250,000. Our taxa- 
tion per head in 1867 amounted to $4; 
our taxation in 1883 amounted to very 
nearly $9 per head— -and much more, if 
we were to take into account the enor- 
mous amount of additional taxation to 
which I have alluded, which is taken out 
of the pockets of the people, although it 
does not go into the Treasury. So that, 
while our population increased about 30 
per cent our nominal taxes have in- 
creased about 200 per cent. 

AJtatract Proposition. 

Now, I admit that abstract propositions 
«annot always be depended on. But I 
say that in matters financial you can al- 
most certainly, with safety, lay down 
this proposition : that whenever, with- 
out war or some other extraordinary 
cause like that, you find the taxes of a 
country increasing very rapidly, in- 
creasing out of all proportion to its 
population, you may rest assured that 
xhe Government has been grossly extra- 
vagant, and in all probability grossly 
corrupt. And when you find the taxation 
remain stationary for a term ot years, you 
may feel equally assured that the (xovern- 
mont has been honestly and economically 
conducted, Now, Sir, it is a matter of 
importance that we should know how 
we stand by comparison with the two 
great countries with which we do most 
of our business and most of our trade. 
I want to call the attention of the House 
to the way in which the present position 
of Canada conrasts with the present 
position of the people of the United States, 

who, like ourselves, have the misfortune, as 
I conceive, of labouring under an un- 
fair system of taxation. In 1867, 1 find 
that the taxation ef the United States, 
from all sources, amounted to about 
$396,000,000, their population then 
being, as nearly possible, 36,000,000, by 
estimate. Sir, in 1883. the taxation of 
the United States by the President's 
Message was $398,287,000, and the 
population, by estimate, 54,000,000. 

Taxation of the United States. 

Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman, as he truly 
says, is great on averages, so to 
oblige him I will take the United 
States averages for 1807, 1868, and 1869, 
lest he accase me of taking a particular 
year, and taking those averages we have 
this result : At the time that Canada was 
commencing her national existence, the 
taxation of the United States was $10 
per head, as nearly as may be. We find, 
^ir, that the taxation of the United 
States is now a mere fraction over $7 
per head. We find that in seventeen 
years the taxation of the United States 
has sunk from $10 to $7 per head — has 
sunk from about $50 per family to $35 
per family — and in the same seventeen 
years the taxation of Canada has risen 
from $4 per head, to $9 a head, and from 
about $20 per family to about $45 per 
family. If the hon. gentleman wants 
another comparison, I will take the ex- 
penditure for the same years and the re- 
sults are almost worse. The expenditure 
of the United States, on the average .of 
those years, appears to have been $8 per 
head, while now it is less than $5 per 
head. Canal's expenditure in 1867 
was $4 per head ; Canada's expenditure 
is now more than $7 per head. So that, 
while the United States have reduced 
their burthen nearly one -half, Canada's 
burthen has been nearly doubled in pro- 
portion to her population. These are 
serious consideration^ and none the less 
serious because, in comparing the case of 
England I find that country, seventeen 
years ago, the taxation per head amount- 
ed to £2 5s. 8d., while the taxation now 


is about £2 9s. per head. So that while 
we in Canada have been adding to our 
taxation at the rate of about $5 per head, 
England was contented with an addition 
of some 80 cents per head. Now, Sir, 
can any man gay that this is a satisfactory 
showing I (inn can any man say, know- 
ing the circumstances of the United 
States, knowing that they had then just 
emerged from a great civil war, that they 
are still burthened with war charges 
amounting, if I remember right, to $06,- 
000,000 la^t year for pensions alone— can 
any man say that it is a satisfactory 
tiling to the people of Canada to find 
that the record, as between us and them, 
is so excessively against us as appears 
from these figures. It is not a pleasant 
tiling for me to say — I have no doubt 
it is not a pleasant thing for hon. 
gentleman to hear — but I have yet to 
learn that it is our duty to- conceal the 
facts of the ease because they grate un- 
pleasantly on the ears of hon. gentlemen 
opposite, More, Sir, when did all this 
occur ] Did it occur in increases evenly 
distributed over the seventeen years? 
Not so, Mr. Speaker. 

When Increases Occurred. 

These increases all occurred in two 
periods, one beginning in 1887 and ter- 
minating in 1874, and the other begin- 
ning in 1879, and extending down to 
the present time. In those two periods 
nil the increases I have referred to ar- 
rived—in those two periods, and those 
alone. Sir, in years gone by, men were 
wont to talk of the ignorant, impatience 
of taxation : now-a-days it would be in- 
finitely more to the purpose if our people 
were persuaded to lay aside their igno- 
rant acquiescence in taxation, because, 
if you consider, you will find that these 
enormous increases of taxation are 
fraught with great dangers to the future 
welfare of this Dominion. 

Cost to Workiiigman. 

1 remember well when my hon. friend 
(Mr. Mackenzie) was Premier, we con- 
sidered this mutter, and we had to come 

to the conclusion that every dollar of un- 
necessary expenditure meant, in one way 
or another, a dollar taken out of the 
pocket of some man who was earning 
wages and therefore that every million 
dollars added to the expenditure, meant 
practically, that one days wage was 
taken from every av age-earner throughout 
the Dominion. And if as I believe 
that be a true and fair statement, let 
the House; bear in mind that in adding 
this $22,000,000 to the taxation of 
Canada in seventeen, years, about twenty- 
two day's wages, to all intents and pur- 
post ^s, have been substracted from the 
wage-earning classes of the Dominion, 
and 1 say that this is a reason, and a 
good reason, why my hon. friend always 
opposed, why he always hesitated, to 
add to the burthens of the people, to add 
to the already enormous taxation of the 
people of Canada. Now, Sir, I say that 
the condition of the wage-earning classes 
in Canada to-day is not good. I say that 
it compares unfavourably with the condi- 
tion of things in England. In England. 
as the lion, gentleman knows., or as he 
ought to know, care is taken to provide, 
that every man who earns less than, say 
$2 a day — less than about £150 a year 
— should be except his free will and 
proper motion — exempt from taxation ; 
and it is one of the l>est features of the 
English fiscal system that it is so. Here 
our taxes are so arranged that t*key press 
| more heavily on the men who are called 
I upon to support their families out of 
! their daily earnings than on any other 
I class in the community; and press, next 
' to them, on the great producing class, 
the fanners and the lumbermen of this 
country. Sir, every man knows that the 
I labouring class in this country need men- 
than the same elass ' in other countries. 
I They need more fuel, more food, better 
shelter ; ami all these things have been 
made dearer by the policy of the hon, 
gentleman. I doubt, if to-day in Canada. 
you can point to anything that is really 
cheaper than it is on the other side of the 
Atlantic, except certain kinds of food and 
land in certain parts of the country. Now, 
if the hon. gentleman wants to know what 

I compute, .so far as I can judge, to be the 
absolute loss to the country by his policy 
of excessive taxation — • taking into 'ae- 
count, as I have said,not merely what goes 
into the Treasury, but the amount paid to 
a certain number of persons throughout 
Oanada — I tell him that I believe it is 
no less than $9,000,000 or 10,000,000 a 
year for the last four or five years. 
True, Sir, the lion, gentleman may 
plead that he has saved the necessity of 
our going into debt thereby. Again 1 
say, this is good so far as it ^oes ; but it 
is a most wasteful mode of borrowing 
inor-ey. If there is one thing more cer- 
tain than Another, it is this, that no 
matter on what system taxation is levied, 
you cannot put into the Treasury with- 
out taking out of trie pockets of the peo- 
ple more than you put in ; and if that is 
true under an honest revenue system, it 
is infinitely mere true under the system 
of which the hon. gentleman is the 
exponent. Moreover, 1 say. Sir. Canada 
requires its own capital, and* the hon. 
gentleman might have known that, if it 
were only from the failure of his own 
domestic loan the other day. Sir, the 
hon. gentleman laid some stress on the 
fact that although that loan failed, other 
applications had come in to him. Now, I 
say whatever his motives may have been, 
and I am not disputing that his motives 
were good — that in view of the probabil- 
ity that he would have to go on the Lon- 
don market to borrow large sums in a 
year or two, he committed a huge blunder 
| in either issuing that loan, or allowing it 
to fail. He has put himself into this 
position — that when lie goes to London 
or elsewhere to borrow money, the mere 
fact that he attempted to borrow in Can- 
tada and failed, is sure to be used by some 
[parties to depreciate the securities he has 
to offer. '.Hither he ought to have left it t 
falone, or to have taken pains to make it 
a success when he did attempt to float it. 
[Now, as to the expenditure for 1884 
and 1885, it appears from the hon. gen- 
tleman's statements, that we are in all 
probability committed to an expenditure 
j/of $31,000,000, or thereabouts. I am not 
Boing to say what can l>e done now in the 

