Hear, hear.
It was on the morning of St. George's day, five years ago that I had the honour to place on the Table of this House the tariff resolutions containing that principle of British preference which has given so much satisfaction to all who honour St. George and Merrie England. This year our Budget is submitted on Ireland's day of rejoicing. This is St. Patrick's day, and from the topmost roof of our parliament House the British flag flies in honour of this occasion.
Hear, hear.
There is something suggestive in the coincidence. It seems to remind us that, gratifying as is the story we are able to tell of the material progress of the Dominion, there is something that is more pleasing still. It is the very harmonious and happy relations which prevail between our people of all- sections, classes and creeds. Here in this broad Dominion we have a population drawn from many races and nationalities-English,
French, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, German-all cherishing the memories and traditions of their mother lands, and specially honouring them at appropriate times, as the memories of Ireland are honoured to-day, yet all cordially uniting their efforts for the development of this country and for the maintenance of institutions under which all enjoy the priceless blessings of civil and religious liberty. [DOT]
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).
Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is taking too much comfort to himself with regard to the relation of the Budget to the Saints' days, in as much as he intended to deliver his Budget speech last Thursday and I induced him to change his mind and to deliver it on St. Patrick's day.
But my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) wanted it on Tuesday.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I acquiesced without a moment's hesitation to the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that it should be delivered to-day.
Hear, hear.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I am bound to say that if there is not more consolation for that grand old island across the sea in the matter of public expenditure, than there is for Canada in the Budget speech which the hon. gentleman has presented to-day, Ireland will not have much to comfort herself with.
Before dealing with the main matter in the Budget speech, I wish to make an observation or two about the tariff relations between Canada and Germany. It seems to me remarkably late in the day for the Finance Minister to arrive at the conclusion that the position taken by Canada in this respect should be pressed upon the attention of the German government. For about three years Canada has been excluded from the benefits of the German minimum tariff, and although we on this side had pressed the matter on the attention of this government session after session, the Minister of Finance is only now awakening to the fact that it is desirable to bring the true state of affairs to the attention of the German government. We have been urging upon the hon. gentleman and upon the government for three years past that this matter should be dealt with vigorously and promptly ; and though it is somewhat late in the day for the Canadian government to think of taking action, it is better late than never, and I hope our government will move at once.
The Minister of Finance asserted that the census returns are disappointing. They are disappointing to all of us. But when the hon. gentleman asserts that the increase is due entirely to the last five years he asserts that the official statements which have from time to time been presented by the government are absolutely misleading and inaccurate. We all know that the Minister of Finance does not mean anything of the kind, and that it is a mere catch cry to save himself from the position in which he would be placed if we referred to the criticism of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made ten years ago. But even for the purposes of a catch cry, it is hardly worth while for
my hon. friend to descend to a statement which is so far from the true facts as that which he has made to-day. He also referred to the post office deficit of $489,000 ; but he omitted to tell us that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), during the election in the year 1900, told us that the Post Office Department would be self-sustaining. That indicated that the hon. Postmaster General was nearly $500,000 out in regard to the revenues and expenses of his own department ; and I do not know that it is much of a compliment from the Minister of Finance to the Postmaster General.
Now, I am not going to follow my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, in a great many of the comparative statements he has made. I wish, in the first place, to say a word or two about the general prosperity of this country and of the world. We, as well as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, congratulate, not the government, but the country, on the splendid prosperity which has prevailed throughout Canada during the past year. We are not behindhand in doing our duty in that respect; but when my hon. friend, as well as the hon. gentlemen behind him, seem to suggest that this prosperity is in any way due to the present government or to any measure which they have brought down, they lay themselves open to fair criticism. Why, Mr. Speaker, a cock crowing at dawn might think his efforts occasioned, because they preceded, the rising of the sun. It would be just as reasonable for the cock to congratulate himself on the rising of the sun on that particular morning ns for my hon. friend to congratulate the government of this country upon the prosperity which has prevailed throughout Canada and throughout the world. That particular chanticleer would crow on a certain morning when the sun rose, and my hon. friend happens to be Finance Minister of Canada during a period of great prosperity not only in Canada but throughout the world; and I venture to say that there is just as much cause for congratulation in the one case as there is in the other.
With regard to the expansion of trade, my hon. friend has submitted figures to us with which we are very much pleased in some respects, though not in others, as I shall endeavour to show a little later on. In years gone by my hon. friend has presented diagrams to the House showing the enormous expansion in the trade and revenue of the country since 1896. I have sometimes been tempted to inquire why it is that my hon. friend has never seen fit to present to this House a diagram showing the increased expenditure and the increased taxation of this country from 1896 to the present time.
