1901-02-21

Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved:: That the public accounts of Canada for the year ending the 30th of June, 1900, -with the report of the Auditor General for the same year, he referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax) moved :: That the name of Mr. Lancaster be struck off the list of members of the Committee on Expiring Laws, and be replaced by that of Mr. Roddick.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the name of Mr. Roddick be struck off the list of members of the Committee on Railways and Canals, and be replaced by that of Mr. Lancaster.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That the name of Mr. Rosamond be struck off the list of members of the Committee on Public Accounts, and be replaced by that of Mr. Birkett.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 6) respecting the Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters, and to change its name to the Independent Order of Foresters.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill (No. 7) relating to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion by Mr. Fortin.
Bill (No. 8) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion by Mr. Fortin.

Mr.  E. D.@: HENDERSON (Halton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 9) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Explain.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The object of the Bill is, first, to remove entirely the white space at the top of the ballot, and also the white space below the black bar at the bottom of the ballot, to prevent voters making the mistake of marking outside, which frequently occurred in the last election. Another object of the Bill is to prevent the misuse of the oath marked ' T,' which permitted persons who were not voters to go and demand a ballot on taking a certain oath and giving reasons which are not provided for by the statute, but which are allowed by the returning officers, such as absence or neglect in the preparation of the list. I hope by these means to remove these difficulties. These are the chief clauses of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH (South Wentworth) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 10) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. SMITH (South Wentworth).: The object of the Bill is to provide for uniform fruit packages-berry boxes. At present there is no standard, and all sorts and sizes are used.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  A. W.@: PUTTEE (Winnipeg)-for Mr. Ralph Smith (Vancouver)-moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 11) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. PUTTEE.: The Bill is to amend the existing Alien Labour Act in several respects, in order to make it more workable and of more use as an anti-contract labour law.
Mr, MACLEAN. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he makes provision in this Bill so that the enforcement of the Act shall be automatic, and shall be taken out of the hands of the government.


Arthur W. Puttee: That is to a great extent the object of some of the amendments in the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	How many members of the last parliament have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown by the government since the 15th day of March, 1900?
2.	What are the names of such members, to what offices have they been appointed, and what are their salaries and emoluments in each case?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The following gentlemen have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown: Mr. WTm. Hutchison, Commissioner at the Buffalo Exhibition, at $250 a month and $10 a day for living expenses ; Mr. Firman McClure, Census Commissioner for the province of Nova Scotia, at $5 a day and $5 a day for living expenses ; Mr. M. T. Stenson, Collector of Customs at Sherbrooke, at $1,400 a year ; Mr. J. M. Hurley, Inspector of Fisheries, at $1,000 a year.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: Drury, Census Commissioner for the province of British Columbia, at $5 a day and $5 a day for living expenses ; Mr. Firman McClure, Census Commissioner for the province of Nova Scotia, at $5 a day and $5 a day for living expenses ; Mr. W. B. Wallace, County Court Judge of Nova Scotia, at $3,000 a year ; Mr. J. M. Hurley, Inspector of Fisheries, at $1,000 a year.


THE ALIEN LABOUR LAW.
Mr. KENDALL asked :: 1.	Have any representations been made to the government on behalf of Canadian employees of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company to the effect that they are discriminated against in favour of alien labour brought into Canada under contract ?
2.	If not, will they consider it their duty, if in the future such representations are made, to investigate the matter with a view to removal of discrimination, and also with a view to ascertain to what extent it may be beneficial to Canadian labour to allow the provisions of the Alien Labour law to remain in operation and to what extent it may be beneficial to enforce the provisions of the Act?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	No.
2.	Should any such representations be made, they will receive the careful consideration of the government with a view to such action as the public interest appears to demand.


LIGHTHOUSE, SECHELT ISLANDS, B.C.
Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to erect a lighthouse on Black Rocks, off the Sechelt Islands, on the coast of British Columbia, this coming summer?
2.	If not, why not?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1. No application appears to have reached the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for a lighthouse on Black Rocks, and the locality is not known in the department. An application, however, for a day beacon on White Rock, off Sechelt Islands has been received, and is now obtaining the consideration of the department.
How many candidates who unsuccessfully contested ridings for seats in the parliament of Canada have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown by the government since the 11th July, 1896? What are the names of such appointees, to what positions have they been appointed, and what is the emolument in each case?
The PRIME MINISTER, The following gentlemen who have been candidates since 1896 have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown : Mr. R. L.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 


RAMA RESERVE MEDICAL OFFICER.
Mr. McLEOD asked :: 1.	Who is surgeon or medical officer appointed by the government to the Indians on the Rama Reserve?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What sums have been paid him each year since 1896?
4.	Have any further sums been paid by the government for medical attendance, and to whom, and what amount in each year since 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Slfton) :: 1.	A. R. McDonnell, M.D.
2.	21st March, 1900.
3.	At the rate of $150 per annum since the date of his appointment.
4.	G. H. Corbett, M.D., was paid $150 per annum up to 1st February, 1900; E. L. Proctor, M.D., $6 3rd February, 1898 ; Toronto General Hospital, $9.20 13th December, 1898; John McLean, M.D., $94.25 for services from 1st February to 1st April, 1900.


OVERFLOW OF THE SEVERN.
Mr. McLEOD asked :: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the flooding of certain lands along the Severn river, Immediately below the dam at Washago, erected by the government to facilitate the escape of spring floods?
2.	Is It the Intention of the government to place a sum in the estimates to remove certain obstructions below the dam to facilitate the escape of flood water?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,500 appropriated for use, during present year, on Severn river, and $1,700 for widening outlet of Sparrow lake.