way of cutting down that expenditure. 
Probably it rould be reduced; but L<> w far 
I am not in a position to H;iy. Bet 1 say 

tiiis, had my hon. friend beside me remain- 
ed in pow^r, there was no reason what- 
ever why the expenditure should have 
exceeded>25,000,000 or $25,500,006; and 
1 am perfectly certain that my hon. friend 
would have contrived to keep it within 
that limit, which is only $2,500,000 
more than the hon. Minister of Finance 
declared some years ago was ample to 
earry on t he Government of Canada . And 
Sir, the proof is this -that whereas my 
liou. friend, when he went into office, 
found himself obliged to spend $23,000- 
000 a year, and had to meet a host of 
great and sudden demands aggregating an 
annual addition to the expenditure of 
$2,500,000, he did it without adding 
more, in tho long run, than $250,000 to 
the expenditure which he found when he 
went in. Do not say that my hon. friend 
beside me had no great public works to 
carry on. My hon. friend carried on 
greater public works than the hon. 
Minister of Railways or his colleagues 
did. As I said the other night, he has 
no need to dread a comparison between 
the works done under his auspices, and 
those done under the auspices of the hon. 
Minister of Railways. Sir, if the hon. 
gentleman wants the details of the ex- 
penditures which were incurred by us 
after the year- 1874, I am prepared to 
give them. I find that my hon. friend 
was obliged to provide for interest and 
sinking fund alone, on account of the 
great public works caused by the engage- 
ments of his predecessors, §1, 400,000 ; 
for Indians, $200,000; for Mounted 
Police, $135,000; for Prince Edward 
Island, in conseoxienco of the terms of 
the Treaty, about $300,000 ; for the Post 
Office Department, $330,000 ; and for 
the Supreme Court, .^50,000 ; making in 
all, as nearly as may be, $2, 180,000 addi- 
tional to the expenditure which he found 
when he entered into office. Sir, he 
would have been perfectly justified, under 
those circumstances, had he gone out with 
an expenditure of $20,000,000 ; instead 
of that, he went out with an expenditure 


of $23,500,000. Then there was another 
cause, that is the loss occasioned by rea- 
son of the capital which is locked up in 
manufactures. Now, I agree that this 
is a matter of estimate. I agree that 
no absolute statistics can be got. I will 
simply state what I believe to be the cas*. 
Let other hon. gentlemen, who know the 
facts in their respective localities, and 
may have better opportunities of asser 
taining them than myself, let them sta'e 
what they believe to be the total quantity 
of capital which is locked up at present 
in manufactures, and not returning profits 
to the owners. Now, I have made some 
♦mquiry, and collected all the information 
in all the quarters I could, and I have 
come to the conclusion that from $8,000- 
000 to $12,000,000, perhaps more, are 
{uesent locked up, unproductively, in 
manufactures throughout this Dominion, 
Tills has been brought about directly by 
the policy of the hon. gentlemen, and it 
in the usual reside of any increased taxa- 
tion for the purpose of protection. Now, 
the hon. gentleman would fain t scapi the 
mnponqjhility of all this. The hon. gentle- 
man would have us believe that by his 
policyot collecting together many thou- 
■ Is of poor workingmen in the cities of 
this Dominion, ho and his Government are 
not responsible, because, as alwa} 7 s hap- 
pens in these cases, whim trade slackens, 

then* ]>oor people are thrown on the 
streete or compelled to work out for half 
wages. Sir, I say the hon. gmtleman is 
r>-MponsJb]i'. 1 s,iv the direct} result, of 

his policy has been to gather together 
men, and to keep them in such a 

'ion, that a trilling reversal may 

expose them bo want, and throw them on 

the community tor rapport, I say he is 

omrible for it ; and as we are op this 

tkra of Protection, I B*y that tli<> 

hon. « >mI. in an, if !:•• be ivally and 

an advocate of Protection, 

ought to have taken ■ great deal more 

peine and cane than he has done to 

■id Protection, not merely to tin- rich 

tun i , but to the workingmen 

whom he employe. I gay th i\ hk eon- 

I i Factories Aol 

little h»* oared for the 

poor employee when the interests of tbe 
employee conflicted with those of the 
ricli' employer. 

Protection for Workingmen. 

He had the experience of the TJnited 
States and the experience of England 
before him, he had the report of his own 
Commissioners to guide him ; he knew 
right well that many of the persons 
employed in manufactories were unfairly 
dealt with, as they always will be, unless 
the Government steps in to see that 
women and children, at any rate, are not 
pressed and driven beyond their strength. 
Yet five years after the introduction of 
his policy, he has not condescended to 
bring down and give the first read- 
ing to the Factory Bill intended 
to protect these poor creatures. 
Moreover, I say that those workingmen 
have good right to complain of the policy 
of the Government in bringing here, at 
the public expense and in encouraging to 
come here, people to compete with them. 
If you are going to have protection at 
all, let it l>e thorough-going ; protect Lhe 
labourer, who needs protection quite as 
much as the employer; do not allow his 
wages to be cut down and competitors to 
be brought here at the public expense 
to underbid the men who are employed 
in the subsidized manufactories of this 
Dominion. The hon. gentleman dwelt 
at some length on the state of the speci- 
ally protected industries. I thought he' 
might have remembered that we had long 
ago pointed out to him that so surely as 
von proteot particular industries, so surely 
you do confer very great advantages on 
the men who, so to speak, are on the 
ground and have control of those indus- 
tries for the moment; but the inevitable 
result, when you give these or any men 
an undue advantage by law, is to bring 
in a great deal more capita) than isi 
required, the ultimate result of which is 
invariably our production and depression, 
injury to the workingman and the ern- 
ployee alike, The hon. gentleman has 
intensified the evil, it is quite true thatl 
even when you have the whole world fori 


a market, depressions will at times occur , , 
but when you try to stimulate product- 
ion by artificial means in a small commun- 
ity, disasters must happen, and probably 
will happen at a very early date, as they 
have in this particular instance. I repeat, 
in all this, the hon. gentleman has done 
great injury to the great mass of the 
manufacturers themselves; I repeat, that 
that the manufacturers of Canada are 
hurt when capital is destroyed or locked 
up, and they are still more hurt when th3 
great bulk of the people, who form their 
customers, are impoverished. Both those 
results have accrued from the policy of 
the hon. gentleman. Now, I observe 
that the hon. gentleman spoke on this 
occasion with very much bated breath, 
as to the magniiieent surplus at his 
disposal. But I cannot quite agree with 
him even in what he said on that 
question. He claimed he had $7,- 
000,000 last year from the increase of 
ordinary revenue over expenditure, and 
$1,00* »,000 of additional surplus from 
the sales of land in the North -West ; but 
I failed to hear the hon. gentleman say 
one word of the $600,000 or thereabouts 
which he had spent and charged to capital 
account for surveys in the North-West, 
in connection with those very lands. 
Surely, if he claims $1,000,000 as ad- 
ditional surplus on the o e side, although 
it properly belongs to capital account, he 
should deduct the f 600,000 on the other 
side, which are charged to capital account 
for the survey of these very lands, a por- 
tion of which he has sold. The hon. 
gentleman's calculations may be correct 
or they may not, as regards the probab'e 
surplus at the end of the year, but one 
thing is clear, that whereas last year he 
had a surplus of very nearly $-1,957,000 
on the 20 bh February, he now has an ap- 
p irent surplus of $930,000, and no more. 
Now, if that goes on, as it appears to be 
going on, during the next few months, 
it is, to say the least, a matter of doubt 
whether the hon. gentleman will have 
any surplus at all Perhaps it is as well 
he should not. It, is clear the hon. 
gentleman's surplus tempted him into 
very unnecessary expenditure and to 

incur very undue liabilities ; but I point 
out the fact to the House, because it is 
right they should understand how -very 
seriously the revenue is being reduced! 
and the expenditure is being increased 
within the past six or seven months, of 
which alone we can speak with perfect 
knowledge. Now I come to a question 
of the very gravest moment, to which the 
Government have on various occasions 
called attention. It is a question on. 
on which there is a very great conflict of 
statement between our own authorities 
and those of the United States. I might 
argue justly that Ministers would be 
estopped, at least some of them, from 
questioning the authorities of the United 
States statistics, because the y invariably 
used them, and used them rather 
harshly, against ourselves, when we 
were in their place, but I do not regard 
that as a matter of much importance. 
What I do regard as of infinite moment, 
is to ascertain the actual facts of the case; 
and I propose to do so, not from any 
American statistics but from our own 
Census returns and from our own various 
municipal returns. I have >stated that 
one cause of the depressed condition of 
this country arose, in my judgment, from 
the fact that there had been a very large 
emigration indeed froin various parts of 
this Dominion. 

