There is on the Order paper a Bill (No. 147) from the Senate, further to amend the North-west Territories Representation Act, which has been placed over my name by mistake. I am not responsible for it, and therefore, I move that the order be discharged.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The legislation contained in this Bill seems to be very desirable. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman has looked over the Bill, or considered it. I brought the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General when the amendments to the Elections Act were going through the House, and I understood that he was of opinion that an amendment of that kind was desirable, but he did not think it well to introduce it as an amendment to the Act which was then going through the House. He thought it would be desirable rather that it should form part, of the Bill introduced for the purpose of amending the North-west Territories Representation Act. I would, therefore, suggest that it is not desirable to drop this Bill, that the legislation is good legislation, and that the right hon. gentleman should allow the Bill to be proceeded with.

I will withdraw my motion, but I will not move considera^ tion of the Bill. I shall have to inquire of the hon. Minister of Justice whether he agrees with the views of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) or not. In the meantime I will withdraw my motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).

I desire to bring to the notice of the right hon. the leader, and his colleagues in the government, a matter of very vital importance to Canada bordering on the Atlantic, and to Nova Scotia in particular. I refer to the proposed ' Bond-Blaine ' treaty, as it is called, mention of which was made last evening by the hon. member for South Lanark by way of inquiry, followed by some cursory remarks from some few others, but as the subject is of such magnitude, and vital importance, as I said, to Canada, I feel it deserves more than a mere passing reference, and as every member of this House is an interested party, particularly those from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, therefore I consider that the gravity of the situation is my only apology in referring to it now, and asking for the patient hearing and indulgence of the House foil a few moments.

It Ss currently reported that Premier Bond's visit to Canada from Newfoundland some few days ago, was for the purpose of having a conference with the right hon. the leader opposite and his colleagues in the government, in connection with the proposed treaty between Newfoundland and the United States, known familiarly as the ' Bond-Blaine ' treaty, a scheme formulated about ten years ago- 1890-but which was set at rest at that, time, by the late Conservative government, whilst Sir Charles Tupper was High Commissioner for Canada in London, owing to the fact that it was discriminating unjustly against the interests of Canada-a sister colony-whose interests were identical, and should be held jointly intact as between sisters, and kept inviolate by any approaches from without, more particularly when by such treaty the United States were to receive benefits so clearly prejudicial to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces.

Mr. Bond, not satisfied with the reply he then received, based purely on the merits of the case, and considered on the most reasonable as well as equitable grounds, is now renewing the attempt, and is anxious to have it put in force, if he can get it ratified by the British government, and concurred in by Canada-which it is to be hoped hon. gentlemen opposite, as the custodian of our Canadian interests will see clearly the effect of, as not. being by any means, or in any manner in the interest of Canada, but, on the contrary, tending most seriously to our material disadvantage and injury.

It is certainly, therefore, to be hoped that the hon. leader of our government will advise the British government to discountenance such an attack upon Canada's vested rights and interests which she has enjoyed for so long a time in the waters of Newfoundland, and reciprocally Newfoundland has enjoyed in the waters of Canada-and which rights, as is generally conceded, can-

not be interfered with from without, unless Canada and Newfoundland jointly are agreed. In other words, the British government rightly will disallow any proposals in the direction contemplated by Mr. Bond, unless Canada's interests are taken into consideration at the same time, and the two colonies-Canada -and Newfoundland-jointly enter into an arrangement on co-equal terms, when it is considered to be in the interests of both to do so.

This proposed treaty divides itself into two parts, one relating to fish and the fisheries, and the other to merchandise and the products of the farmer and the manufacturer.

The first proposes to give to the United States fishing vessels the privilege of entering the waters of Newfoundland, and purchasing herring, caplin, squid, and other bait fishes at all times, and on the same terms in all respects as Newfoundland vessels.