CENSUS COMMISSIONER, EAST SIMCOE.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: Has a census commissioner been appointed for the electoral district of East Simcoe? If an appointment has been made, upon whose recommendation was such appointment made?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), I beg to reply :	No.



LARGEST GRAIN CARGO, MONTREAL.

William Humphrey Bennett: What was the largest cargo of grain received at the port of Montreal during the season of 1900 from the upper lakes, giving amount in bushels, from whence received, and kind of grain?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: Via Parry Sound and Canada Atlantic Railway. On September,4, 1900, a cargo of 51,000 bushels of wheat passed down to Montreal by water from Coteau Landing. This grain came from Depot Harbour over the Canada Atlantic Railway to Coteau Landing.
Via Welland Canal. On November 14, 1900, a cargo of 45,000 bushels of wheat passed down from Kingston by water to Montreal. This grain was shipped from Fort William.



CANADIAN IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE asked ;
1.	How many immigrants entered the Dominion of Canada during the year beginning on the 1st day of July, 1899, and ending 30th day of June, 1900?
2.	How many of these have settled in Canada?
3.	Referring to those who have settled in Canada, from what countries have they come respectively?
4.	What information or means of information has the government as to the number or proportion of immigrants arriving in Canada during the year aforesaid who have settled in the United States of America?
5.	What number or proportion of the immigrants arriving in Canada during the year aforesaid have gone to reside permanently or have settled in the United States of America?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	The number of immigrants entering Canada during the period named was 62,515; included in this were 21,016, via ocean ports, who were destined for and ticketed through to the United States.
2.	41,499.
3.	United States	 14,215
English and Welsh	 7,162
Scotch	 1,183
Irish	 701
Galicians	 5,549
Germans	 704
Scandinavians	 1,191
French and Belgians	 427
Doukhobors	 2,368
Miscellaneous	 7,999
41,499
4.	The government has no information that any immigrants arriving in Canada have settled in the United States, except what is shown by the records at the ocean ports of the number ticketed through to that country.
5.	The government has no information on this subject.



RAILWAY BONUSES.

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria) asked :: 1.	What total sums have been voted to railways in Canada in bonuses by municipalities, viz. : counties or groups of counties, townships or groups of townships, towns and villages ?
2.	To what roads were such bonuses granted, and to what amount each ?
3.	Have any of these bonuses been repaid by the Dominion parliament, either directily or indirectly ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to refund to such municipalities the bonuses so voted?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I would refer the hon. gentleman to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals which, I

think, contains all the information he desires. If there should he any not to be found in that report, I will bring it down.


Mr. HUGHES.: What is the answer to the last paragraph of the question ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to allow that to stand.



EASTERN EXTENSION RAILWAY AND NOVA SCOTIA GOVERNMENT ARBITRATION.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: 1.	What is the scope of the arbitration respecting the Eastern Extension Railway and the Nova Scotia government?
2.	Have the arbitrators power to hear the claims of the municipalities of Pictou and Anti-gonish for amount expended for right of way for said railway, or is the reference confined to the claims of the province of Nova Scotia only?
3.	Has the scope of the commission or reference been enlarged, and if so, to what extent?
4.	Will the government cause to be brought down at an early day all such papers respecting this reference as may properly be brought down at this date?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The scope of the arbitration covers only the claim presented by the government of Nova Scotia, and does not include the claims of the municipality. The scope of the commission of the Lieutenant-Governor has not been enlarged. It would not be advisable to bring down any papers at present.



MONTREAL TURNPIKE TRUST BONDS.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the amount of bonds of the Montreal Turnpike Trust held at the present time by the government of Canada?
2.	Since when has interest been paid upon the said bonds?
3.	What is the amount actually due upon said bonds for interest?
4.	Did the Minister of Finance oppose the passage of a provincial law or regulation extending to forty-eight hours the time during which a return ticket upon the roads of the Montreal Turnpike Trust would be available? If so, upon what ground was said opposition made?
5.	What are the names of the trustees named by the government of Canada to represent the bondholders at the meeting held on February 12, instant?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	$195,000.
2.	Interest on said bonds has been paid to 1st July, 1896.
3.	The amount now due on said bonds for interest is $30,712.50.
4.	The Minister of Finance did not oppose the passage of the Bill referred to in question 4. It was one of two Bills with regard to the trust introduced in 1899 in the Quebec legislature by a private member. The


Mr. BLAIR.: Minister of Finance asked the provincial authorities to suspend action on the Bills until he could make inquiries as to their effect, the Dominion government being interested as bondholders of the trust, and the interest on the bonds held by the government being then in default. The matter was referred by his direction to the trust and he was informed by the secretary of the trust that the effect of the Bills would be to diminish the revenues of the trust by some $4,000 or $5,000 a year, and that the trust were opposing the passing of the Bills. In consequence of the representations made by the trust the Bills were dropped and no further action on the part of the Dominion government'was necessary.
5.	The trustees named by the government of Canada at the meeting of 12th February, were:	Messrs. Paul Galibert, Thomas A.
Trenholme and Charles Meunier.



OWEN SOUND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria) asked :: 1.	Who are the members of the ' Owen Sound Dredge and Construction Company,' referrred to on page V-228, Auditor General's Report, as receiving $9,960 for use of dredge, &c., from May 12, 1899, to December 11, 1899, at $8 per hour?
2.	Is Mr. Horsey, now M.P. for Grey, a member of said company ?
3.	Were tenders called for, for the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Names of members of company, not known to the department.
2.	Not to the knowledge of the department.
3.	No; an arrangement was made at $8 per hour for a minimum quantity of dredging of 600 cubic yards, which is in accordance with the practice of the department and has been found very satisfactory.



DREDGE HACKETT.