What the Municipal Return <j say. 

Now we, cannot absolutely ascertain all 
the facts as to all the Provinces, but wv 
can to a very considerable extent, at any 
rate, as regards the Province of Ontario, 
and I propose to do so. There we have 
got a tolerable accurate system of muni- 
cipal returns, and we nnd from those, 
when properly checked, that although 
we cannot determine absolutely the pop- 
ulation at any one moment, we can deter- 
mine, with very considerable accuracy, 
the relative increase or decrease in the 
population, provided we apply the proper 
checks, by taking not only the number 
of persons wi)d are returned as of school 
agebutthose spho atuaiiy attended school. 
At the risk of tiring the Hous?, I must 


attention to the very remarkable 
statistics which have been produced by the 
Ontario Government in respect to tbis 
point, fo 18*78, we find there were in 
Ontario, between the acres of fi\e and six- 
2,360 children; in 1ST'.', 494*424; 
• - I, fliere ^crc- 489,924, in 1681, 
214 in 882, l83/817; :/ mnd in 1888 
aboi me number. Wo find that 

repor te d in actual attendance a1 school 
v • 107 133, in 1878: in L&79, 
167,846; in 1880, 464,395; in 1681, «J9,- 
I *82, 457,178. Now, I call the 

attention of the House to this fact 
I said before, 1 do do not contend 
thai • are absolutely correct, 

but' they ate .relatively cor- 

I letosuppoee that several 
s<»r^ through the coun- 
try, during those four Or five years, men 
Ht least, on< half of whom are probably 
upj r rsoi the hon] gentleman, could 
fly conspired together to 
falsify returns, and we are justified 
therefore in assuming those are relatively 
V\ hi do they prove I They 
of the children of 
I school test, which 

aflbi I useful check, the 

•i" Ontario, from 1879 
1 by 10,670. sir, 
* I Tere we 

. all, h positive, absoWe loss, 
n that l; shion. We have, 
of the natural in- 
•■ hich is con- 
i ! ! shall presently 
i - w hai a] o the displace- 

■ >■ it lai g( >r -small, 
qult( « l( ar thai the popu- 
olutely deen ased, ill the 
1 ■ as Lnimigr 
• Lv( a ;. ; md have failed to 

• i ;- tli- lo Nov., Bir, w( will 

i !i:tl 

! lial the natural in 

I bich po f.l ii 

' .• 2,000,01 

bo all th • 
lj to 

! .be any truth whatever in the statistics 
! famished us by the Department of Agri 
I culture, it cannot have been less than 20,- 
i 000 in each of those years, So, if yon add 
! together, first of all, the positive, asder? 
] tained loss, as evidence fiom the school 
! registers, and the loss of the natural in- 
\ crease, and the loss by displacement 
! measured by the number of the immi- 
! grants who came m from year to year, 
i you will find that, in 1879, we lost about 
[ 52,000; in 1880 we lost 80,00; in 1881 as 
j many, in 1882, I am happy to say, a 
j smaller number, about (5 000, and 
I probably, as far as we can now ascertain, 
i about 60,000 in 1883. Sir, that makes 
1 a total loss, iaeluding these three causes 
— because everybody, I think, will admit 
that, if the school population has really 
decreased 10,000, the total population, 
of which the school population forms a 
fourth, must also have decreased 
by four titties that number — as 
total loss for Ontario in these five years 
of about 334,000. Now, it is quite true 
that a considerable portion of these people 
have gone to Manitoba. On looking at 
the returns brought down by the Minister 
of Agriculture, I rind that up to April, 
1881, there were 19,000 persons in 
Manitoba and the North- West born in 
Ontario ; by the same returns I find that, 
in 1881, although that is of course in 
eluding three months prior to 1st of 
April .md, therefore, a little too much. 
18,000 appeared to have come from 
Ontario; in 1882, 32,000— I am taking 
Us own statistics — and, in 1883, we. 
believe about 25,000; in all, not quite 
100,000 of these people may be counted 
as having left Ontario and settled in 
Manitoba and the North- West. Now, 
I Bpeak for Ontario alone, I have no 
pretensions to speak for the depopulation, 
if it do exist, in Quebec or in the Mari- 
time Provinces, bu1 perhaps tho horn 
Minister of Public Works, who formerly 
■I ilia) it was a matter of the 
i possible importance to repatriate 
his countrymen, could speak as to the 
depopulation of Quebec. I heard an hon. 
»t know whether ho is 
i i h : - loua oi not, the member for 

"Bhgot (Mr Dupont), a few nights ago 
declare that he believed that 500,000 or 
600,000 people had gone from Quebec to 
the United States. I would fain hope 
that that is altogether too large an esti- 
mate ; but, if we are to believe that 
gentleman, if we are to believe the 
Minister of Public Works, if we are to 
believe the dignitaries of the church who 
have made it a matter of comment in 
their pastorals, a serious depopulation 
has been going on from Quebec likewise. 
What would my friends from the Mari- 
time Provinces say % What r would the 
gentlemen from New Brunswick and 
Prince Edward and Nova Scotia say 1 
Do they or do they not believe that 
'numbers of their fellow-countrymen have 
left those Provinces within the last few 
years % I leave it for them to speak. I 
speak only ot what I know ; I speak 
only of what I have reasonable grounds 
for believing ; I pay no attention to 
foreign statistics; I am basing myself 
exclusively on our own Census and on 
the municipal and the school returns of 
the Province for Ontario. Now, Sir, 
there are collateral proofs of this fact, 
and proofs which can hardly be 
disregarded. I have here a return 
off nearly 200 towns and villages 
throughout Ontario. It is perfectly noto- 
rious that, during the last ten years, our 
towns and villages grew much more than 
^he rural districts in which they stood, as 
a rule. Every man who looks at the 
"Census knows that. Now, what do 
these returns show 1 They extend over 
five years also, from 1878-79 to 1883. 
Well, they show these rather remarkable 
facts, that, out of 118 villages in Ontario, 
averaging about 1,000 souls, 79 were 
stationary or retrograde, and of the 
remainder, several had not increased as 
much as the natural increase would war- 
rant. Of sixty-four towns, averaging 
3.000, forty-one were stationary or retro- 
grade, and several of the remainder had 
not increased as much as the natural 
increase would warrant. It is quite im- 
possible for us to disregard plain, patent 
facts like these, which every hon. gentle- 
man who chooses to examine the munici- 

pal statistics of Ontario can ascertain for 
himself, as I have done. But I will giv$ 
one or two particular instances, which 
may impress the House more than these 
general statements. The other day, wish- 
ing to ascertain, as nearly as I could, 
the facts in this matter, I applied to the 
Mayor of the town of Goderich, the chief 
town of the constituency of my hon. 
friend behind me. In 1871, according 
to the Census, that town had a popula- 
tion of 3,954 ; in 1878, according to the 
municipal statistics, it had grown to 
4,663 ; according to the last municipal 
statistics for 1883, supplied me by the 
Mayor of that town, it had shrunk in 
five years from 4,663 to 3,818. Sir, I 
say that it is a serious matter. 
Why, the county you yourself repre- 
sent would furnish another illustra- 
tion. In 1871, the county of Fron- 
tenac, according to the Census, contained 
16,300 people ; the natural increase 
ought to have brought that up to 20,000 
souls, but, the last Census shows that, 
instead of 20,000, the population of 
Frontenac was 14,993. Instead of gain- 
ing 3,000, as it should, it had lost about 
1,400 souls. For further proof I caused 
the school population of eight townshipg 
in my hon. friend's constituency and my 
own to be carefully gone over, and here 
again I must pray the indulgence of the 
House, because the subject is one o.. 
first-rate importance. I find that, in the 
space of six years, the school population 
of those eight townships had gone 'iiwn 
as follows : — Beginning at 10,180, it had 
been reduced to 9,600, 9,400, 9,200, 
8,600, 8,300, and finally to 7,570. It is 
possible, of course, that I may be mis- 
taken here, and let me say this, that in 
this instance, I would be very glad indeed 
to have it proved that I was mistaken. 
I would be very glad if the Minister of 
Finance or any of his friends will show 
that these statistics which I have referred 
to to-night are erroneous, and how, and 
why. So far as I can see, these statis- 
tics deserve our respect, if they are pro- 
perly checked. I have not coutended 
that they are absolutely accurate ; I d* 
contend that they are relatively accurate. 