In return the United States is to give free admission to Newfoundland dry codfish, cod oil, seal skins, herrings, salmon trout, lobsters, cod roes, tongues and sounds. This, it will be observed, is a serious loss, injury and sacrifice to Canada, when it is well known that Nova Scotia, from Cape Sable to Cape North is very largely engaged in the fishing industry, and the most of her catch in the summer season is on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, in a class of vessels fully as able, and as well equipped as the fleet of the United States. What I, on behalf of Canada, and the fishermen of Nova Scotia, contend for, is, that Newfoundland has no right to allow the United States the privileges she proposes, seeing the great sacrifice it would be to Nova Scotia and the rest of the maritime provinces, and herself as well, if she could only see it-when she proposes to allow the United Stated by the privilege she offers to catch all the fish and fish products she wants for her own market, as well as the market abroad, thereby shutting Canadians out of the United States markets by a high wall of protection for their own fish, but actually by an over supply coming into competition with maritime province fish in the foreign markets as well. Let Canadian and Newfoundland waters be retained for Canadians and Newfoundland fishermen, and if the United States will insist upon placing a high tariff on our fish going into their market, they being deprived of the catch, they will have to pay the duty themselves, and Canada and Newfoundland will receive the benefits.

As to the clauses respecting merchandise, in which the farmer and the manufacturer are (interested. It provides that Newfoundland duties on merchandise shall not exceed on flour 25 cents a barrel, on pork li cents a pound, on bacon, hams, etc., 2} cents a pound, on Indian meal and peas 30

Mr. KAULBACH.

cents a barrel, on bran, Indian corn and rice 12* per cent ad valorem, on salt 20 cents a ton, on coal oil 6 cents a gallon. Then, Newfoundland is to admit free of duty, when coming from the United States, all agricultural implements and machinery imported by societies for the promotion of agriculture, and crushing mills for mining purposes, raw cotton, corn for brooms, gas engines, ploughs and harrows, reaping, raking and ploughing machines, printing presses and printing types.

With the exception of some few other articles named, such as cotton and broom corn, Canada is a competitor of the United States in the Newfoundland market, and still we are told by Mr. Bond, as an offset to our objection, that he is ' giving away no fishing concessions, and that there is nothing in the treaty that in any way discriminates against Canada.' It 5s conceded that nothing could be devised that would be more destructive to the trade and industry of Canada than a treaty of this nature, for by it one of the greatest industries and enterprises Canada is engaged in would be set at rest, and practically destroyed, that of fishing, and as a consequence our valuable fishing fleet, the pride of the maritime provinces, would cease to exist, shipyards would be closed up. Fishermen who hitherto enjoyed a calling of this sort, and obtained but a very moderate return for their toil, would have to surrender it for some other employment, and perhaps practically driven from our shores ; the merchant deprived of the fisherman's custom, the tradesman deprived of his employment, the farmer of a market for his farm products, in fact all would suffer, and in many cases, as a last alternative, would have to seek a home in the United States. The great complaint now is the want of a market for our fish since the United States lias ceded Porto Kieo and planted the Stars and Stripes on its soil-an island that gave us the principal market for our fish, but now wholly monopolized by the United States, a matter that Canada and Newfoundland can control, provided we give the United States no fishing privileges on our shores for the procuring of bait.

Nova Scotians found a difficulty this spring in securing full crews to man their vessels to prosecute the fisheries, owing to the want of a lucrative market for the fish, and the American fishing skippers feeling the United States are having the control of the fish market, are offering, and did offer this present spring, greater inducements to our fishermen than we could give them, and as a consequence we lost many of them, and many vessels had to sail from our ports with only part crews. But to give the United States by this proposed treaty greater concessions and privileges than she has had in the past would not only destroy the industry of fishing in the maritime pro-

vinces, but give the United States the monopoly of the fish trade in the West India islands, deprive us of the catch of fish in the summer months, and the carriage of them in our vessels in the winter season.

I fear itoo little attention is given by hon. gentlemen opposite to this all-important fishing industry whereby to guard, foster and protect our rights and interests as they should be cared for, for the benefit of Canadian fishermen and fish traders doing business with the West Indies in the shipments of fish and fish products, as well as in lumber and merchandise. My reason for making this statement is almost proverbial. It is in the memory of this House that a special appeal was made by me to the government several years ago when difficulties were presenting themselves and war was threatened between Spain and the United States, I having in view the profitable trade Nova Scotia was having at that time with Porto Rico, and a desire at the same time to retain it, that our Canadian government should communicate with the Imperial government suggesting that the United States confine her operations strictly to Cuba by way of giving that island, as she (the United States) had promised, her independence, but not to interfere with Porto Rico, as the people of that island were law-abiding and peaceable, unless Porto Rico desired separation from Spain, and then only on condition that Great Britain and her colonies would have a tariff that would offer no friction, but that one uniform trade basis as respects the trade of that island would be enjoyed by Great Britain and her colonies and the United States alike. Had this arrangement been accomplished, it would have tended greatly to our advantage as Canadians, but I doubt if any correspondence by way of an appeal in this connection was ever had. and as a consequence that island was ceded to the United States, and we have a tariff at present formulated by the United States so hostile as to be almost prohibitory.

