there is the statement that the taxation | took that $545,625 of money which the to which the people of this country were Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-No, I did not. hon. gentleman has charged to current revenue should have been charged to capital. Now, he has given Mr. BRYDGES a very high character-he has stated he is a gentleman of great ability, and I ask him to reconcile the statement of that gentleman-a gentleman better qualified than almost any other man in this country to state what is a fair and legitimate charge upon revenue-with the statement that the hon. gentleman himself has made. But I have better authority still, namely, the estimate submitted to this House by the hon. gentleman himself, in which a similar expenditure is charged to capital account Hon. Mr. TUPPER-The hon. gentle- and not to revenue. The hon. gentleman man did not reply to the statement I made knows that I challenged the accuracy of in which I showed that deducting from putting such expenditure as that for the the expenditure that which all previous Spring Mill branch of the Intercolonial Governments had kept out of that expen- Railway to revenue account. I showed diture, deducting that which the Minister him that Mr. BRYDGES in his report had of Public Works in his report to the placed it to capital account, and that the House showed ought not to be in that Minister of Public Works had done the expenditure, deducting that railway same thing in his report, and I now show expenditure which there own officer, him in his own estimates on this table that Mr. BRYDGES claimed to be capi- he is asking the House to vote $60,000 for tal expenditure and not chargeable to the construction of a station at Halifax, revenue making that deduction and and that he is charging that expenditure adding to the receipts the premium on as part of the expenditure on capital tho luan negotiated by Mr. TILLEY, the account. I ask the hon. gentleman, Does surplus would have stood at $1,722,215. | he intend to make up this account falsely? I will detain the House for a few to use his own term, for I would be sorry moments to strengthen the position which to use such strong language myself—and I took on that occasion. The hon. gentle- to put himself in a position to be challenged man says—and he expresses himself in by his successor for having made up his very strong terms that expenditure account in an improper manner? I have was falsely placed by the previous Gov- shown that throughout the past these ernments to capital when it ought to have expenditures have all been charged to been paid to revenue account, but the hon. capital, and I now show the House that in gentleman can hardly forget that one of a precisely similar case the hon. gentleman the objections he took to the policy of the has himself done the same thing. Accordprevious administration was to their mak- ing to the hon. gentleman's own showing ing large provisions for capital expendi- he is bound-if his estimate is properly ture out of current revenue of the day. made up this year-to put the four hunThe hon. gentleman knows that in sup- dred odd thousand dollars of expenditure,. port of the position which I took that the which he asks this House to make to Government had placed $545,625 of capi- extend the railway one mile, to revenue tal expenditure to current revenue. I account, if he claims that the extension of showed, by reference to the the public five miles of railway last year should be accounts of former years, that precisely placed to revenue account, I ask the hon. the same class of items had invariably. gentleman whether he is not impaled on been charged to capital account and not the horns of this dilemma, either that his to revenue. The hon. gentleman knows his own accounts this year are not that Mr. BRYDGES,-who was employed basel upon correct principles, or that as an expert in relation to railway these charges that have always accounts,—has, in his report to the Gov- in the past been placed to capital account, ernment, supported the position which I and which he declared should not have Hon. Mr. Tupper. people of the country three millions per annum he can get with all the goods passed in anticipation of the tariff within two and a half months of the end of the year, he can get more than $546,000 in the two and a half months. He cannot claim more if he admits that only three millions per annum of new taxes were imposed. But the fact that the hon. gentleman passed over that statement may be taken as an admission that I was correct. Deducting from the total surplus of $1,722,215 the sum of $1,072,611, as representing the amount received for new taxes, and the amount that was discounted in the Inland Revenue Department, and there was a surplus left of $649,604. These statements the hon. gentleman did not venture to question, and therefore I assume that he admits their accuracy. I then dealt with the only made by which it was possible to establish the hon. gentleman's imaginary deficit, and that was with the question as to whether there had been an anticipation next of revenue from the Customs as well as this from the Inland Revenue; and I proved that in six months the duties six months in which the hon. gentleman showed that there had been a falling off of imports entered for consumption of a million and a half as compared with the previous year been so placed, were correctly placed to statement. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-No. had increased $2,429,143; and when I proved that, I took away the possibility of the hon. gentleman using the argument that there was a single dollar discounted in relation to the Customs Revenue. I have ere now called the attention of the hon. gentleman and the attention of the House to the fact that he had adopted a new mode of making up the Public Accounts, in order to make an apparent increase of the expenditure and an apparent decrease of the receipts. There is another item in the Public Accounts to which I would call the attention of the House, as illustrating the length the hon. gentleman is prepared to go, in order to create imaginary deficits. If hon. gentlemen will turn to the Public Accounts, they will find the extraordinary item of "Customs Refunds in former years." Remember, Sir, that we. have before us what professes to be a comparative statement for the year Cer-ending June, 1874. What is that item? I think the House will be surprised to hear that it consists in the hon. gentleman making a present of over $69,000 of the Hon. Mr. TUPPER-If the hon. gentleman did not, I challenge him now to state to the House that I did not place the outside estimate of the amount received under the new taxes for the two and a half months when I placed it at $546,000. Does he question that? Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT tainly. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Then I want him to tell me how it is if he only taxed the Hon. Mr. Tupper. Q people's money to certain railway companies | obtain the position of being a Cana in this conntry. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-The first Order in Council was passed by the Government of which the hon. gentleman was a member. dian Director of the Great Western Rail- Hon. Mr. TUPPER-The hon. gentleman is always ready to shelter himself behind the Government of which I was a member. I can inform the hon. gentleman and the House that this was a question of discussion with the Government of which I was a member. In conformity with that fairness of dealing which characterized all the actions of the late Government, they showed that they were disposed to give the most favorable consideration to the Great Western Railway, which that railway deserved. But they maintained that the law must be carried out; and, while they allowed the Great Western Railway Company to enter unfinished locomotives free of duty, they insisted, and very properly insisted, that duty should be paid on finished locomotives. Such was the determination of the late Government after the most thorough and perfect investigation into the question, and I am fully justified in repeating that they dealt with that company in a spirit of generous liberality. Now, I ask this House, if the hon. gentlemen can put his hand into the public treasury and take therefrom over $69,000 of the people's money without the permission of this House, what difficulty can there be in creating deficits where he pleases? He has only, Sir, just to take enough away. In this case he has taken $69,178, under the designation of Customs refunds of former years, an amount of money legitimately exacted from that company under the law; he has refunded the amount to that company, and he now applies it in reduction of that surplus which last year I told him, in this House, would be the result of his financial engineering. But the hon. gentleman has gone a little further and he las refunded to the Canada Southern Railway an amount of $1,384.54. These duties, sir, were paid under the law, after officers eminently qualified to press their just claims had come before the Government and pressed them, and after the Gov-him by the Minister of Finance, this ernment had carefully examined the question with every desire to deal justly and generously with the company. Sir, if the Hon. Mr. MCMASTER could Hon. Mr. Tupper. He House would have accepted that as an excuse for the imposition of $3,000,000 additional taxation? I need not say that the House would not have accepted any such excuse. We would have told him rectthat it was because of the incorness of the figures the hon. gentleman had caused to be published in the Official Gazette. The hon. gentleman endeavored to shelter himself behind Mr. TILLEY, and has told this House that his hon predecessor had also anticipated a deficit. When I heard that statement I felt that there was a grave injustice being done to a gentleman who had discharged the duties attaching to his office, in a manner that reflected the highest credit upon his ability as a statesman. Let me read to the House what Mr. TILLEY did say upon the occasion, and it will be found that his words most completely vindicate him; and I would ask the House to mark that his statement, which has proved to be so remarkably accurate, was made long in advance of the time that it was to be verified. Mr. TILLEY in submitting his estimate to the House and in giving a statement of the condition of public affairs said: "Now, the question arises, how is the Government to obtain the means of paying for this increased expenditure. It was intimated last session, that after having made a reduction of $1,200,000 of duties, the Government would probably have to ask the House this session for increased taxation in some direction. And 1 can quite understand, sir, that hon. members and the country generally would not be disappointed if the Government were to declare on the present occasion that such was their intention; but after having surveyed the whole matter carefully, and looked into it with a most rigid scrutiny, they have arrived at the conclusion that it is not wise nor is it necessary to ask Parliament this session to impose any additional taxation." As if this were not strong enough to satisfy every one that additional taxation was not necessary, he adds: "The Government have concluded to make no present change, inasmuch as they believe they will have means amply sufficient to meet all the requirements of the country. Further on he says: "On the whole if our estimates be based on correct principles, we will have a revenue of $21,740,000, against an estimated expenditure of $20,826,849, or a surplus of $913,151. Of course there will be supplementary estimates, and other propositions which may cover a large portion of this estimated surplus, but the Government feel that they are not in a position requiring them to ask additional taxation.' Not only, Sir, did Mr. TILLEY not anticipate a deficit, but he showed that such was the prosperity of Canada that it would Hon. Mr. Tupper. only be after spending thirty millions to complete our canals, and thirty millions more as a subsidy to the Canada Pacific Railway, that the three millions additional taxation would be required. If he did speak of three millions additional taxation it was only in anticipation of the sixty millions additional debt to meet, whereas my hon. friend has only $182,000 of additional debt to meet. I stand here now to tell him that on the 1st July, 1875, he will have a surplus of three millions; and a year hence I will stand in the same relation to him with regard to that prediction that I did with regard to the position I took a year ago. If the hon. gentleman goes on making lavish presents to his friends out of the public treasury with the consent of this House he may be able to reduce these figures a little, but I believe it will puzzle even the hon. Minister of Finance, with his extraordinary facility for the creation of a deficit, to damage the