in Opposition? They proposed to reduce expenditure; they proposed to cease bonusing railways and other works which they thought should not now require public money." The speaker came out very strongly in favour of calling a halt in the squandering of public money for the bonusing of railways and other public works. It was the duty of the Government to cease this policy, in the older Provinces at least. He declared that there was not the slightest effort on the part of the Government to keep expenditure within the revenue.

The debate which followed took straight party lines, with one or two exceptions. Mr. James Clancy took high ground against the alleged extravagance of the Government. They had collected a revenue of $36,618,000 in 1896, and in 1900 one of $51,029,000. They had increased the taxation of the people. In 1896 the customs duties were $3.94 per head, and the excise 63 cents, or a total of $4.57. In 1900 the customs rate had increased to $5.37, the excise to 83 cents, and the total to $6.21 per head. The specific increase upon tobacco and cigars was $1,313,337; upon sugar, $737,534; upon rice, $26,000. While the Minister had taken $14,000,000 more from the people than in 1896, he yet glorified himself for a slight reduction in the Public Debt of 1900. "In arriving at his surplus of $8,000,000, the Hon. gentleman did not include all the expenditures." The receipts for 1899-1900 were $51,029,994, the total actual expenditure was $52,717,466, leaving in reality a deficit of $1,687,472. It was unfair and misleading to separate the capital and consolidated fund expenditures when both were paid in the main out of revenue.

Sir R. J. Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, defended the Government's financial position and record. It was true that the debt had slightly increased, but it was for such indisputably good purposes as the expenditure of $3,500,000 upon the Crow's Nest Railway; the grant of $1,500,000 for the expenses of the troops sent to South Africa; the discount of about $1,000,000 on the 21 per cent. loan. As to the future he was very optimistic. "During the next 25 years, in fact, during a shorter period, we will probably have to refund the whole, or very nearly the whole, of our debts. At this moment the charges for our debt and sinking fund are a little over $13,000,000 a year, but if my Hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) succeeds in establishing a 2, or even a 23 per cent. rate, and in dispensing with the sinking fund—as I know he will-the probabilities are that before the 25 years will have expired we will have reduced that $13,000,000 to something like $6,000,000 or $7,000,000." He was quite assured as to the nature of the present tariff. Replying to a remark made by Mr. Cochrane, Sir Richard said: If he means to say that our tariff is a very high revenue tariff, I will agree with him; if he says it is a protective tariff, I differ."

Mr. A. C. Bell criticised the Minister of Finance for his method of book-keeping and calculation of surpluses. Had Sir Leonard Tilley added to the consolidated fund revenue the sums received from the sale of Dominion lands, as was now done, he would have had a surplus of $8,060,000 in 1883, and one of $8,073,492 in 1884-and these in

days when Canada was, comparatively, small, poor and unimportant. "We find that under the present Finance Minister, the debt has increased from $63.33 per head to $64.75, and the net interest has increased from $1.74 per head to $1.78." The revenues, taxation and debt had all increased, and there was no relief to the burdens of the people. Yet Sir Leonard Tilley, with his surpluses, had reduced taxation in 1882 and 1883 by two-and-half millions, and the Hon. Mr. Foster in 1891 by two millions.

Mr. Charles S. Hyman declared that there had been reductions in the tariff and public taxation. There were 140 items upon which the duties were lower and upon which at least $3,000,000 had been saved to the pockets of the people. Mr. E. D. Smith compared the expenditures in the last five years of Conservative rule, 1892-1896, with the five years of Liberal rule, 1897-1901. The expenditures upon Consolidated fund account had risen from $186,246,120 to $208,461,066, and the total expenditures from $210,202,852 to $247,539,129. The money had not been spent for great public works or improvements. "This additional expenditure is more than half of what the Canadian Pacific Railway cost." In the eight years from 1888 to 1896 the debt had increased annually at the average rate of $2,997,000; under the present Administration it had increased $1,749,093 annually. Surrounding circumstances, he contended, made these figures very striking. During the past five years there had been a plethoric revenue, and good times here and all over the world. Yet the debt had increased annually within a little over a million less than it did in the preceding period of hard times and Conservative rule.