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria) asked :: 1.	Who are Bowman & Porter, owners of dredge Hackett, mentioned on page V-226, Auditor General's Report, as receiving $5,840 for services of dredge, at $8 an hour, from July 12 to October 18, 1899, at Kincardine?
2.	Is Mr. Bowman the Liberal member for the legislature of Ontario from Bruce?
3.	If not, is he a relative ?
4.	Were tenders asked for the performance of this work?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	They are a firm of experienced contractors of good standing.
2.	The department has no information on this subject.
3.	No.
An arrangement was made at $8 per hour for a minimum quantity of dredging of 600 cubic yards, which is in accordance with the practice of the department and has been found very satisfactory.



DEPTH OF WATER IN THE ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL.

Mr. KEMP asked :: When does the government expect that vessels of fourteen feet draught will he able to pass from Lake Ontario through the canals and St. Lawrence channels to Montreal without lightening?
What was the maximum depth, during the last season of navigation, that vessels could draw between the above-named points?
What work still remains to be done in order that vessels drawing fourteen feet may pass from Lake Ontario to Montreal?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The form of this question implies that it is doubtful whether we have a through channel of fourteen feet of water in the St. Lawrence canal and lake and river reaches. This would not he and is not a correct statement of the situation. There is, and was, during the past season of navigation, a channel of fourteen feet throughout the entire length of the canal system from Lake Ontario to Montreal-that is to say, there is fourteen feet of water on the mitre sills of all the locks in the St. Lawrence canals, and more than the fourteen-foot channel through the intervening river and lake stretches. This depth of water is available without lightering, and was available during the last season without lightering. Although work has yet to be done, and always will require to be done from time to time, to ease the curves or to straighten and improve the channel, no work remains to be done in order to furnish fourteen feet of water for the purposes of navigation. An organized attempt has been made, I believe, in the interest of competing railways, to create doubts as to this depth being available throughout the entire St. Lawrence route, as also by shippers who are interested in maintaining the old system of transport ; and there is ground to believe that some elevator proprietors have been inclined to create the same impression. The only thing that can be said with truth respecting the route is that, as the channel is a new one, people who are navigating it have been less careful than they should have been, and have disregarded instructions, signals, buoys &c., and have not confined themselves to the channel. The few accidents which have occurred have been due to this cause, and have occurred on shoals and ledges outside of the buoyed channel


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the objection ?


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) is introducing a debatable subject that is not at all necessary in answering the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These few accidents are believed to be due to carelessness, or want of knowledge of the pilot


John Graham Haggart: Order. The hon. gentleman is introducing subjects entirely apart from the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the matter with the hon. gentlemen opposite ? One would think that they were disappointed to hear that the canals were in a condition for fourteen-foot navigation.


Mr. SPEAKER.: In answering questions, the privilege is allowed members of the government under the rules to make their statements as long as they please. At the same time, I understand that they are not allowed to engage in debate in answering the question. I have not followed the answer closely enough to be able to say whether debatable matter has been introduced or not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There will always be more or less trouble, unless people are exceedingly careful-and they rarely are-in making use of an entirely new channel ; and nothing has occurred on the St. Lawrence route that would not have occurred on any route if the like carelessness or want of knowledge were displayed. I may; say that last season after the canals were opened, vessels of 121 up to 13i feet draught successfully navigated throughout the entire route, without encountering any obstruction whatever or experiencing any difficulty.



SHED, SALMON RIVER WHARF.

Robert Laird Borden: What is the total cost to date of the shed constructed upon the wharf at Salmon river, Halifax county, N.S. ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Nothing has yet been paid for the shed referred to.



CHANGES OF LIGHTS, OASCUMPEC HARBOUR.

Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1 What changes have been made in the Cas-cumpec Harbour lights since 1899 ? What amount of money was paid in making changes, and to whom paid?
2.	Are those lights now' supposed to be permanent or are any further changes contemplated in the near future?
3.	Is the government aware that such frequent and varied changes of lights have rendered doubly hazardous the lives of fishermen frequenting the harbour, especially from the province of New Brunswick, resulting last year in the loss of many valuable lives and destruction of a large number of fishing craft?
4.	Will the government, when making changes in the location of those lights in the future, give full notice of same in local newspapers, in

order that all interested may have a knowledge of the different changes?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies).: Before answering the question, I desire to call attention to the objectionable form in which the hon. gentleman has presented the third question. It is not permitted, under the rules, to allege facts or to suggest any improper inferences. However, I will not take advantage of that, but will give answers to the hon. gentleman's questions, as follows :
1.	In the spring of 1899 the main lighthouse at Oascumpec was moved from Sandy Island in the harbour to the South Sand Head, at the entrance of the harbour, in consequence of the wasting away of Sandy Island by the sea, and in September, 1899, the range mast lights previously maintained on Savage Island were moved on to the same South Sand Head to indicate the channel through the bar outside of the Sand Head. This work was done under the supervision of Mr. Walsh of the provincial agency, and the total cost of the work was $428.57. In the spring of 1900, the two mast lights above referred to were replaced by inclosed towers so that better lights could be shown from them and so that they would answer as day beacons. At the same time, some slight change was made in the alignment to suit change in the channel. This work was done by Mr. Walsh.
2.	Range lights on a low shore, like the north shore of Prince Edward Island, where the channels break through shifting sands, and are continually changing, can never be considered as permanent ; and the department can never be sure for any period in advance that the channel will remain where it is at any time marked. If the channel changes at any time in the near future, it will be necessary to change the alignment of the range lights to suit. At Oascumpec we have been obliged to change the leading marks very often, and have no hope that the present arrangement can be considered as permanent.
3.	The government is not aware that such frequent and varied changes of lights can be in any way obviated. Changes in the channel are beyond the control of the department, and a certain amount of danger necessarily attends the use of shifting channels of this kind. The department is not aware that any loss of life or vessels occurred at Cascumpec in consequence of any neglect in the arrangement of the range lights.
4.	When the government makes changes in the location of lights, the fact is advertised in notices to mariners, distributed to the whole shipping community. It would be useless to give notice of light changes in local newspapers, because the local seamen are always acquainted with them, and the local newspapers would not reach