Now, Canada and Newfoundland should be a unit on this question, and so plan, as to get even with the United States on this deal. I suggest that the United States be given no privileges in Canadian, nor in Newfoundland waters, and that the two sister colonies stand together in this respect and give no bait, but utilize it ourselves for the catch of fish, and thus become masters of our own situation, and be in a position to dictate terms, as it is very well known that if the American fishermen cannot get bait they cannot catch the fish, and we will then be in a position to supply not only the United States market with fish, but the Porto Rico market as well, and obtain any price we choose to ask, irrespective of any tariff wall they wish to set up against us.

But if we are so blind to our own interests as to allow the United States to build

vessels, man them with our own men, obtain bait from us by purchase or otherwise in British waters, catch the fish that we should catch ourselves, and supply their own market, as well as come into competition with us in the West Indies and other markets abroad, we might as well surrender all, and give up our entire fishing industry, as we would be starved out. I hope the government will grasp the force of my argument, and bitterly oppose so unjust an attempt to interfere with our fishing industry and destroy our trade generally, out of which Newfoundland should be able to see she is .receiving no material benefit herself-but striking a blow at Canada which is unnatural, to say the least of it.

Why this hostile movement on the part of Mr. Bond, as the premier of Newfoundland, I cannot understand, when Canada has ever been so favourably disposed towards her, proofs of which we have shown in a variety of instances, notably our establishing the ' Marcone ' system of telegraphy at Chateau, on- Castle Bay, at the north-east entrance to the Straits of Belle Isle. One at present at Bonne Bay to be carried to Quirpon. Lights are kept up by us-the Canadian government-on Labrador shores, at Forteau, and another at Greenly Island, with fog-horns at eacli of these stations. On the south side of the Straits of Belle Isle the Canadian government maintains four lights, viz. : Cape Bauld, Cape Norman, Flower Ledge, and Point Rich. Flower Ledge light was only recently constructed. Cape Ray, and Cape Race lights, the latter built by the English government, were recently transferred to the care of the Canadian government-and all kept up by Canada.

We in Canadian ports permit Newfoundland shipping to enter and clear upon the payment of the small entry fee of 25 cents, without even the payment of a light due, whilst Canadian shipping entering, the port of St. John, Newfoundland, are compelled to pay port charges the same as if they were foreigners. A payment is exacted even on our salt and barrels, although not taken from the ship nor landed, but used in the curing and packing of fish, and in some cases taken away from the port without being used at all. or landed as an article of merchandise, which, to my mind, appears unreasonable, and contrary to all precedent. I wish the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries would take note of this matter, that is, the unjust exaction of a duty on salt and barrels from our fishermen when not even landed from the ship, and ask the Newfoundland government to correct it.

Canada ranks seventh among the maritime nations of the world as regards registered tonnage of vessels, even ahead of Russia, but how long we can retain that credit will .mainly depend upon the action the Canadian government will take in this proposed appeal to the Imperial government to

have so disastrous a project crushed as this proposed Bond-Blaine treaty, so disastrous to Canada and Canadian shipping, that it' allowed will destroy our trade and shipping completely. I would draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to the shipbuilding industry in Queen's, where there are seven new vessels now under construction. What would be the effect on that industry if this treaty *were allowed ? It would be shut out completely, and the ship-building of Lunenberg destroyed as well.

As to clauses 4 and 5 of the proposed treaty relating to manufacturers' and farmers' interests, I leave them to other members of this House to show the injury it is to them, to be so unfriendly discriminated against by Newfoundland in the interest of the United States. As to the vast fishing field possessed by Canada and Newfoundland, I say let us be sisters in reality and enjoy our own harvest, and not allow our neighbours to the south of us to crop it for us, and thus we will have a rich reward and control the market, which I hope Newfoundland will see.

Better still, let her come into the greal confederacy of continental British North America and become one grand whole, and thus a united and prosperous people.

In conclusion, and before resuming my seat, I repeat that I hope the government will take the most active, prompt and determined measures through the Imperial government to defeat so unjust and unreasonable a treaty as proposed, so suicidal to the best interests of Canada.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

I trust that the right hon. gentleman and the government will take into consideration the remarks and suggestions which have been put forward so ably by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbaeh), and take such steps as are necessary to protect the interests of this country, particularly our fishing industry, whose cause Iras been so well advocated by my hon. friend.