The Leader of the Opposition followed and denounced the Government for not preparing for the future at a time when the revenues were large and the country prosperous. If the Government's claim that they had helped or created this prosperity were correct, why, he asked, did they not guard against future depression instead of hinting at its possibility? What was the purpose of the present tariff? “I have always understood that a revenue tariff was designed to produce a revenue fitting for the requirements of the Government; but here is a tariff which produces in excess of the requirements of the Government by no less than $6,000,000." After speaking at length upon the Preferential trade issue, Mr. Borden moved the following Resolution:

That, in the opinion of this House, the welfare of this country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other industrial interests of Canada;

That, in the op nion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the Empire would prove of great benefit to the Mother Country and to the Colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the Empire as a whole, and that the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.

This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries, not within the Empire in all cases, where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the Government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.

A prolonged discussion followed this amendment, lasting until March 29th, and covering a great variety of trade and tariff matters. On the final date mentioned, the amendment was voted down by 118 to 64. On May 22nd, Mr. Borden raised another debate upon the financial situation in a lengthy and elaborate speech made in connection with an amendment to the motion to go into Committee. He commenced by stating that the old-time Liberal adjective of "extravagant," as applied to a Conservative expenditure of $38,000,000, was now changed into one of "generous," as applied to an expenditure of $53,000,000. In 1896 the people had paid in customs and excise taxes $27,759,285; in 1900 they paid $38,242,222. Of course, the country had been prosperous, and the revenues had increased generally. Yet "the expenditure, for the present year exceeds $50,000,000, and that proposed for the year ending June 30, 1902, runs up to over $60,000,000." He expressed the belief that the Government was fixing too high a rate of expenditure, and was not living up to the warnings of their own Finance Minister in his Budget speeches of 1900 and 1901. He pointed out that while the revenue for the current year from June 30, 1900, to May 20, 1901, showed an increase of $1,335,162, the expenditure showed an increase of $2,883,111-chiefly upon railways and public works. As to the moneys spent upon these projects, he did not see any definite plan or purpose beyond that of pleasing clamourous sections or supporters by a sort of hand-to-mouth policy. Mr. Borden then moved a long Resolution, stating that the total expenditure had increased from $42,272,136 in 1892 and $44,096,383 in 1896, to $52,717,466 in 1900; that the estimated revenue for the year ending June 30, 1901, would be the large sum of $52,750,000, while the Public Debt during the current year was expected to be increased by the sum of $1,800,000; that the Finance Minister estimated the bounties on iron and steel during the ensuing year at $1,000,000 and perhaps more; that the supplementary estimates for 1901 were $3,759,716, which, with those for 1902 of $9,609,717, together with Railway subsides of $3,558,472, and the main estimates of $50,398,823, made a total of nearly sixty seven and a half millions. In view of all these statements he concluded his motion as follows:

That this House desires to place on record its opinion that the expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1901, and the proposed expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1902, are excessive and extravagant, and it regrets that the Government, with the exceptionally large revenue at its command, has not only failed to reduce, but has largely increased the Public Debt, and has not shown proper appreciation of the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of reducing in future years the very high standard of expenditure which is being fixed during a period of great prosperity.

Mr. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, replied. He welcomed the warning as to moderation in expenditure, and described it as the view he had himself been expressing. At the same time he did not believe in standing still, and thought the great strides made by Canada in recent years had so far justified the increases in expenditure. "We

have been carrying on large operations; we have been developing our country in many ways." This was illustrated in the Yukon, and in the increased business of the Intercolonial Railway as well as in the development of export trade from $127,461,000 during the ten months ending April, 1900, to $144,520,000 in the similar current period. As to the assumed expenditure of $67,000,000 next year, he drew attention to the difference which always exists between appropriations and actual expenditures. The standard of expenditure depended entirely upon national conditions, prosperity, population, etc. If the amount per head was $9.80 last year, it was $12.90 in 1884, $10.83 in 1885, and $13.47 in 1886. Of course, the last two years had been those of the North-West troubles, but then, in 1900, the Government had the South African war to deal with. He answered the charge of increasing the Public Debt, with a surplus in the Treasury, by quoting similar conditions under Conserative rule.

As to the alleged desirability of a definite policy regarding expenditures, Mr. Fielding came out with a clear declaration. "Wherever there is found in any Province of Canada a proposition to construct a railway, or a breakwater, or a wharf, or anything else, which comes within the class of public works which this Parliament usually deals with; and wherever it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Government that the construction of that work will be of use to the public generally and assist in the development of the trade and commerce of the country, that undertaking this Government are disposed to favourably consider." Turning to the question of details in expenditure, he inquired how much of this $67,000,000 the Opposition had moved to strike out. Much of the money voted for harbours and rivers, to which general exception had just been taken, was to be spent in the Maritime Provinces from which the Leader of the Opposition came; some of it was devoted to his own county. Yet none of these items had been seriously or successfully criticized.