Edward Hackett: strangers who are mainly interested in learning of such changes. The present system of circulating Notices to Mariners throughout the Dominion is considered efficient.
CASCUMPEC HARBOUR-IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. HACKETT asked :
1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to improve Cascumpec Harbour, Prince county, P.E.I., which each year becomes less satisfactory to navigators, and which is the main harbour of refuge on the whole north coast of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Does the government intend carrying out the deepening of the main channel there according to the plans of the engineers employed by the late government, or have any other plans of operations been decided upon, and if so, what are they?
3.	Have any measures been taken to prevent the break in the sand hills which adversely affect the depth of water in the main channel, and if not, why not?
4.	From what department of the government was the money granted to provide material to close one of those little channels last winter ? What amount of money was expended, and to whom paid?
5.	Is the government aware that the brush and material used was not put properly in place, that the work was not done under proper inspection, and was carried out to sea, to the great detriment and loss to coast fishermen?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	Resident Engineer Hegan was instructed on July 31 last to expend $1,500 by day labour in closing the opening through the bar. The opening, however, has so changed and increased that it was not advisable to begin work without a further examination.
2.	Under consideration.
3.	Engineer Hegan has been instructed to make an examination and report on work required.
4.	Nothing expended by this department.
5.	There is no information in the department of any such work having been done. We are communicating now with the resident engineer who has visited the locality.



BOLSOVER POST OFFICE-REMOVAL.

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria) asked :: 1.	Why was the post office at Bolsover, in North Victoria, removed from its former site to a point about a mile further east?
2.	Upon whose recommendation was the change made?
3.	Was there any complaint or charge against the late postmaster, Mr. James McGirr?
4.	Were petitions presented (1) for retaining the office in the former place, and how many signatures were upon it, (2) for moving it to its present site, and how many signatures were on it?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 

POSTMASTER AT MILLSTREAM, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has James A. Fenwick, for many years postmaster at Millstream, King's county, N.B., been dismissed?
2.	If so, were charges preferred against him, and if any, by whom preferred, and of what character, and was any investigation held?
3.	At whose request was Mr. Fenwick removed, if he has been dismissed?
4.	Was any petition, received by the Post Office Department asking for a change of postmaster at Millstream aforesaid, and if so, by how many persons residing within a radius of two miles from said post office at Millstream was such petition, if any, signed?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Fenwick, as appeared from the statement from Lieut.-Col. Jas. Domville, ex-M.P., was an active political partisan. Under the circumstances, an investigation was not considered necessary.
3.	Covered by answers Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	No petition for a change in the postmastership of Millstream was received at the department.



NATIONALIZATION OF RAILWAYS-SIR WM. VAN HORNE'S STATEMENT.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like, as a matter of privilege, to set myself right before the House and the public. In this morning's Citizen, in connection with the debate I introduced two days ago, the following statement is made :
And in reply to a further question, I said that a national board of directors entirely beyond political control or influence might succeed in handling the railways of the country ; but I could not see how such a board could be established and maintained on a sufficiently independent footing.
I regard it impossible.
Now, I wish here to accept this statement of Sir William Van Horne. I do not think I contradicted that in anything that I quoted from him the other day, and while
I accept this explanation of his, I regret that after his long experience with the Canadian people and with the Dominion parliament, he should think we are incompetent to administer anything that we may have to administer, even if we have to nationalize our railroads. What he says is either a compliment to the hon. gentlemen opposite, signifying that they have foiled him in some of his endeavours in regard to a national railway, or that he does consider them to have administered it in a political fashion.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sif-ton) to a return ordered by the House on February 12, which I do not think it would take a long time to prepare, and which I would like to have as soon as possible. It is a return showing an itemized statement of the number of gallons of liquor taken into the Yukon, with the names of the permits. There cannot be many of them. If that return could be hastened I would be very glad.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will give it attention.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to suggest to the hon. gentleman that it is desirable to have brought down at as early a date as possible, any measures which the government propose to introduce. The right hon. gentleman will remember that during past sessions there has been some difficulty experienced in giving to government measures as full consideration as we would like, owing to the late date at which they have been brought down. As some two weeks of the session have now elapsed, I think that the House might reasonably expect that we should have the measures which the government proposes to introduce brought down at an early date.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I think that all the Bills will be introduced next week.



THE TRADE AND NAVIGATION RETURNS.

Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) when we may expect the Trade and Navigation Returns that was tabled some days ago. It is usual that they should be distributed to the members of the House immediately afterwards. I have made inquiries on several occasions, and up to this time I am unaware that they have been distributed to the members.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: A limited number reached the department and have been distributed, and I expected a full supply for the members before this. I will make inquiry with reference to the matter.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  A. B.@: INGRAM (East Elgin) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. He said : The object of the Bill is, first, to relegate to the back of the ballot paper the name of the printer, which is now on the face of the ballot. The Act does not specify as to where the printer's name should appear. I find in some constituencies the printer's name is printed on the face of the ballot, and I think it ought to be printed on the back of the ballot. The next amendment relates to the counterfoil. As the ballot is now made, we have a stub, a counterfoil and a ballot, and as many ballots are found to be blank when they are counted on election night, I think it would be a wise policy to have the face of the counterfoil black, similar to the broad lines running across the ballot. The next object is to transfer the words that now appear on form P, section 48, ' electoral district of ... 19 . Ballot paper,' and all other words liable to be placed there, to the back of the ballot also. By that means we would have nothing above the black line on the top or below the black line at the bottom. That, I think will make this ballot almost a perfect ballot.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am not prepared at this moment to offer any observation on the hon. gentleman's Bill. I would simply call his attention, and the attention of the House, to the fact that we have several Bills introduced this session to amend the Elections Act. The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) has one on the Order paper, as has also the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I think it well that all these Bills should be brought before the House in order that they may secure the views of the members regarding them. I propose that we should not discuss this Bill any further at the present time. We will allow the Bill to take its second reading, and the same with all the Bills which are upon the Order paper, so that we may compare notes upon the amendments and see whether they are acceptable.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: That is rather a strange innovation on the order that has been followed in this House, because it is universally admitted that the second reading of a Bill accepts its principle. Now the First Minister proposes to introduce a new rule.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have several times acted as I now suggest. Moreover, I recognize the principle of this Bill in that I think there is room for amendment to the Act, and the government has in contemplation an amendment to the Elections Act. We accept the principle of the Bill that the Act should be amended, but we propose to leave the discussion of the various amendments to another occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On one or two previous occasions that was done because the government had a Bill on the same subject, and when the government's Bill was about to be considered, then all the other Bills relating to the same subject were considered at the same time. But at the present session I do not understand that the government propose to amend the election law ; therefore, they cannot consider the Bills brought in by private members in connection with theirs.


Samuel Hughes: Before the motion passes, I would like to draw the attention of the First Minister to the fact that a number of very useful machines are being used to facilitate voting. I have seen one of them operating myself, made by a man named Craig, of Kinmount, and it operates perfectly. There is no clock work about it, it never gets out of order, the voter can see how his ballot is punched every time. I would suggest that the question of voting by machine might also be considered, so as to avoid, if possible, the ballot stuffing that so disgraced a number of ridings throughout Canada during the last few years.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Might I suggest to the right hon. premier the desirability of referring all these Bills to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act to a special committee ? I do not know myself what the practice of the House is on such a matter, but I may say that I have already given notice of an amendment to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. I may add that I have been in communication with some of the most prominent judges in the Dominion, and the Bill, of which I have given notice, is the result of suggestions that I have received from them. Now, inasmuch as I believe these amendments will be in the interest of the entire country, would it not be a good idea for the Premier to appoint a special committee to deal with all these amendments, and to make such suggestions to the House as the committee thought wise ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am not prepared to give an answer upon this point now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
James Clancy: 



FEBKUAKY 21, 1901 RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 4) to amend the Railway Act. He said : The law in regard to cattle guards that this Bill of mine is intended to remedy is in a very bad state as far as the farmers of my section, and I think, of the country, are concerned. It is by no means in the same condition that it was in when we first had legislation upon this subject. As the House will remember probably, or find out by referring to the revised statutes of 1886, the liability of railway companies in regard to cattle guards originally was that the railway company was liable for damages if animals got upon the railways from the highway, irrespective of whether the animals, as regards other questions in law, were at large upon the highway or not. To leave the railway only responsible to the owners when the animals are not at large, would be most impracticable and certainly an imposition upon the inhabitants of the country. To put myself right before the House at the beginning, I beg to state that I am not seeking to interfere with the protection that railways have in regard to killing cattle at the point of intersection of the railway and the highway. There is another branch of the railway statute which provides that if cattle are killed at the point of intersection the railway is in no way responsible for it, and not only that, but if the owner of cattle allows these animals to be at the point of intersection, not in charge of some person to control them, and if damage results to the railway property, to the engines, or anything else that belongs to the railway, the owner is liable for such damage. The part of the statute which this amending Bill is aimed at is the part which says that the railway shall be liable for not keeping up fences along the lines of their railway, and cattle guards at highway crossings. Up to the year 1888 that liability was absolute, but in 1888 there was a new consolidation of the Railway Act. and in that consolidation we find that this provision was taken out of the Act instead of leaving the liability absolute as it had been. The Act, as passed, reads :
Until such fences and cattle guards are duly-made and completed, and if after they are so made and completed they are not duly maintained, the company shall he liable for all damages done by its trains and engines to cattle, horses and other animals, not wrongfully on the railway.
There is a qualification of the obligation of the railway company in the words ' not wrongfully on the railway.' When the judges of the courts began to see what these words meant, they had to decide that if an animal was not in charge of somebody at the time it got upon the railway it was wrongfully upon the highway. What my Bill is intended to meet is this : I say
that if a railway company runs its line across a highway, and is required by legislation to keep cattle guards there, in order to make the highway reasonably safe, it cannot be said that it is required for any other purpose except to make it safe for animals which are not in charge of somebody on the highway. It is nonsense to contend that they must have the guards, and to say that if they destroy an animal, which is not properly upon the highway, they are not liable. If the judges decide that an animal must be under the control of a human being in order that the railway may be liable, it is idle to say that they need to have cattle guards at all, because no animal under the control of a human being could possibly get upon the railway whether there were cattle guards or whether there were not. As long as the railways are protected, as they are in other parts of the statute, by not being liable for accidents at the point of intersection, and I submit it is proper they should be so protected, the railways should be bound to keep up cattle guards against animals, whether they are at large or not at that point. There are cases innumerable where an animal escapes from the owner's premises. If there is a cattle guard to stop it, it will go on wandering upon the highway, but, if there is no cattle guard to turn it aside, it will go down the railway in the same way as it would go down the highway. I submit that this is a matter that ought to be remedied, and that the law ought to be so that when these animals, by any accident unknown to the owner, become improperly upon the highway, it should not affect the liability of the railway company for not having cattle guards there. Of course, this is not a matter that is merely problematical. I am sorry to say that in my part of the country we have had a great deal of difficulty over these things, and it is not a matter that I am anticipating at all. It is a matter that has already occasioned a great deal of damage to the inhabitants of the country, and I believe that this is the case with the inhabitants in other parts of the Dominion of Canada wherever these railways are. We find that we are getting along into the 20th century and that railways are being constructed more closely together, that the country is well cut up with railways, and we have to consider that while we are allowing these railways all these privileges, we ought to take care that the people of the country shall not be injuriously affected in an improper or unfair way. The case to which I am alluding has happened in a great many counties. The law reports are full of cases where an animal, without any intention on the part of the owner to allow it to wander, does accidentally get upon the highway. It goes down to the railway, and if there were cattle guards no harm would be done. The statute says