There is not room enough.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
char|laWeetoacolllecUMsh-argeable t0 consolidated fund- and then there are certain items-
1890. 1901. Increase.$ $ $Customs 227,485 13,509 12,258 200,435 113,349 2,551,735 32,230 5,800Dominion Lands Inspection of Staples , 119,908 133,417 Post Office 3,931,440 272,809 0,377,901 41,G9'J 103,725 Public Works 159,400 3,820,220 9,403 Railways and Canals Trade and Commerce Weights and measures, gas, &c... , My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and some of his colleagues. Then, there is Commerce has not advanced as rapidly as
Dominion Lands Intercolonial Railway Public Works Public buildings, Ottawa ... Prince Edward Island Railway. My hon friend the Minister of Finance has not dealt very fully with this question of expenditure, so far as comparative expenditure is concerned, and I would like to draw his attention to certain figures during a period of five years from 1892 to 1890 as compared with those from 1897 to 1901. Let me give a diagram showing the increase in the total expenditure : 1892 1893 1894 1895 189G
1897.. .. 1898.. . 1899 1900 .... 1901
Average annual exp snditure during 5 years of Liberal rule $50,110 001 Average annual expenditure during 5 years of Conservative rule 42 141 764 Average annual increase under Liberal rule $7,968,237 Tctal expenditure, 1897 to 1901 both years inclusive $250,550,005 Ted al expenditure, 1892 to 1896, both yiars inclusive 210,708,819 Liberal rule $9,841,186 1890. 1901. Increase.$ $ $82,184 209,001 18G,877200,390 3,033,837 3,373,441114,820 960,502 851,670Nil. 40,482 40,482Nil. 280,174 280,174 Thus, from 1892 to 1896, the aggregate total expenditure amounted to $210,708,819, and from 1897 to 1901 it amounted to $250,550,005, showing an increased expenditure of nearly $40,000,000 in the latter five years. Therefore, during the five years of Liberal rule, there was a yearly average expenditure of $50,110,001 as compared with $42,141,764 during the previous five years of Conservative administration, or an average increase of annual expenditure of $7,968,237 by the present government over its predecessors. Why does not my hon. friend the Minister of Finance claim the benefit of this result ? It is one to the full benefit of which he is certainly entitled. He may not be entitled to the credit of the prosperity which prevails in Canada, as well as in all the rest of the world, but certainly he is entitled to the credit of all this expenditure. My hon. friend became reminiscent this afternoon. Does he ever think of the years gone by in which an expenditure of $38,000,000 was declared by his friends to he $3,000.000 or $4,000,000 too much. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) published an article in the ' North American Review,' in which he attacked the increase in expenditure, during
the eleven years between 1878 and 1889, of 813,385,581. I happen to have the article in my hand. It does not appear to interest my hon. friend now, because I observed him yawn when I merely mentioned it. But I assure him that I am not speaking of him simply as the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the financial critic of the opposition at that time, but as the representative of the Liberal party in those days-the man who was put forward as its ablest exponent ; who, in the introduction to this very article, is referred to as the real, though not .the titular leader of the opposition; whose views were put forward throughout this [DOT]country as those of the real leader of the [DOT]opposition. I invite his attention to some of the views he then expressed-views not set out in the heat of an election campaign, but in the calmness of a magazine review; thought out carefully in the quiet of his study and not uttered on a political platform or in the heat of a political struggle. Let us see what view he took of the situation at that time. He said : In }878, the actual taxation of Canada was $17,841,938, though, as there was a deficit in that year, the necessary taxation might he placed at $19,000,000. In 1889, the actual taxation was $30,613,522, being an Inornate of $11,613,522. Now, if we compare 1897 with 1901, we find an increase of $15,000,000 in the four years of Liberal rule, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was shocked at an actual taxation of $30,013,522 in 1889, is not shocked at an actual expenditure of $57,982,000 at the present time. My hon. friend may say that I am comparing the receipts from taxes with the total expenditure. Well, I will compare something else for him. The total receipts from taxes during 1901 were $38,743,550, so that if my hon. friend had occasion to grow eloquent at that time, he certainly has still more occasion to do so at present. What did he say about it in this magazine article : Comment is hardly necessary, nor, indeed, does space permit me to point out ;he enormous mischiefs which result in a young and pcor country from absorbing so large a proportion of the earnings of the people, in defraying the charges of the federal government, as is now being taken in Canada. , Yet, although $8,000,000 more are taken now than then, the Minister of Trade and [DOT]Commerce seems perfectly contented over the situation. Let us take a comparison which he was good enough to make then, and which is the most striking thing in the article : In 1845 the population of the United States was (by estimate) 20,000,000 The taxes of the United States were. .$27,531,630 The total expenditure was 22,935,828 Then, he says ; In 1889 the population of Canada was perhaps 4,800,000 The taxes of Canada were $30,613,522 The total expenditure was 36,917,854