I do not rise, however, for the purpose of dealing with the question which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Lunenburg, but for the purpose of moving an amendment to the motion that you, Mr. Speaker, leave the Chair, and in that connection to say a few words with respect to the expenditure of tills country during the current year, and during the fiscal year which will end on the 30th .Tune, 1902.

In the first place, I would like to bring your attention, Sir, to the fact that what was formerly termed ' extravagant expenditure '-when the Liberal party were on this side of the House-has now received an en-entirely different appellation. The use of adjectives has undergone a marked change Mr. KAULBACH.

in the Liberal press, and in the mouths of Liberal speakers during the past five years. The words ' extravagant,' ' excessive,' * scandalous ' and other similar adjectives were freely applied to the expenditure of this country when it was many million dollars below what it is at present. But since these hon. gentlemen have obtained office, they have coined another adjective, and the word which now they commonly use to describe the expenditure of the government-when that expenditure has amounted to nearly $53,000,000 for the past year, and is to be so unusually large for the coming year-the adjective used now to describe that expenditure is the word ' generous.' That is a very remarkable change, and to a man of imagination, such as I know you are, Sir. it calls up very interesting suggestions indeed. What was formerly excessive and extravagant, is now merely generous. The revenues of the country formerly were described as having been wrung from the taxpayers. They were the property of the people of this country, and the people wTere being bled White. But the use of the word ' generous ' indicates a new order of things altogether. The government apparently, having regard to the use of this word, do not consider that they are dealing with the moneys of the country at all, but are simply showing themselves generous in the expenditure of moneys over which they have most absolute control, and to which they alone have undoubted right. It was not always so. In 1894 the hon. the Minister of Marine visited the constituency I have the honour to represent, and there described in glowing terms the hardships Whiich the taxpayers had to endure in having wrung from them so extravagant an amount as was then raised by taxes. That hon. gentleman described the position of the taxpayer in language which, I am sure, must have brought tears to the eyes of many a good Liberal who listened to him.

But during the past few years that taxation has considerably increased, and it may be well that we should bring to the attention of the House and the country the extent to which it has increased. In 1890 the people paid in customs and excise taxes $27,759,285. In 1900 they paid no less than $38,242,222, or an increase of about $10,500,000. According to the statement of the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech this year, we will probably have raised in taxes, including excise and customs, nearly $39,000,000. That gives us some food for reflection. Let us look for a moment at the total consolidated fund receipts since 1896 :

1896 $36,618,590.72

1897 37,829,778.40

1898 40,555,238.03

1899 46,741,249.54

1900 51,029,994.02

So there can be no doubt that the revenues of this country have expanded to an enormous extent during the last four years.

.riS37

It may be said that this indicates prosperity. That we do not deny. This country has shared in the prosperity that has prevailed throughout the world, and at that We rejoice. But it is well known to every business man, I believe, that a considerable share of the increase in the receipts from customs duties is due not to larger imports, but to increase in the prices of goods. With these enormous revenues, what is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite as to the disposal of the money with which they arc entrusted. We know that in days gone by these hon. gentlemen claimed to be exponents of economy. Their remarks on that subject have been laid before the House over and over again. It is too late in the session for me to weary the House by repeating them. We all know that they said that an expenditure of $38,000,000 was $3,000,000 or .$4,000,000 too much. We all know that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) denounced the extravagance of the late government in terms of which he only is master. And the right lion leader of the government (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did the same thing. Nor was tile Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) behind the other hon. gentlemen in this respect. The present Minister of Justice took up the same line. And the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) was even louder in his denunciation than the others.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

He was not louder than the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson).