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I will not suggest to the House that the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) should not prevail, nor, that he should be precluded from having his Bill go on to the committee for full discussion. The House labours under the disadvantage of not having been able to study this Bill, as it is only a few moments ago, that it came under my notice. I think it would be well that the matter should go to the Railway Committee, although I must say that the proposal is not so free from difficulty as the hon. gentleman suggests. The law which the hon. gentleman proposes to amend is that sound principle which is to be found in the ordinary common law which casts upon a person who is negligent in the care and protection of his own property a measure of liability and makes him responsible on the ground of contributory negligence for anv damage which may result. I take it from the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) that he proposes to deviate from that principle, but, I will not enter into a discussion at this stage. I know that a number of complaints have been made throughout the country in respect to these gates and crossings. Those complaints, however, are not so much, be-Mr. LANCASTER.
cause cattle guards have not been placed upon the highways, as that the character of the modern cattle guard is not of as efficient a character as that of the cattle guards which were formerly used. I have had a good many complaints from different sections of the country from people who claimed to have suffered because of the change made in the construction of the cattle guards, but, I have not heard any complaints made in the direction which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has now mentioned to the House. I am quite content that the Bill should go to the ordinary committee, when it can be fully discussed.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has done justice to what the mover of tire Bill (Mr. Lancaster) has suggested. I have not yet considered the provisions of the Bill, but the ground which was put forward was, that railway companies which are guilty of a disregard of the duty imposed upon them by statute should be held liable for that neglect, although cattle may be unlawfully on the highway. In other words, you have to choose between neglect of duty on the part of the railway company on the one hand, and neglect of duty on the part of the owner of the cattle on the other. That is a question which would present itself for the consideration of the Railway Committee, and I am not now prepared to express an opinion as to what the result ought to be. The minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) will see that you might have a neglect of statutory duty on the part of a railway company, and you might have cattle on the highway; unlawfully on the highway it is true, but nevertheless on the highway without any negligence on the part of the owner. They might get on the highway through the negligence of some other person,, and then you would have the case of cattle unlawfully on the highway, but without the negligence of the owner, and you would have to choose between the position of such a person and the position of the railway company which had not provided proper cattle guards.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And the cattle guard might be neglected through some carelessness on the part of a third person.


Robert Laird Borden: Then you would have to take into consideration the extent to which the railway companies are responsible for the negligence of their servants. I rose because I thought the minister had not done full justice to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman who moved the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad the minister has decided to send this Bill to the Railway Committee, because I think it is perhaps the best place in which to discuss it. I agree with what the minister has said with regard to the kind of cattle guards now used. Since the old

wooden guards were done away with and replaced by sheet iron or steel guards, the number of accidents has much increased because the modern cattle guards are no use, as animals can walk right over them as they can on the highway. As the law stands, no cattle can be on a highway unless in charge of some person, within half a mile of,a railway without being illegally on the highway, and in villages where you have cattle running at large most of the time they are technically there in violation of the Act. While this Bill seeks to remedy one defect, I believe that parliament should go further and define what a proper cattle guard is. When the law was amended before, I thought it was amended in the wrong direction. I thought it was made worse, instead of better, and I think so still. I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that there have been many complaints in my locality, and I believe that the duty devolves upon parliament to provide a remedy.
Mr. ![DOT]'. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Does the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) think that this is such a Bill as should be referred to the Committee on Railways and Canals ? The alteration in the law suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) is a very simple one. We have suffered a great deal in the province of Quebec from the legislation which this Bill seeks to change. We had the recent case of Campbell vs. the Grand Trunk Railway, in which a horse during the night leaped over a fence to the highway, then wandered to the railway crossing and on account of the defective state of the cattle guards got upon the track and was killed. The plaintiff obtained judgment in the Superior Court on the ground that the railway company was in default, but in the Court of Appeal (I speak from memory now) it was held that under the law the animal was improperly upon the highway because of it not being accompanied by a human being. Well, it could not possibly be accompanied by a human being under the circumstances I have explained. The owner was not in fault for the animal got on the track and was killed because the cattle guards were defective. I certainly think the law requires to be changed, but I do not see that this Bill requires examination by the Railway Committee.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 1 can corroborate what the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said in regard to the poor character of the cattle guards now in use. They are constructed in such a way that the cattle can pass over them without any difficulty, and they do not at all fulfil the purpose for which they are intended. I wish also to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the fact that either there is no suitable law with regard to level crossings or the railways are violating the law every day. In our part
of the country the fences at the railway crossings have been abolished, so that it is no longer possible for one person to drive cattle across the track, but it now requires three people to do so-one standing on each side of the track and another to drive the cattle over, if a railway train comes along, the cattle rush down one side of the track or the other, and some of them are liable to toe killed. Whether the law has been changed in regard to this or not, I do not know; but that is the condition of things that exists at the present time, and it is a very great hardship to the farmers through whose lands the railways pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman has no objection, I would move that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion :
That in the opinion of this House, duties should be levied upon lumber imported into Canada corresponding with those now existing upon lumber entering the United States.-Mr. Bennett.
William Humphrey Bennett: Stand.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I suppose the hon. gentleman will be prepared to take up the motion at the next sitting of the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: I propose to go on with the next one.
Motion allowed to stand.