Mr. POPE. No. 


U, I shall preserve my own opinion 

setter arguments than 

been put in print, at any rate, by 

a or any of his deputies. 

arguments as yet unstated; 

to conviction, and I shall be 

to hear them. Now, I want to call 

ation to certain facts connected with 

:.' ation to thL. country. We 

• heard these hon. gentlemen declar- 

they have brought, I think they 

0,000 people into Canada within 

last year, ill', 000 in the year before, 

;7,<>00 in the year before that. Sir, 

>ple may have come. If they 

en the displacement of our 

i population in Ontario has been very 

h greater than I supposed; bus I 

. pres< u'ly show the House that, even 

people did come in with the 

intention of settling here, it is, to 

»y the least of it, an exceedingly 

questionable matter whether they have 

d in Canada. Now, Sir, we 

no absolute proof as to what has be- 

.i n who have arrived since 

t< nsiis, but w'c have tolerably 

Ldence as to what became of 

_ :> r _s who came into Canada 

og the decade between 1871 and 

188L Sir, I find, on looking at the returns 

that the foreign born popu- 

n in 1881, was 609,000 ; I find that 

ario, lb L881, had 429,000 foreign- 

d population, while in 1871 it had 

,00. J find that in the four old 

luces in 1.^71, quoting from the 

th_ foreign-born population was 

"00 ; in 1881 in the four old Pro- 

k, it was 566,000. Now, Sir, I call 

:,tion to these facts. According to 

ion returns, 842,575 people 

Atled in Canada, as th<-so returns 

D 1>71 and 1881. Now, 1 

a percentage far death 

ID ask ; I will alloy, say for 
foreign |)Opulation, and 
' Win, Sir, we find 

bad tho e 8 4 2, p00 people settled 
ght t<> nave had at lea it 222,- 

; ilation in the 

Dominion, in the four old Provinces, in 
I : instead of that we have 27,000 less; 
so that it follows, beyond possibility of con- 
troversy, according to the statistics of the 
Department of Agriculture, that of the 
842,000 who were said to have come and 
settled in Canada, not 90,0G0 have stay- 
ed. I suspect that the same result would 
come out, even if the figures are main- 
tained in respect to the 112,000 or the 
180,000 whom the hon. gentleman asserts 
to have settled in Canada of late. Now 
this is a very serious matter ; I say the 
absolute loss to us is extreme. 

Value of Canadian Emigrants. 

It is hardly possible to estimate suffi- 
ciently the value of the emigrants who 
leave Canada. First of all, a very large pro- 
portion of those who leave us, as every man 
of us can see who chooses to : nspect an 
ordinary train leaving Canada, consists 
of men in their prime. In the next 
place, it is notably the fact, as far as 
Ontario Is concerned, that almost all the 
men who leave Canada to seek homes 
elsewhere are possessed of very consider- 
able capital. I believe, Sir, if a fair 
average was taken, it would be found 
that each one takes in money, an^ money's 
worth, nearer $2,000 than $1,000 from 
this country. 1 know in the few cases 
concerning which I have taken the 
trouble to ascertain the facts, I have been 
astonished at the enormous amount of capi- 
tal which was being removed from Canada 
to seek investment elsewhere. Now, Sir, 
what is the value of these men as com- 
pared with that of ordinary immigrants ♦ 
Sir, I have no prejudice against immi- 
grants. We can welcome all good, in- 
dustrious immigrants, al though we do not 
wish to see immigrants coming here 
unless they are prepared to better their 
condition ; but, Sir, I say, in no spirit 
of prejudice, that one Ontario farmer, one 
Canadian farmer, possessed of reasonable 
capital, is worth, either as a tax-payer or 
as a producer, any half dozen foreign 
i m migrants who may come into this 
country. I scorn to put a money vuiiw 
on my countrymen, although the 


American peopkTare in tke habit of call- 
ing every able-bodied immigrant worth 
$1 ,000 to the public ; but, Sir, I decline 
to rate our brethren at so much a head. 
Still I do say tint those men who leave 
Canada in that way take away with them, 
and take from us, a mo^t important I 
element of national wealth and a most 
enormous amount of the capital of Canada. 
And these gentlemen want to arrogate to 
themselves that they are the only friends 
of Canada. Their policy, they tell us, is 
a policy of" Canada for the Canadians." 
What are the facts, as disclosed in the 
United States Census for 1881 ? Why, 
Sir, they show that 700,000 Canadians 
were then found in the United States, | 
and I believe that if the census were taken 
to-day, it would show the number of Can- i 
adians in the United States to be nearer | 
1.000,000 than 700,000. Sir, it is no 
wonder the people of Dakota have a high 
opinion of the Premier, and are fond of 
declaring that Dakota needs no land agent 
while the present Premier of the Dominion 
has control of affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
I am not disposed to deny that this has 
gone on for a long time, but I think it 
has gone on with a vastly accelerated 
ratio since the hon. gentlemen came into 
power and introduced, their present 
policy. Oar own Census, as I have 
shown, proves conclusively, fir. ; t of all, 
that the foreign immigrants who come 
here do not stay here, and next, that the 
total increase of the population hardly 
equals the natural increase to which we 
are entitled. More, what is true of On- 
tario is true also — I do not want in the 
least degree to disguise the fact — of the 
New England States, and to a great ex- 
tent it is true of the State of New York. 
But,Sir, there is this all-important dif- 
ference : when the New Englander, or 
the New Yorker, quits his parental home 
and goes westward, he does not cease to 
be a citizen of the United States, and to 
contribute to its wealth and importance ; 
but when our people leave tbe older 
Provinces, the majority of them, I am 
sorry to say, do not find homes within 
the Dominion, but they go to swell the 
importance, the strength and fhe wealth 

of the people of the United States . A 
few weeks ago, I wis conversing witl 
very intelligent gentleman, the editor tf 
a large new.- paper in the western part of 
Canada, and I asked that geiitlema? 
examine his list and tell me how many 
subscribers he then had in the United 
States. After examining his list, 
showed" me that he had 800 subscribers 
who had formerly been inhabit- rats of 
Canada, but who, within the last two or 
three years, had become inhabitants of 
the United States. 

Mr. SPKOULE. Please name the 

The name of the paper is the Exposit.or> 
of Seaforth, and if the hon gentle- 
man chooses to go and visit the 
oditor, I have no doubt he will 
show him his list. Now, I do not deny 
that the drain of capital may, to a certain 
extent, be balanced. It is true we get 
back, in the shape of immigrants and the 
capital they bring, a certain percentage. 
but it is a most disadvantageous in. 
exchange to us. We give the very besfc y 
the prime of our population, and we do 
not by any means get the best, nor is it at 
all a prime population that comes to us* 
Sir, if it be true, that of 342,000 immigr 
ants who came within the last decade, only 
90,000 at the outside, have remained with 
us — -and I see no answer to these statistics. 
that I have taken from the returns made 
by the Department of Agriculture 
from the Census — if that be true, what. 
impolicy it is on our part to bring these 
people here, to pay their passage, to have 
them come to Canada, and then leave 
Canada and report that they could not 
make a living here, and had to go else- 
where. Sir, I i'.zy our whole imaiigra- 
tion systesi requires revising, from 
top to the bottom, and I believe it v. 
be better for us all . if we 
policy of the Uni. s. Diffuse in- 

formation if you will, but do 

not bring people here, as we have 
doing, to compete with our own labour- 
ers in many of the walks of life, when, 
| in all probability, three-fourths of them 
j will find their way to the United States, 


and send word to their friends and rela- 
tives in England that they had tried Can- 
ada and could not obtain a living in it 
"Well, Sir, all this was bad enough in 
past times. But in past times there was 
an excuse for it. In past times, it was 
true, we had not practically at our dis- 
posal a great quantity of land, on which 
those people might be settled. It is ut- 
terly inexcusable now. Sir, a few years 
ago a most extraordinary opportunity 
was presented to the Government of 

A Great Opportunity. 

