Hon. Mr. BOSS (Victoria).

He will rise again. When you go down into the trough of the sea you will rise again to the top.

Mr. WALDACE.

Well, I am afraid that the Minister of Finance will have lost his balance and flopped out of the boat, and there will have to be another crew. Then

Hear, hear.

Mr. WALLACE.

Now, the Minister of Finance stated that there was a decrease of taxation and in order to suit his purpose he quoted the year of greatest prosperity since the Liberals came into power, and compared it with the year of the least prosperity when the Conservatives were in power. He just picked out these two years, but the fair thing for them to do, would have been to take the last four years of Conservative rule, and compare it with the the four years of the present Liberal rule. And adopting that method what do we find ? We find that the incidents of taxation in the Customs Department in 1893, amounted to

$17.38 ; in 1894, to $17.13 ; in 1895, to $16.99 ; in 1896, to $18.28, or an average of $17.44* duty on every one hundred dollars worth of imported goods, dutiable and free. Since the Liberals came into power, according to their own statement, there is an average duty of $10,871, but to that the Minister of Finance told us we must add 43 cents for the corn which was in transit and which was marked as a product of the country. I shall add 57 cents for the same purpose last year, and in that way you get $17.12* for the four years that these gentlemen have been in power, as the average rate of duty, and $17.44* for the last four years of the Conservative government, or a difference of 32 cents on every one hundred dollars worth of goods imported, including dutiable and free, and the only fair test is to take both. There is therefore one-third of a dollar difference on eveiy one hundred dollars worth of imported goods, showing conclusively that this Liberal government has imposed as ffigh taxes upon the people of Canada, though with less protection, than we did. As was pointed out by the leader of the opposition, this Liberal government have put an enormous increase of the duty on sugar which last year amounted to $793,000 in increased duties. I have not estimated it for this year, but with the large increase in the importation of sugar, molasses and syrups, I have no doubt the increased duties will represent one million dollars this year.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Between $900,000 and $1,000,000.

Mr. WALLACE.

Yes, about that. This government has increased the taxes on sugar notwithstanding that they have a surplus of $G.500,000. What did the Conservatives do when they had a surplus ? This duty on sugar is a direct tax upon the people of the country. It does not encourage any industry. Every dollar's worth of that sugar has to be imported, and therefore this is a direct tax. The burden of taxation the people have to bear is one-third of a dollar *less on every one hundred dollars worth imported, as between the four years of the Liberal government, and the four years of the Conservative government. Does that make a difference in policy ? Why, Sir, in 1890 the percentage of taxation on the people was $21.21 ; in 1891 it was $20.06, a reduction by the Conservative party of $1.15 per hundred dollars. Yet we made no boast about it. We simply said we had taken the duty off certain things and reduced the burdens of the people on those things which were not made in the country. In 1892 the percentage was $17.56, a reduction of $2.50 on every $100 from 1891. We took the duty off sugar, which was a direct tax on the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite have made a reduction of 32 cents per $100, and are crowing about it all over the country, and on the strength of that the Finance Minister takes the Mr. WALLACE.

whole importation, and estimates a saving of $3,000,000. There never was such a fallacious statement made to the House. Last year the Minister of Customs tried to figure out in the same way that millions of dollars had been saved. It is a fallacious argument. You cannot tell to-day what the income would be on certain articles that existed half a dozen years ago. The importations are changed in their character. New industries are rising up; conditions are changing ; people import one year one class of goods, and another year another class of goods. You cannot make an accurate calculation; it is simply guesswork. If the calculation was made on the basis that they were saving about 2 per cent, it is not true. There are the figures, and I challenge the Minister of Finance to dispute them. If you take the four years, in each case you have to deduct the corn ; that is all I have deducted. Last year they deducted coin and bullion, but they did not this year, because the figures would be against them. I say we will rejoice to have that free trade policy brought down, when the government are ready for it. We are going to stand by our own policy, which built up this country, and which will continue to build it up and make it prosperous in the future.

Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).

Mr. Speaker, I began to have a vague dread that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat had lost the end of his speech, and that we should be kept here all night; but as he has found it at last, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Explain.

Mr. COSTIGAN.

Under the rules of the House this company are precluded from introducing a petition asking for an extension of their charter, which expires in July next. The president of the company, Sir William Van Horne, has been absent in Cuba for a long time, and on returning, instructed the solicitor of the company to make the application. The solicitor only arrived here on Friday, the last day on which petitions could be received ; and the only way to get the petition before the Committee on Standing Orders is by petition asking the House to allow the petition to be received ; and this is a preliminary petition for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, when the last report of the Standing Orders Committee was presented, I made the remark, in reply to the hon. leader of the opposition, that I would for my part object to any more petitions being received ; but the statement made by my hon. friend that the gentleman who was pressing the charter had been away in a foreign country, and had only returned a few days ago, makes this petition fairly entitled to be received, and under the circumstances I think it might be received.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Under the circumstances I do not object to the reception of the petition.

Petition received, and referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Before the House adjourns, I would like to inquire when we are to have a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee ?

I was under the impression that it was called for to-morrow. I sent out a moment ago to see if there was a notice up, and there was none. The chairman is not present, and in his absence I am unable to say when the committee will meet.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Who is the chairman ?

The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).