position I have taken up to any great extent. I have already reminded the House that last year I predicted that there would be no less than $500,000 of a surplus if there were no increase of taxation, and I will do Mr. TILLEY the justice to draw the attention of the House to what he states in reference to that subject. Having shown the policy that the late Government had pursued; having shown what had been achieved in respect to trade and commerce under the policy of progress carried out by the Government, Mr. TILLEY asked what will be the result of the expenditure of the sixty millions of dollars for canals and the Pacific Railway. He says :— "And can we suppose that with all these influences there will not be an increased revenue sufficient to meet the interest on increased expenditure for public works ?" So far from the taxes being increased in consequence of that expenditure of sixty millions, he shows that, let Canada go on in the future as she has in the past under our administration of Public Affairs, and we may confidently anticipate a sufficient increase in the revenue of the country to meet these three millions of additional taxation. Mr. TILLEY says :— "But supposing that all this is a vain delusion, suppose that notwithstanding this enormous expenditure, suppose that notwithstanding the completion of the Pacific Railway and the opening up of our magnificent canals, the population should not increased beyond the per centage of the past ten years. Suppose there should be no increase in the importations and in the general trale, which is supposable, but which certainly will not be realized. Let us see what our position would then be in the event of our having to fall back on increased taxation to make up deficiency. I have stated that in the last five years the average of duty collected on the imports was 12 per cent. For the first six months of the current year it was not ten per cent. At the expiration of the year it will not exceed ten per cent. Suppose it became necessary to impose additional taxation on the people equal to that which has been exacted during the first five years of Confederation, by increasing the average from 10 to 12 per cent. Has the taxation of the past been oppressive? Have our people felt that it was grievous and hard to bear? I think not. But let us apply that increased taxation to the imports of the present year which will probably be $125,000,000. This would give us $3,437,500 to meet the interest, and the sinking fund, and the commission on interest amounting altogether to $3,367,000. Bearing in mind that during the last five years we could have borne an increased debt of $30,000,000; we can bear $30,000,000 more in the next ten years, without materially increasing the taxation of the people, while at the same time we are opening up a magnificent country for the millions who will pour into it, and are increasing the strength and power of this Dominion, and making it what I trust it will ever continue to be, the strong right arm of our own British Empire.' I think, Mr. SPEAKER, I have vindicated my late hon. colleague, and the hon. gentleman's predecessor against the imputation of having proposed an increased taxation of three millions in order to cover a deficit which would arise in 1873-74. But there is another phase in connection with these statements to which I will direct the attention of the House and it is this:-I say there is no member of this House but must regard with pleasure the fact the statement of the Finance Minister made a year ago that he would require these additional three millions has proved altogether unfounded. I cannot but believe that the hon. gentleman himself possesses a spirit of patriotism sufficient to lead him to rejoice that in this particular he proved a false prophet. But there is a feature connected with this increased taxation of three millions on the people of this country that I feel ought to be gratifying to the members of this House and to the people, and it is this:—that three millions-more than this, if we are to judge by what we have already received-have been taken from the pockets of the people during the past year in increased taxation, and I doubt Hon. Mr. Tupper. if any one would have known it, if I had not made a noise about it. Such is the position of Canada, and it is a circumstance that no patriotic mind could contemplate without a feeling of pride-such is the power of the people to bear taxation, which springs from the wealth of the people as compared with that of most other countries, that these three millions of additional taxes, whether required or not, had slipped from the pockets of the people into the public treasury without any person having felt that there was reason to complain. I give that to the hon. gentleman as the reason why this House and this country would never suffer the hon. Minister of Finance to throw a doubt on the capacity of the people to carry to completion the great public works on which the prosperity and future progress of Canada depend. Now, sir, the hon. gentleman stated that he had nowhere stated that the expenditure would reach twenty-four millions. What was all the discussion about last winter? Was it that the hon. gentleman would establish a deficit on paper which would never really exist, or was it a tangible deficit that would have to be met by increased taxation? I will not turn to the hon. gentleman's speech unless it is necessary to do so. Any hon. gentleman has only to read it to find that the whole controversy last year was whether the expenditure which would be made during the year ending 1st July, 1874, required increased taxation in order to meet the then existing deficit. But if a single doubt remains in the mind of the Minister of Finance himself-for none remain in the mind of any other gentleman in this House or in the country who has watched the progress of the discussion-as to whether there can by any possibility exist a deficit-let me remove that doubt by turning the hon. gentleman's attention to a page in the printed public accounts that has not yet attracted the attention of this House. What is it? If he will turn to page 12 of the public accounts he will find a statement which he himself has submitted to the House, of the amount that has been expended on capital account out of the current revenue of the year. tell me how any person can make an expenditure on capital account out of current expenditure unless he has got the funds? What is the fact? The fact is, Will you |