It was one of those great opportunities 
which come but once in a century, and I 
may say, once in the lifetime of a nation 
It was an opportunity, given to those 
hon. gentlemen, by which they might 
have fully redeemed all their other errors 
and blunders, and they were neither 
few nor far between. I have never con- 
tended that the fiscal policy of a nation 
is more than one factor in its progress. 
I admit, frankly that such things have 
happened as that a prudent and econom- 
ical administration has been combined 
with a very bad fiscal system. I admit 
it is possible we may have a good land 
policy and a bad fiscal system. Those 
hon. gentlemen a few years ago, came 
into office to find substantially all the 
essential work done for their hands. 
Thanks to the patient toil of my hon. 
friend beside mo (Mr. Mackenzie) for 
five years, one great avenue to the North- 
West was all but opened. Thanks, to do 
them justice, to^the enterprise and energy 
oi the St Paul and Manitoba Railway 
Company, another avenue had beenopened 
for some time. That magnificent coun- 
try was practically placed at their dis- 
aL The people of Canada, and nota- 
the people of Ontario were most 
■ to go there. All the pent-up 
• eking an 
who knows our 
'i for years back we 
ich a field for 
men were there, 

j was ready to ai<^ them to any reasonable 
I extent. Absolutely, all that was neces- 
sary was to leave that country alone and 
le f - the people develop it. And, absolu- 
tely, they could not even do that. The 
very best settlers in the world were flow- 
ing into Manitoba. I never in all my 
life saw men so thoroughly capable of, 
and so well calculated for developing a 
country as the settlers who were going 
from Ontario to Manitoba in the early 
years of the hon. gentleman's Adminis- 
tration. I say they chose deliberately to 
ruin everything. I say that was bad if 
done from ignorance ; if done from any 
other motive, it was an iniquitous breach 
of trust. 

.Requirements of the Korth-West 

What were the requirements of the 
North-West 1 ? They were three. First., 
the people needed cheap land! • 
second, cheap goods ; and third, and 
most of all, cheap and abundant means 
of transportation. How did hon. gentle- 
men supply these wants 1 I>o not hon. 
members know that eveiy vexatious, 
obstacle and impediment that could be 
conceived in the way of land regulations 
was placed in the way of intending 
settlers 1 Large tracts of land were with- 
held from settlers — the very tracts which 
the people desired to enter upon. Faith 
was broken with them in every possible 
way ; their small capital was reduced by 
heavy and excessive taxation, and all 
opportunity of getting cheap transporta- 
tion, although the people were prepared 
to provide it at their own cost, was shut 
out. Two policies were possible. One 
was to construct a road as a Government 
road, run it cheaply for the first few years, 
so as barely to pay expenses, and adopt 
a liberal policy for side lines, a policy 
substantially the same as that which the 
hon. member for Bothwell (Mr Mills 
proposed to introduce, and which would 
have contributed enormously to the whole- 
some development ot the North-West, if 
put in force either by those hon. ge, 
men or by the late Parliament. Then 
then was the other plan : to allow tht 
utmost freedom of competition, as was 


the right, of the people of the North- West, 
provided the Governmert did not choose 
to construct the road and run it in the 
way I have described. What did they 
doll They forbade all competition, and 
as soon as the Government road was con- 
structed, they handed it over to a private 
corporation ; they not only turned it 
over, but they resigned all control over 
it. No grosser outrage was ever com- 
mitted on a free people than that which 
was committed by the Government and 
Parliament of Canada in thus interfering 
with the plainest rights of the people of 
the North- West. 1 say, moreover, that 
there never was such a case of sacrificing 
ends to means as in that act. What use 
is the Canadian Pacific Railway to us ? 
Why should we be burdened with the pay- 
ment of $100,000,000 for it, but for the 
opportunity presented of providing homes 
for hundreds of thousands of our people: 
who are asking them at our hands? 
What hon. gentlemen opposite have done 
has been to deprive those people of the 
chance of settlement, to take away from 
them every possible inducement to go 
there. And the secondary results have 
been almost more important still. I re- 
member well the position of the country 
in 1880. At that time, all kinds of 
railway projects were in agitation, and 
there was this remarkable feature about 
them. In old Canada it is not an easy 
task to devise railways which will prove 
profitable until after a long term of years. 
Very often the country opened up is of 
an inferior character and not likely to 
secure immediate settlement. But in the 
North-West it was scarcely possible for a 
man of ordinary judgment to plan a 
railway which would not in all human 
probability have brought in a large num- 
ber of settlers and have become a reason- 
able source of profit to the promoters, 
within a short space of time. As I have 
said no better settlers could be imagined 
than those who were rushing in from 
Ontario. There was perfect readiness on 
the part of outside capitalists to co-oper- 
ate ; and moreover, such branch lines as 
were proposed by the hon. member for 
Bothwel], when he was Minister of the 

Interior, would really have been the 
of all colonization schemes. The comp; 
would not have been given, nor did $ m 
hon. gentleman propose to allow tii 
absolute control of the land, \ it was to 
have been retained under the control of 
the Government, and it would have been 
only profitable to the Company when 
they succeeded in placing actual settlers 
I upon it. But all their projects ware 
j paralyzed by law. The right 
| construct such roads was taken away 
! What was the result ? There was at once- 
! a complete stoppage of the influx of the 
! best settlers ; they would not go to a 
! country where their rights were trar: J; 
on in that fashion. Capital that s 
ready to develope that country, which its 
owners would have only been too happy tp 
have invested in this manner, being this: 
debarred from its natural outlet, was dit- 
ected into other channels, and tfe^re 
have been scenes in Manitoba %ad 
the North-West the like of which has 
scarcely been exceeded since the days of 
the South Sea Bubble. Moreover, sd! 
the branch lines which might have been 
and would have been constructed were 
utterly abandoned. No man could venture 
to build railways in face of the conditions 
on which the Canadian Pacific Railway 
Company were entitled to build their line. 
The whole country was plunged into a 
state of discontent of which hon. genfie 
men opposite are very far indeed front 
having heard the last. 

What Might have Been. 

Now, Sir, had they acted otherwise, ii;ui 
had they acted sensibly and prudeRtly . 
had they allowed the people to do wfy&t 
the people were only too ready to do to-day, 
instead of having a paltry 150,000,or the- 
reabouts, of people, strung along 1,Q0,G 
miles of railway, we would have had, in aft 
human probability, 500,000 settlers 
Manitoba alone we would have had from 
2000 to 3000 mi es of branch lines i a active 
operation and we would have been able, in 
place of the miserable export we now 
have, to have exported, in all human 
probability at least 20,000,000 bushefe 
of wheat, in this very year. Sir, the 