EXPORT DUTY ON SAW-LOGS.

William Humphrey Bennett: That in the opinion of this House an export duty should be imposed upon all saw-logs cut on Indian reserves in Canada.
He said : Mr. Speaker, the question of the manufacture of our logs, particularly pine logs, in the province of Ontario has been a moot question both in this House and in the local legislature for a number of years ; and I am pleased to be able to say that those who advocated the adoption of ways and means for causing the manufacture of saw-logs in our own country are highly satisfied with the results that have been attained. It is well known, particularly to hon. gentlemen coming from the province of Ontario, that as a result of the change introduced by the local government in 1897, though a large quantity of saw-logs, aggregating probably upwards of 300.000,000 feet in a year, were exported

from different points on the Georgian Bay to points in Michigan, that business has been entirely stopped, and we have now the satisfaction of seeing that large quantity of lumber manufactured in the country. I need not say anything as to the advantage of such a change of policy.
In the province of Ontario timber cut on lands which are licensed by the Ontario government is, of course, subject to the control of that government, and subject to any rules and regulations it may adopt. But timber cut on lands known as Indian lands is not under the control of the Ontario government, but of the Federal government. As a consequence most of the logs cut on these so-called Indian lands in the province of Ontario are being exported from year to year to the United States. In answer to a question which was put on the paper the other day by myself, it was stated that no less than 25,000,000 feet of timber cut on Indian lands had been exported from the province of Ontario last year.
Now, if it is good policy to cause the manufacture in the country of timber cut on licensed lands, it is equally good policy to cause every log cut on Indian lands to be manufactured in the country ; and I have put this motion on the paper to-day in the hope that the Minister of Interior will announce a change of policy under which that desirable object shall be accomplished.
In making the motion, I am aware that there is in the American tariff a proviso by which the imposition of an export duty by this government might result detrimentally to the lumber industry as a whole ; for the amount of export duty would be added to the import duty on lumber passing from Canada to the United States. Of course, that export duty would have to be a very considerable amount. I am not prepared to say whether $1 a thousand would result in these logs being manufactured in the country. The probability is that it would have to be increased to $3 or $4. If the import duty on white pine going to the United States, which is $2 a thousand in the American tariff, should be increased to $4, it would be most detrimental to the interests of the province of Ontario and of the whole Dominion. For that reason, 1 do not propose to press the motion as it stands to a division ; but I do hope to evoke a statement from the Minister of the Interior that it is his intention to follow the line adopted by the Ontario government during the present year, by putting a prohibition on the export of all logs cut on Indian lands. While the amount cut last year was not large, it was sufficient to keep two or three mills of considerable size running. If the minister announces such an intention today, it will be fair to say that these people have had fair notice for a number of years that such a change would be brought about. They have had notice for the last ten years of an intention to place an export duty on logs, and they have had the Mr. BENNETT.
notice in the form of the prohibition of the export of logs from the province of Ontario, adopted by the local government; and if the minister makes the announcement that the logs cut on Indian lands during the present season must be manufactured in the country, I presume it will result in the manufacture this year of at least an equal quantity of logs to what was cut last year.
I do not propose to make any further remarks, but I shall be pleased to hear the minister make the announcement that he intends to follow the wholesome line of conduct pursued by Mr. Hardy, even if it was a death-bed repentance, and to prohibit the exportation of all logs cut on Indian lands during the present season, whether in the province of Ontario or any other province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a very few words on this motion. The proposition to impose an export duty on logs going out of the country has been a live question in which I have taken a warm interest for very many years.
There are one or two ways in which we can remedy the evil. One is in the hands of the local government and the other in the hands of the Dominion government. One remedy consists in the changing the regulations, under which timber is allowed to be cut in the province of Ontario, and by this means compel the cntting of it to take place in this country. The other consists in the placing of an export duty on logs, which will accomplish the same purpose.
I have always been of the opinion that the proper remedy is to change the regulations, but we never could get the Indian Department here to do so with regard to the timber cut on our Indian lands, and ns the Ontario government refused to change its regulations so as to compel the cutting of the timber in Canada taken off Crown lands, we were obliged to do the next best thing, and press for an export duty on logs to stop them being taken out of the country before being manufactured into lumber.
At last, however, the provincial government did move in the direction desired, and the regulations were changed, so that today all pine timber on the Crown lands of Ontario must be sawn in this country. This did away with one of the great evils for which we sought a remedy. But there is a large portion of our lumber still going out of the country not manufactured. Last year over 25,000,000 feet of logs were taken off the Indian reserves in the Algoma and Georgian Bay districts, principally on the Manitoulin Islands, and sawn in the United States, and a vast quantity of lumber in the log is still going out from those districts without restriction. This resolution seeks to have an export duty imposed, but I do not think that is the best way to prevent this