He declared that the Conservative members were not the men to declaim with justice against increased expenditures. During the present Session Dr. Sproule had urged a bounty to beet-root sugar manufacturers, Mr. E. D. Smith had wanted more money spent on cold storage, Mr. A. C. Bell had desired more land bought for certain public buildings in Ottawa, Mr. Borden himself had supported some of these proposals, Mr. F. D. Monk had wanted another million spent on the St. Lawrence River improvements, Mr. E. F. Clarke had urged further expenditures upon Toronto harbour, the Hon. Mr. Haggart had advocated the Georgian Bay Canal project with its obligations of many millions, and Mr. Maclean had urged the Government to purchase the railways of the country. Yet they all denounced the Government for extravagance, and overlooked the fact that a reduced tariff had saved the people some $6,000,000 during the past four years. Speeches followed from Messrs. Samuel Barker, David Henderson and R. H. Pope-all Conservatives-and the Resolution was then voted down by 100 to 51.

Financial Position of the

Provinces

The receipts and expenditures of Ontario in 1868, were, respectively, $2,443,686 and $1,484,506; in 1878, $2,284,656 and $2,914,864; in 1888, $3,602,862 and $3,544,835; in 1899, $4,103,478 and $3,717,404. In Quebec they were $1,529,843 and $1,181,932 in 1868; $2,018,482 and $2,577,171 in 1878; $2,738,768 and $3,365,032 in 1888; $4,223,579 and $4,201,023 in 1899. The other Provinces have shown much smaller figures in their finances. The receipts of Nova Scotia in 1868 were $466,181 and in 1899, $876,828; the expenditures were, $532,808 in 1868 and $852,379 in 1899. The receipts of New Brunswick were $555,293 in 1868, and $764,439 in 1899; and the expenditures were, respectively, $485,267 and $749,644. Manitoba, in its first statistically organized year (1875) had receipts of $74,534 which had grown by 1899 to $776,234. The expenditures rose in the same years from $133,390 to $972,462. The revenue of British Columbia in 1872, when it entered Confederation, was $327,216 and in 1899 it had grown to $1,531,639. Meanwhile the expenditures increased from $432,083 to $2,156,474. Prince Edward Island had receipts of $270,559 in 1868 and $282,678 in 1899. Its expenditures were, respectively, $299,867 and $276,789.*

The debt of the Province of Ontario has been a much disputed point in Provincial politics. According to the Report of a Royal Commission in March, 1900, the liabilities of the preceding year consisted of Railway and Annuity certificates with a present value of $3,053,876 and there was a surplus of assets over these liabilities of $2,250,832, The gross debt of Quebec in 1882 was $15,549,613 with assets of $8,725,943; in 1892 the figures were, respectively, $28,731,263 and $13,903,993; in 1900 they were $36,120,393 and $13,888,538. Nova Scotia in 1882 had a gross debt of $98,718 with assets of $596,183; in 1892 the figures were $3,133,761 and $1,506,619, respectively; in 1900 they were $4,059,518 and $1,346,216. New Brunswick had a debt of $1,228,413 in 1882 without stated assets; in 1892 the debt was $2,729,517 and the assets $561,228; in 1900 the figures were respectively, $3,449,966 and $598,880. The debt of Manitoba in 1882 was $108,151 and the assets $243,061; in 1892 the debt was $3,618,637 and the assets-including $3,707,196 of a Dominion Government debt allowance-were $6,417,965; in 1900 the figures were $8,615,863 and $9,566,056. British Columbia had a debt of $800,566 in 1882 with assets of $616,566; in 1892 the figures were $2,876,036 and $1,842,424, respectively; in 1900 they were $8,866,868 and $3,098,304. The total gross or actual debt of all the Provinces in 1900 was, therefore, $64,247,678.

The Finances of Ontario

On February 21, 1901, the Hon. G. W. Ross, Premier and Treasurer, delivered his Budget speech at Toronto. The assets of the Province upon December 31, 1900, were described as follows: Direct investments, $251,243; Funds held by the Dominion in behalf of the Province and upon which interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum is payable,

*These figures are condensed from the voluminous statistics of the Statistical Year Book.