Canadian Pacific Railway itself would 
have Lad an infinitely better chatice of ' 
success than it has to-day. Instead of its ! 
being a costly, a hazardous and a doubtful 
experiment that railway with such a 
Province to draw from would have stood 
infinitely higher than it does to-day, with 
all the backing which the hon. gentleman 
can give it. Now, Sir, it does not lie in 
the mouth of these gentlemen to say that 
I exaggerate when I assert that we might 
to-day, in 1881 or 1883, have had an ex- 
port of 20,000,000 bushels of grain from I 
that country. Did not the Minister of I 
Railways himself say that he hoped to I 
sec an export of 000,000,000 bushels of 
grain produced by the 100,000 settlers 
who would soon be settled in that 
country ? I will not say that even 
this was an extravagant or an 
extreme view of the case, hut I do say 
that but for the mc st unwise interference 
of the Government which prevented the j 
people from the direct railway commu- '■■ 
ideation which they would otherwise have , 
got. it is perfectly certain that there would 
have been 20,000 settlers in Southern 
Manitoba to-day who would have l>eeu in 
a position in all likelihood to have export- 
ed the quan' ity of grain I named. It j 
has been done elsewhere. T am not speak- 
ing of an impossibility, but of a thing 
which has been done again and again in 
the United States, close beside us. Now, it 
is well for us to consider how all this 

about. I am sorry the First Min- \ 
ister is net here, because to a very con- i 
KJoVjvble extent I hold him directly ! 
responsible for the miscarriage. 1 Cer- 
tainly am not a blind idolator of the 
hon. gentleman, but 1 know -him well, 
•md T ;, marly of liis qualities' 

1 ' that the hon. gen- 
. i>ut I 


ad capable administra- 
tor, ' mi con 
vict hiiii. No Louder or more ] 

on of my hon. 
fric/i<l(Mr. Mackenzie) ,j>os- 

ed at one and the same time to act ate 
Premier of Canada and to take charge of 
a Department of the Government. But 
the hon. gentleman, when he e«tere< : 
office, took into his hands the charge of 
by far the most important Department. ot 
the Government, in conjunction with the 
task of pel-forming the duties of 
Premier. Sir, he may have attended to 
his duties as Premier, but no oh°r evi- 
dence is required than his own declara- 
tion on the floor of the House, when He 
was endeavouring to pass the Estimates 
through Parliament, to show that he dsd 
not attend to the duties of his Depart- 
ment. Ajid in this very city 4 as T am 
informed, a few months ago, when cross - 
examinedon oath, he declared thatthougn 
he was sworn to discharge the dutie^ of 
Minister of the Interior, he knew nothing; 
at all about the conduct of the mos*impor- 
tant branch of his own Department. 
I am glad that since that declaration he 
has ceased to hold that office, for iba 
matter what a man may be. 
on matter what his talents may be v 
1 say that he could not possibly discharge 
the duties of Minister of the Interior, 
unless he originally possessed, or im- 
mediately after entering office, he took 
pains to acquire an intimate persenac. 
knowledge of that country. And I say 
it is a great misfortune to Canada, and 
probably to hon. gentlemen opposite, that 
the First Minister should hive, during 
all that time, chosen to occupy the powi 
tion of Minister of the Interior. Now, 
Sir, one word as to th 1 ? demands of the 
people of the North -West. Sir, I am 
heartily in sympathy with them ; I say 
that those demands are substantially just 
I s;iy that it is in the highest degree in 
the int. -rests of the Dominion of Canada 
that they .should be conceded without de- 
And as I have done be'ore I warn 
the < rovernrm i far as I can, I 

warn the people of Canada that hn 

0" the just demands of the 
peopleof the North West, they will only 
have their own obstinacy and folly to thank 
for it, if the day should come, though I hope' 
i< never may, when Canada may lose fcte 
North-West, which it has so persistent!? 


discouraged. Sir, I utterly repudiate the 
i that the people of the North- West 
are under any obligation or compliment 
to the people or the Parliament of Canada. 
On the contrary, I. say the Parliament 
Government of Canada have most 
grievously oppressed and maltreated the 
people of the North- West. Now, Sir, it 
may be that the lock-up of capital there 
is the smallest injury which Canada has 
sustained — 

Mr. WHITE (Card well). Will the 
ion. gentleman permit me to ask him to 
state what those just claims of the North- 
West are. 

will tell the hon. gentleman. I say that 
tjjie tyrannical monopoly should be abol- 
ished ; that reasonable and fair, and just 
land regulations should be given and 
acted upon, and not changed from day to 
day and from hour to hour, at the caprice 
of a Minister at Otcawa, who knows and 
can know nothing about the interests of 
that country, who has never condescended 
to set his foot there — I mean, of 
course, the late Minister of the 
Interior — who never even condescended 
to go as far west as Chicago, who never, 
I believe, has put his foot on prairie soil 
in his life, either in Canada or anywhere 
&)se. If hon. gentlemen want to know 
more of these demands ht them look at 
-what the North- West council, nominees, 
many of them of the hon. gentleman, as 
&o what the claims of the North-West on 
Ihe people of Canada are. I was stating, 
Sir, that perhaps the lock-up of capital was 
the sniallesi ^injury, but that is great 
enough. Few of us perhaps know how 
widespread has been the desire of the 
people of Ontario, in particular, to aoquire 
property in the North-West. I doubt if 
you could find a single hamlet in which 
-there are not a considerable number of 
people who have some money in the North 
West. I was at pains at Winnipeg and 
Toronto, and elsewhere, to make a number 
c>f enquiries as to the amount of capital 
locked up there, and I believe I am 
largely within the mark in saying that, 
m all human probability, more than $20, 
£#0,000, within the last three or four 

year3, have been locked up in the North- 
West. I do not say that all that money 
is lost, though no doubt a good deal of it 
has been lost; but I say that it is locked 
up and fixed, and that to all intents and 
purposes it is locked up to the people ©f 
Canada for the time being, and, therefoFe, 
one considerable cause of the stringency 
and depression which, as I contend, does 
undoubtedly exist here now. Moreover, 
I say the House should not suppose that 
it is as easy to undo the evil we have 
done as to do it. 

SeetljTime thrown Away. 

Sir, the seed time has been thrown 
away, and years must elapse before we 
find ourselves in one half as favourable a 
position for developing the North-West 
as we were in a few years ago. The 
money is gone or locked up as I have 
said— the men have gone too, which is 

Where Our People go. 

And if hon. gentlemen want to know 
where they have gone, I can fcelt 
them where part of them have gone. 
Let them go to northern Dakota, 
and they will find that in one 
whole division of that State, about WO 
miles in length by 60 miles in denfch, 
nine-tenths of the population in thai 
district are composed of Canadians, a very 
large number of whom, I grieve to say^ 
went to Manitoba first, and afterward* 
crossed the border. Sir, if hon. gentle- 
men want to know what that means, I 
say that the area I have described would 
equal one-half of the whole western penin- 
sula of Ontario. Draw a line from 
Toronto through London to Lake Huron 
and all the country south of that line, 
including twenty-three of the best Ridings 
of Canada — an area equalling the counties 
of Essex, Kent, Lambton, Eothwell, the 
Elgins, the Norfolks, the Middlesexes, 
Welland, Haldimand, the Wentworths, 
the Brants, the Oxfords, Monk, Lincoln, 
Hal ton and Peel, would barely equal tli& 
territory of Northern Dakota, which is 
now occupied by Canadians who sought 
homes in Manitoba ana — thanks to fto 


y of lion, gentlemen opposite — were 
le to find them there. Sir, I said 
was also another loss. X^e hon. 
leman has added — intentionally or 
—but he has added largely, despite 
I he may say to the contrary, to the 
of living in this country. The hon. 
in kno\s s -if he tries to retrench, 

- ill soon find out if he does not know 
■at it is very hard, indeed, for either 

or individuals, who have become 
-touted to a certain style of expendi- 
ture, to retiench that expenditure. Sir, 
v any wise statesman to-day woidd 
shun, as he would shun poison, any legis- 
atton which would tend to increase the 
*>< afth of the few at the expense of the 
overishment of the many. I say that 
e is no greater danger, politically 
.^ing, confronting society than the 
>;gation of large fortunp.s in individual 
is: and the hon. gentleman, it he 
way attention to the movements of 

• nt thought, knows, or ought to 
V that I speak the truth. I say that 

- a thing which invariably produces 
;ption on the one side and misery 

an the other. 1 say it justifies 

. , ■, \\.>, in Canada, a few years 

if we had not great wealth, had 

an exceedingly fair distribution of what 

th we had. 