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I accept the correction of my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). I should not have omitted my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. But he happened to be absent from his place for the moment, and I inadvertently passed him over, for winch I owe him my sincere apologies. He certainly was loud In manner and in language and in voice with regard to these matters in those days, though now he roars you as gently as a sucking dove when he comes to deal with these questions. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) when dealing during this session with the finances of the country during the past four years, told us that we have had in these four years surpluses aggregating $14,095,194, to be increased by an estimated surplus this year of $0,350,000, making a total surplus during these years of $20,445,194. But the remarkable part of the hon. gentleman's statement was that even for this period, which showed surpluses of $20,000,000 and upwards, the debt of the country has been increased by no less than $8,790,373. Now, how has this come about ? It has come about through a most extraordinary system of expenditure. The Liberal-Conservative party have never been backward in spending money to develop tlie country, and they have always

been ready to support this government in any reasonable expenditure for that purpose. But there is a limit in these things ; and I am inclined to think that this government have not taken into consideration certain reasons which ought to have made the public expenditure during the last three or four years less than it has been. What is the duty of the government, and what is the duty of the opposition witli regard to such questions ? In the first place, 1 believe that a good deal of this enormous expenditure is owing to the fact that the government persisted in making ante-election pledges to the people, and thereby deprived themselves of the opportunity of holding off those who make demands upon them for expenditure on public works and otherwise. I will not go fully over the estimates, but I will take merely the supplementary estimates which were brought before the House for the purpose of being voted no earlier than two days ago, the 20tli of this month. I have looked over one branch of the public estimates-public works, harbours and rivers -and I find that it embraces no less than 269 different items covering an expenditure between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, upon which the House is asked to pass judgment. Now, I admit that any government in this country will be called upon by its political friends to make enormous expenditures for works of this kind ; and I say that the duty of the government is to cut down the demands that have been made upon them to an amount which will be reasonably consistent with the ability of (lie country to undertake these burdens, looking not only to the present, but to the future. I cannot believe that the government have offered a sufficiently firm resistance to demands of this kind made upon them. For this reason tlie expenditure for the present year exceeds $50,000,000. and that proposed for the year ending 30tli June. 1892, runs up to over $60,000,000-it exceeds the public revenues even at a time of great prosperity, when the revenues are more abundant than we can reasonably hope they will be in the future. I have pointed out the duty of the government. Now, what is the duty of the opposition with regal'd to these matters ? Is it the duty, or is it within the ability of the. opposition to go over the 269 items of that character within two or three days of prorogation and obtain from the ministers sufficient information to deal intelligently with them and to weed out from them those items which are least reasonably necessary in the interests of the country ? Suppose we had had five kundred*items, and the amount increased to double, would it have been possible at this date to obtain sufficient information to enable the opposition to do that ? The opposition, with regard to a matter of this kind, is not in the position of the government. The government has a staff of officers to report upon these matters, it has facts furnished from the local!-

ties, it has information before it that cannot possibly be in possession of the opposition unless we are to continue this session until August or September next. Therefore, we can do only one thing with regard to these estimates-we can but enter a general protest.

The hon. gentleman spoke just now of 269 items. Did he mean there were 269 new items or 269 items including revotes ?

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I was not aware that any considerable number of the items to which I refer are revotes. I see here and there a few revotes.

Very many.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Well; I think I am safe in saying that at least three-fourths are not revotes. Further than that, I would remind my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this House, composed as it is to a great extent of new members, is entitled to information with regard to even these.

Certainly.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

From that point of view they are exactly the same as if they had not been voted before. I could understand the force of my hon. friend's argument if this were not a new parliament, if all the members who are now in the House had heard these matters dealt with and received sufficient information. That is not the case here. We have, I suppose, speaking off-hand, nearly a hundred new members in this House; therefore all these items, so far as these new members are concerned, are exactly in the same position as if they were being voted for the first time. Now, I do not conceal from myself the difficulties of the government in dealing with demands from clamorous supporters ; but what I desire to submit to the House and to the country is that the government have not been sufficiently firm in resisting this pressure, and I think they are fixing too high a rate of expenditure. Then the remarks I ventured to make the other day with regard to the date upon which the railway subsidies had been brought down to this House, are, I think, worthy of being repeated now. We had these railway subsidies brought down at a very late date in the session, we had 'them brought down without sufficient information, in fact without any information whatever being laid upon the Table of the House ; and we had them put through this House without any information being given which would enable the House to form a proper judgment with regard to these matters. It always seems to me, when my hon. friend /the Minister of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Railway and Canals is dealing with matters of this kind, that to obtain information from him is like working with a probe. The information which he is able to give to the House, at all events which he is willing to give to the House, is given so grudgingly and affords so little knowledge to the House as to the special vote that is being discussed, that it is really almost a hopeless task to acquire from him the information which we ought to have with regard to such matters.