For What Minister* arc ItoNponftibto. 

non. gentleman's policy has con- j 

ted Lai eely to alter that condition of ; 

28, and to cause this country to ap- ; 

• mate the very condition in the Old 
Id which has led so many people to j 

th<- Old World ami seek a hone, on 

Bide of the Atlantic. The lion. 

in can show no siiij.- instance 

. re, in waich huge fortunes exist 

hich thci»- is not intense poverty at 

•ther end of the scale. Now, let us 

vhat the hon. gentlemen opposite can 

■Id responsible for. Boi the poor 

• • ' bey are n visible in one 

ich they cei Uinly eould 
'h«\ are re- i 

i. ■•• in thut W ••'' when had 

overtook the oountry, during 
Administration of my hon. friend, | 

they falsely charged him with being the 
cause of it, and falsely pretended that if 
they were put- in office they could do 
better. I say they are responsible for the 
excessive taxation which exists, for the 
amount of capital which is needlessly lock- 
ed up in unproductive manufactures for 
the capital which is lost by emigration 
which is very large, for the capital which 
is locked up in the North-West, and for 
the general inflation and the increased 
cost of living in the country. Now, how 
do these hon.gentlemen propose to remedy 
all this 1 1 did not hear in the statement 
of the hon. gentleman, any relief proposed 
now. He takes credit to himself that 
: hewa? obliged to reduce certain taxes. 
Well, Sir, considering that he put on 
probably twelve or fifteen millions more 
taxes per annum, than were at all required, 
I do not think we owe him any great 
i thanks for that. Still, as far as it went, 
it was good; but it was not by any manner 
i of means what he ought to have done 
or what is called for by the present necess- 
; ities of the country. Now, I had thought 
that I might take this occasion to speak 
of the Administration and the policy of my 
hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie) more in de- 
tail ; but that, I see, looking at the time, 
1 must reserve for some other occasion. 
Still, I will say this, that I am prepared 
to show, if the hon. gentleman wants to 
have it shown, that the deficits which ex- 
isted during my hon. friend's Administra- 
tion— thedehcitsof 1876, 1877 and 1878— 
were due to the extravagance — aye, to the 
deliberate misconduct — of his predeces- 
sors. 1 siy Sir, that the deficits which 
would have existed in 1874 and 1875 
were turned into surpluses by us. I say 
more that the mischief which afterwards 
occurred w;us due to the neglect, by hon. 
gentlemen opposite, of my hon. friend's 
warnings, and I say, that in spite of aM, 
we had substantially mastered all those 
difficulties by sheer economy, and that, 
with the solitary exception of the sum 
required for sinking fund — which, us the 
hon. Minister of Finance truly said this 
afternoon goes wholly to the redemption 
of debt we had, l>efore weleftomoe, succeed 
ed in establishing an equilibrium. More 


T S8y — our Tarifl, had it been maintained, 
would have provided an ample revenue 
the moment trade revived. The Tariff of 
hon. gentlemen opposite, as the statements 
of 1879 and 1880 show, wholly failed to 
afford a revenue until that revival took place. 
I say further — if, instead of having re- 
course to a comparison of my hon. friend's 
Administration in difficult times, with 
their Administration in prosperous times, 
hon. gentlemen opposite compare their 
Administration in a time at all approach- 
ing the stringency we had to face, my hon. 
friend has not the faintest cause to fear a : 
comparison of his Administration with j 
the Administration of Sir John A. Mac- j 
donald in former years of stringency, j 
More, Sir — I say that our policy prevailed I 
the taxes and the expenditure of the coun- 
try would have been many millions, a 
year less to-day than they are now, and ! 
the taxation would have been infinitely 
more fairly levied. I say, as I have said 
before, that had the people been permit- 
ted, as we would have permitted them, to 
use the great advantages which presented 
the nselves in Manitoba, that Province 
to-day would have contained half a mil- 
lion of prosperous and contemted settlers, 
instead of being as the hon. gentleman 
well knows a mass of discontent. I say 
there wonld have been no tyrannical 
monopolies; and although there would 
have been undoubtedly a considerable re- 
moval from Ontario, that would have 
gone to swell the population of our coun- 
try, and not the population of the United 
States. Now, Sir, in all this I am not 
claiming very much. I am only claim- 
ing that affairs would have been admin- 
istered with reasonable prudence, and 
reasonable economy, a ad reasonable dis- 
cretion; and I say, that as much as could 
have been done in Manitoba, has 
been done again and again in the TJnited 
States. Now, Sir, I do not want, as the 
hon. gentlemen did, to enter on the 
realm of prophecy; I am not going to 
venture on any predictions. But I 
may recall the past. I may recall 
the fact that, in 1873, under some- 
what similar circumstances, the hon. 
gentleman thought there was along career 

of prosperity awaiting us ;and I may recall 
to him the fact that, scarcely were the 
words out of his mouth, as scarcely we£e 
the words out of his mouth last year, 
before the fair prospect was overclouded.. 
Now, Sir, if the hon. gentleman Has > 
period of commercial difficulty before ftim 
— though I trust he will not be called 
upon to face any such commercial d 
ter as overtook the country durins 
Administration of my hon. friend — 1 a«k 
him, and 1 ask the House, how he is pre- 
pared to meet it. Sir, our resources 
have been dissipated, while our liabilities 
have been indefinitely increased. It is 
quiet on the cards, if the hon. gentleman's 
own policy should be carried out, and wir 
imports should be reduced to the level of 
exports, that instead of having $30,000 
000 or $81,000,000 to rely on, he mighz 
find himself reduced to $26,000,000 ©* 
$27,000,000 ; while at the same time he 
has swollen his expenditure to such a figure 
that there isscarcely any reasonable 
for believing that it can be reduced below 
$30,000,000 or $31,000,000. Now w 
have to confront, not only this grievoni? 
taxtation, but an absolute reduction in. 
the population of our richest Provicioe. 
and there is this difference, at any ftttft, 
between the trouble which may overtake 
us now and the trouble which overtook 
us in 1874, that although it may be tWrti 
that in both cases something was du.e tid 
the extravagance of the people themsel^e^. 
though more is due, I think, to unavoid- 
able misfortunes / which could not by miv 
possibility be foreseen or prevented, 8$81 
in the present instance when there have- 
been no disasters of any real importance 
we have nothing to thank but our o*n 
wilful imprudence for the position we Sire 
in to-day. We have nothing to tk 
but our own folly if the advantages of our- 
position have been thrown away and 
prove insufficient to save us from serious 
reverses. Now, if I am to sum up ohe 
losses we have sustained, I feel some 
difficulty in doing it. I believe the ex- 
cessive taxation to which the hon. gentle- 
man has subjected this country, has in- 
volved a loss of not less than $50,000,000 
in the course of the last five year? \ I 

believe that the locking up of capital in' 
manufactures lias involved a loss of not 
less than $10,000,000, and the locking 
wp of capital in the North-West, a loss of 
not less than $20,000,000. As to the 
loss we have sustained by the depletion 
of our population and the amount of 
i -apital withdrawn from Caoada to pro- * 
•% idfl Canadians with homes in the United 
States, that . I confess, I almost hesitate 
to compute. I know it to be very large 
and vastly in excess of all we have re- 

td from any immigration into this 
country, but how large it is, it is almost 
impossible for me or anybody else to 
calculate now. The lion, gentleman, 

lea by involving us, as he has, in an : 
annual expenditure of not less than f 
000,000 a year, has unjustly and im- 
properly added $5,000,000 to our annual 
f*x]ienditure. Let him capitalize that at 
4 per cent, and see what amount that 
will represent. I say nothing of the 
Additional millions which have not been ! 
jatid into the Treasury but have been 
j aid in subsidizing certain industries in 
this country. I will only allude to 
:h<- hundreds of millions in money 
and other subsidies which we have 
granted to a Company for the purpose of 

'inga railway monopoly through the , 
North* West We do not know if the 
$100,000,000 will do or what further i 
demands will be made. I have put down 
nothing fox the last bad harvest, the 
shrinkage of stocks, the loss we have in? 
« Hired, according to the hon. gentleman's 
principles, by the met that our imports j 

.-•led our exports last year by $ 
000,000 or |34,000,Q00. If hon. gentle- 
men opposite choose to add all these 
thing* together, (hey may compute for 
themselves • tkey may oompate what four 
or fire yeaip of those hon. gentlemen's 
rnment has cost th« country. For 

If, I wil] not hesitate to say that, 

ug .it the tiling all round. I believe 

we would have done better if we had 

|Q,OOO f O00 OV --I'M.. -Mill, (KM) 

and thrown the mon< \ into the sea or 
ijown it fireworks, ss other 

1 . than allow these hon. 