Now, I want to point out to the House another circumstance which I think should be taken into consideration by the government, and that is that the Minister of Finance himself has pointed out on three occasions during recent years, the fact that we cannot always expect such abundant revenues as we are now enjoying. I want to remind the House that in 1899 the hon. gentleman, in delivering his budget speech, said this :

But, Sir, in the midst of all this prosperity I would venture to utter a word of caution. It is said that one of my distinguished predecessors in office, at a time when trade was fairly prosperous, advised business men to clap on all sail. Far be it from me to utter that sentiment to-day. I can assure you, Sir, that I have no disposition to offer such advice as that. I would much rather, if I thought that words of mine would have any weight, utter a word of caution in the spirit of Kipling's * Lest we forget ; lest we forget.' In the midst of this great prosperity I would remind my hearers that the conditions which have brought it about cannot be expected to prevail always. It will not constantly fall to the lot of a Finance Minister to make such an agreeable statement as I have the pleasure of submitting to-day before the House of Commons of Canada. We cannot always have good crops and good prices. Conditions at home and conditions abroad may be such as to bring about a check to all this prosperity. From the experience of the past we know that the pendulum which has now for two or three years been swinging strongly in Canada's favour may soon fall back. There may soon come a time When things will not be so prosperous, and so I would to-day rather, as respects our national housekeeping and in the business world, utter a word of warning and advise our people to make a wise use of our present opportunities so that when less prosperous times come to us, as come they will, we shall be able to bear them easily.

Now, the caution which the hon. gentleman then uttered to the House was a caution, not only to the business people of the country, but it was a caution with respect to our national housekeeping. I do not see that the hon. gentleman has very much taken to heart the caution which he was good enough then to address to the people of this country. Again, in delivering his budget speech in 1900, the Minister of Finance said :

As I ventured to remark on a previous occasion, the pendulum which swings one way may swing back and it is always well that we should

keep that In mind. But so far as we can see now there is no turn of the tide.

And if I may be permitted to quote bis language uttered during the present session in his budget speech, it was as follows :

As to revenue I do not expect that we can keep on at the rate of increase which has been so marked during the past three or four years.

I th'nk we have probably now reached about the crest of the wave of prosperity. I do not expect that we shall have any serious reverses. I think the business of Canada has been developed during the past four or five years upon very safe and sound lines. I think there has been to a very large extent an absence of that inflation which is so apt to mark a period of good times.

I am of the opinion that the business of the country as a whole has been so carefully conducted and is on such a good sound basis that we are not likely to suffer any serious reverses, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect that we can go on increasing our business as rapidly as we have during the past few years. What may happen is that we might suffer a cheek.

Now, the appearance of the financial statement up to a recent date rather corroborates what the hon. gentleman then said. 1 have been looking with some attention at the returns up to the 20th day of the present month, and I find the revenue for the current year up to the 20th of May, as compared with the corresponding period of last year, shows an increase of $1,335,162. This increase is principally made up by the following items :-

Excise shows an increase of_____$434,276

Railways show an increase of.. 366,767

Dominion lands show an increase of 397,009

Post office shows an increase of. 226,205

On the other hand the revenue from customs shows a decrease of $167,541.

Now, I do not know what the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and of my hon. friend the Minister of Commerce may be with regard to the meaning of that indication as respects the business of this country. There is a decrease of $167,541 in customs receipts as compared with the corresponding period of last year. Does that show, in the opinion of these hon. gentlemen, that we have not only reached the crest of the wave of prosperity, but that we have commenced to go a little on the downward grade ? It seems to me that these figures may possibly bear a construction of that kind, and if so, it serves to emphasize the warning which the Minister of Finance addressed to the House and to the country when he delivered hi.s budget speech. But while the revenue for the current year up to the 20th May as compared with the same period for last year shows an increase of $1,335,162, the expenditure shows an increase of $2,883,111. The increase appears largely in the following items :

Railways $1,144,579

Legislation 237,982

Public works 1,063,618

Lighthouse and coast service.. 34,955

Fisheries 43,754

Y ukon 32,723

Customs 40,259

Post office 178,033

Now, I would like to emphasize this point to the House and the country, that while it is very easy indeed for us in a time of abundant revenue to set a high standard of expenditure, to not only expend the revenues of this country, but to run the country into debt to the tune of $8,000,000, it will not be very easy to reduce that high standard of expenditure when hard times come. I suppose it is with the country very much as it is with a man in his own private affairs. If a man sets a high standard of expenditure in his own private affairs, he finds in the future, when hard times come, that it is a very difficult thing for him to reduce the living expenses of his family. It is very difficult to cut down expenditures here and there which have been enjoyed for a great many years, and it wTill toe exactly the same with the country. This high standard of expenditure which is being fixed in this country in days of prosperity is a standard of expenditure that will toe almost forced on any government, Liberal or Conservative, which may be administering the affairs of this country when times of less prosperity come upon us. That is a thing which I think the government have not well borne in mind in dealing with the expenditure during these years, and it is a thing which I think they should have borne in mind.