Wkft* Fire Year* of Sir i. M*e<*oual<rs Admin i<w 
tratlon hare done. 

Five years of their government have 
done as much mischief to Canada, rela- 
tively to our population and resources, 
as four years of civil war did to the 
country and the people to the south of 
us But though we may measure the 
material injury we have sustained, how 
shall we estimate the moral ? I predicted 
in 1878, that if the people of Canada 
chose to restore those hon. gentlemen to 
power, three results would accrue. First 
of all, I said, and I repeat it now, thai 
by restoring those hon. gentlemen to 
power, after what they had been proved 
to have done, we would degrade and de- 
moralize public opinion from one end of 
this country to the other. I said, in tine 
second place, that by the system they 
proposed to introduce, if allowed to put 
it into effect, jthey would impoverish the 
great bulk of the people. I said ,in the last 
place, that if they were restored to power. 
after what had occurred, all restraint and 
wholesome control on the part of the 
people, over Parliament or the Govern- 
ment, would be removed, and that there- 
would be no check on the extravagance 
and corruption which would ultimately 
prevail. I am sorry to say that the 
worst results I predicted have been ful- 
filled. We are confronted to-day with a 
Government which may be defined as a 
Government compacted of all the sinister 
interests in Canada- It is not, as its 
leader once paid, a Government steeped to- 
the lipa in corruption, but a Government, 
which is corruption incarnate. What 
have we seen within the last two week,-, 
within the last few days ? What have we 
seen within the course of the last year or 
two ? We have seen the whole representa- 
tion of the Great Province to which I 
belong so villainously gerrymandered 
that oue halt of the electors are allowed 
to return t wo- thirds of the representative* 
to Parliament; that one-sixth of the 
people, to all intents and purposes, are. 
practically disfranchised, and we saw that 
done by virtue of a Census which itself is 
h deliberate fraud and as to which you 
Can only assert with confidence one fact, 
that it does not truly state the number of 


people who were in Canada on the day it 
pretended to be taken. We have seen 
worse than that. We have seen civil 
servants of Government, who were 
proven to have conspired to defraud, 
or who, at any rate, were proven to have 
aided in causing their employers a loss of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, restor- 
ed to office and the act defended on the 
floor of this House ; we have seen the 
judiciary prostituted by the appointment 
to a place on the Bench of a gentleman 
against whom suits were impending 
which, if proven, would have shown him 
to be utterly unlit to take his seat on that 
very Bench before which these actions 
were brought ; we have s?en contracts for 
large sums of money given away in 
deliberate violation of the law and in a 
fashion that justified the idea that the 
men who got the contracts were expected 
to render yeom ans's service, by providing 
secret funds for electoral corruption, we 
have seen large tracts of valuable lands, 
the property of the public, secretly sold 
for about one-third of their value to the 
highest officials of the country, and not 
a word heard in reprobation from the 
gentlemen who used to be so loud 
in denouncing my hon friend (Mr. 
Mackenzie) if it were discovered that he, 
on any occasion, -had allowed a contract 
to be give to one man for a few hundred 
dollars more than it had been tendered 
for by another; we have seen two Prem- 
iers, one of* the Dominion and one the 
great Province of Quebec, unseated for 
shameless bribery and curruption, com- 
mitted under circumstances which show 
that, if not legally, they were morally 
guilty of acting in connivance with the 
culprits; we have seen one great Province 
brought to the brink of financial ruin by 
the extravagance and corruption of those 
entrusted with its administration, to its 
great loss and the loss of the whole 
Dominion; we have seen other Provinces 
repeatedly deprived of their just and 
legal rights, in definance of the former 
public declarations of the very men who 
vetoed those laws passed by the Provin- 
cial Legislatures; we have seen a deliberate 
plot on the part of the Federal Govern- 

ment, by means I shall not charaeteri^e^ 
as they deserve to be characterized, to 
overturn the Local Gorervment in 
Ontario. Sir, it failed, as it deserved to 
fail, and in this failure there is, perhaps., 
the best ground for hope that the people 
of Canada and the people of Ontario are 
beginning to understand and appreciate 
the mode in which those hon. gentlemen) 
are carrying on the Government of this. 
country. We have seen hundreds of 
thousands of the very choice and newer 
of our fellow-countrymen driven into 
exile by the policy of these hon. gentle- 
men; we have seen $100,000,000, of 
public money given to build up a rail- 
way monopoly; we have seen the taxation 
of this country raised to a point far 
beyond the taxation of the United States 
to-day and equal to that with which the 
United States emerged from their great 
civil war; and we have seen all that done 
under a fiscal policy, for which the hon. 
gentleman is specially responsible, which 
is so contrived as to bear most 
heavily on the poorest portion of the 
community, next most heavily on the 
producing classes, and, by an exquisite 
refinement of folly, most of all and worst 
of all, on the very men who are now en- 
gaged in endeavouring to settle, to 
develop, and to make valuable the country 
to the north-west of us. Still do not 
despair, bad as all this is, I do not despair. 
In one thing 1 agree with the lion, gentle- 
man — the resources of this country are 
great. Other countries have sustained* 
equal injuries and have survived them 
not without bitter suffering, but they have 
survived them, and I believe the resour- 
ces of Canada are enough ; I believe 
there is enough sterling honesty and 
ability among our people, if properly 
organized, to restore an honest form of 
Government yet. But, although J do not 
despair, I am not over-confident. T am 
aware that mischief has been done which 
it will take generations to repair ; I am 
aware that the whole future of this 
country has been very heavily mortgaged 
indeed, and I do not cheat myself with 
the cheap philosophy that everything is 
bound to come all right somehow. Reason 


does not tell us that, history does not tell 
us that, f experience does not tell 
ns that. It may be that things will come 
right, but they will not come right of their 
own accord ; they will have to be set right, 
and it may be after a long and painful 
struggle. More, Sir ; I say it with regret, 
but I say that the people of Canada have 
deliberately retrograded ; I say that the 
people of Canada have not shown, as a 
whole, that regard for their liberty, that 
jealous watchfulness of men in power, 
that is the price that every free nation m ust 
pay for being properly governed. I say 
that to-day, in Canada to our shame and 
loss be it said, public morality is painful- 
ly low and public opinion is painfully 

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh ! 

Yes ; I say it. I am not afraid to say it. 
Our duty is plain enough, and we mean 
to do it. Our duty is not to shrink from 
telling unpleasant truths because we 
happen to stand at odds on this floor. 
"We may be at the odds of one or 
two ; we are at the odds of one 
to two, although our numbers here do 
not at all represent fairly and honestly 
our true following in this country. But 
I say this, be the odds what they will, so 
as we have seats here, we will not cease 
to warn the people of their danger, we 
will not cease to call those hon. gentlemen 
to account, Sir, the hon. gentlemen 
have power indeed, they may have reco- 
urse to their old style of argument, they 

cannot answer our arguments per^ . 
but they can pass Acts of Parliamep ! 
turn us out of the Legislature. T*iar 
they can do, and that if they choose tc 
try it again, they are welcome to do; but, 
except by such arguments, they will not 
silence gentlemen on this side of the 
House; they will not silence them by any 
impudent j assertions on their part that 
they are patriotic, and that we 
are to be denounced because we 
choose to call attention to plain and 
manifest facts. Was that the way in 
which the hon. Minister of Railways u 
to conduct his opposition from this very 
seat 1 Was he afraid of stating unplea- 
sant facts because he thought it might 
injure the credit of this country ? If he 
concealed anything, Mr. Speaker, hi 1 
concealment was the highest style of art, 
for no one on our side ever suspected him 
of doing it. I regret exceedingly that 
things are as they are, but I say it woukl 
be infinitely worse if, being as they are, 
we should hesitate to declare our opinion, 
I admit that we may be out-voted and 
that we may be out-numbered, but what 
I say to my friends behind me is, that so 
long as they are true to their own con- 
victions, and so long as they are net 
afraid to defend them here and to defend 
them elsewhere, the Liberal party may, 
here in Canada, as it is has elsewhere,, be 
temporarily defeated, but the Liberal 
party cannot be beaten, and the Lifoara^ 
party are safe to win in the end*