Now, the hon. Minister of Finance made an argument the other day with which, taking it for the purpose for which it was delivered, I was to some extent inclined to agree. He said that in dealing with railway subsidies, it was not fair that one part of the country, after having contributed to the revenues which had produced railways in other parts of the country, should be deprived of having railways subsidized for it out of the general revenues of the country. I admit at once that there is some force in that argument, tout the hon. gentleman will see how that argument is going to apply in respect to these enormous expenditures which are now being saddled upon the country. The government have 269 items for public works. When the hard times come, as the hon. Minister of Finance says they probably will come, will not all parts of the country be as clamorous as ever for subsidies in the shape of public works, and how can any Finance Minister, whether it be the present hon. Minister of Finance or some other gentleman, meet the demands from all parts of the country, based upon the estimates now before the House ? An application for an appropriation of that kind is not very readily answered by

any government simply by pointing to the fact that the revenues of the country have become less. The clamorous political supporters of any government are not very apt to accept that as a valid excuse. When they see that enormous sums have beeu expended in different parts of the country, they are very apt to say that, whether the revenues are large, or whether they are small, they have not had fair-play in the past, and they demand it in the future.

Just one word more in regard to the policy of the government in respect to railway subsidies and public works. It seems to me that the government, in regard to railway subsidies and public works, are simply living from hand to mouth and from session to session. I say that they should have some definite policy as to the public works which should be sub sidized and which should be constructed in this country. They should act upon some definite principle, but that they have not come down with any definite principle is shown by the explanations of the minister and the meagre discussion that has taken place in regard to the estimates of the Public Works Department. So, after hearing the explanations of the minister, there does not seem to me to be any definite plan adopted by the government as to what public works shall be constructed, as to the principle upon which they shall be constructed, or as to the rule which shall be observed in respecl to the expenditure of public money in different parts of the country. That there should lie a rule seems to me to be right and wise. The same reasoning exactly applies to railway subsidies. To my mind, the government ought to come down with some definite plan in respect to railway development throughout the Dominion of Canada and in the different provinces of Canada. You would suppose that they would come down with a map showing, for instance, the railways to be constructed in Nova Scotia, and say that we judge it right and wise that the railway system of that province shall be developed upon these lines, and developing it upon these lines, we believe it is right to subsidize this particular line and make it a part of the system ; so, also, dealing with the other provinces and with the whole railway system of the country in the same way. But public works expenditures, as well as railway subsidies, seem to depend more upon political consideration than upon any plan or principle such as I am suggesting." Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House further. I can only touch upon the outskirts of this subject. I can only deal with it in a very bald manner. It is too late in the session for me to attempt to do otherwise than to place these few points before the House. I therefore move :

That all the words after the word ' that ' in the motion be omitted and the following substituted therefor :

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The total expenditure as shown by the Public Accounts during each fiscal year from 1892 to 1900, both inclusive, was as follows :-

1892 $42,272,136.32

1893 40,853,727.91

1894 43,008,233.89

1895 42,872,338.44

1896 44,096,383.92

1897 42,972,755.89

1898 45,334,281.06

1899 51,542,635.29

1900 52,717,466.84

That the Minister of Finance estimates that the total revenue for the current year ending June 30, 1901, will be $52,750,000.

That notwithstanding this very large revenue the Minister of Finance estimates that the public debt will be increased during the current year by about $1,800,000.

That the total amounts which this House has been asked to vote during the present session, together with items of expenditure authorized by statute, are substantially as follows :-

Suppl. estimates, 1901..$ 3,729,716.90 " 1901 .. 30,000.00

Main estimates, 1902.. .$50,398,823.56 Suupl. estimates, 1902.. 8,369,241.13

" 1902 . 1,240,476.18

60,008,540.87

Railway subsidies $ 3,462,472.00

Further ry. subsidies.. 96,000.00

3,558,472.00