evil. I think the Department of Indian Affairs, which has the power to change the regulations, just as the Ontario Crown Lands Department did, should change the regulations in such a way as to compel millowners to saw the logs in this country. The department could do this at any time. It reserves the right to change the regulations in the leases at any time. By changing the regulations, we would avoid the danger anticipated by my hon. friend from Bast Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett), namely, that the Americans might bring into operation that portion of their Customs Act which provides that when any country imposes an export duty on logs going into the United States, that clause of the American Act will at once come into force which doubles the duty on sawn lumber brought into American territory from that country. I would, therefore, urge the government to apply this remedy of changing the departmental regulations as soon as possible, and thus prevent a vast business which ought to be done in this country being transferred to the other side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not suppose that hon. gentlemen opposite who have brought up this important question expect more at present than that they should have the opportunity, as they have had, of pressing it upon the attention of the House.
The general question of levying export duties has been repeatedly considered by the House, and there have been good reasons why it has not been deemed expedient to adopt that policy. Circumstances, however, might arise which would lead the government to adopt such a course, and we have taken the legislative power in certain cases to do so.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe has hardly expressed in his motion all he has in his mind. He proposes that we should levy an export duty on logs cut on Indian reserves, but it may be a question whether we could levy a duty on one section and not apply it universally.
But I fancy that the real purpose of my hon. friend is, not that there should be an export duty, but that there should be regulations of the Indian Department which would effect the same object. That is a matter well worthy of consideration, but for the present the government does not wish to commit itself to any particular course. If the hon. gentleman will withdraw his motion, it will be considered in due course, or, if he desires, the debate might be adjourned and the question discussed at a later period.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to hear from the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) in what form licenses are granted by the Indian Department to cut timber, and whether they are
renewable from year to year. Has the hon. minister the power to alter, by regulations, after the licenses are granted, the amount of duties to be paid and the conditions under which the duties should be levied ? Has he reserved the power, as the Ontario government has done, of renewing the licenses on such altered conditions as he may choose ? I do not remember on what conditions the licenses are issued-whether by statute of the Dominion, which gives the Minister of the Interior power to issue licenses, or whether the hon. minister only acts as the ward of the Indians and gives licenses without any special power to do so.
For the proper consideration of the whole question, it is well that the House should know in what form the licenses are granted -whether renewable from year to year, and whether the power is left in the hands of the minister to alter the regulations in the direction suggested by my hon. friend from Simcoe.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The licenses issued to cut timber on Indian lands are issued by the Department of Indian Affairs, under the authority of the Indian Act, which gives the Governor General in Council power to make regulations for the disposal of the timber upon these lands when they have been surrendered by the Indians. First of all, the Indian lands have to be surrendered to the government for the purposes of sale, and then the government disposes of the timber under regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council, and, except in special cases, public tenders are invited. I could not say whether, in respect of the licenses issued, there is such an implied contract as would prevent our altering the terms. There are very extensive timber lands not disposed of at all-Indian lands- and as to them we can make what conditions we please. But, as to lands on which licenses have been issued, my recollection is that there has been no change in the form of license adopted in former years. The hon. gentleman will remember that when the policy now in force in Ontario was first adopted, there was very serious question as to the power of the Ontario government to alter the terms of the licenses. I think the point raised was, that there was an implied contract on the part of the government to renew the licenses annually on the same terms or without substantial change and without looking particularly into the question and examining the licenses, I would not be in a position to express an opinion at present.
I suppose my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) desires the fullest information, and if he wishes I will bring down a full statement on this point, and, if necessary, get the opinion of the Department of Justice on the power of the govern-

ment to alter the terms, so that the House may be in full possession of the facts.


William Findlay Maclean: The principle adopted in Ontario, namely, the right to change the conditions of the leases, has been vindicated, not only in the courts of Ontario, but before the Privy Council in England. Since that principle has been vindicated, it ought to apply to all the licenses granted by the Indian Department here as well as by the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies).: What Privy Council decision does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) refer to ?


William Findlay Maclean: It went to the Privy Council within the last two years.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Of course, my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will understand that while the principle may, to some extent, apply under the Ontario leases, it does not follow that it would apply under our leases.


William Findlay Maclean: The principle having been vindicated now, the government could use it for the protection of the country in these cases.


William Humphrey Bennett: As the motion has been on the Order paper for over two weeks- for I believe it was put on the first day of the session-I am surprised that the Minister of the Interior comes down to the House now not able to furnish the least information as to what would be the effect of passing the resolution. I am only speaking from recollection, but I have had something to do in getting these licenses renewed for friends in my own riding, and my recollection is that they stand on all-fours with the Ontario licenses in this-that the Crown reserves to itself the right, at all times, to do as it pleases. That was the ground of interposition by the Ontario government. They took high ground that they had the right to interpose at any time ; and I submit that this government has the same right. However, as the resolution might produce the result I stated at the outset, of causing high duties by way of reprisal, and as there is not a great amount exported,
I will not press the motion to a division. But I hope and trust that the government will, during the present session, and at the very earliest opportunity, announce to those who are now taking away these logs, that they cannot take them out of the province as logs, but must manufacture them in Ontario. As they have had notice from year to year that this power was held in reserve, the step might well be taken now. Mills in Michigan are dependent upon these logs to a certain extent ; and. as the Ontario government has intervened and stopped the exportation of the logs of the Ontario licenses, it is humiliating to find that the Dominion government will not follow Mr. SIFTON.
their lead. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Before the motion is withdrawn, i would observe that the motion which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) debated to-day, and very properly, is not the motion which he gave notice of. The motion of which he gave notice was one in favour of an export duty, which involves a very large question ; but, in the address he delivered, he restricted himself to the subject of a change of regulation, which is a very different question.


William Humphrey Bennett: But would have the same result.


James Clancy: I would like to call attention to the fact that the government, in 1897, took power to deal with just such cases-that is, they asked and were given authority to impose duties


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was confined to minerals, was it not ?


James Clancy: No, it gave the government power to deal with all such cases as my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) has brought up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But the question brought before us to-day is one of regulation.


James Clancy: The question raised simply is whether the government would be taking a proper step in dealing with a portion of the case-that of the logs upon Indian lands-and leaving the other points involved in the same position as before. Motion withdrawn.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all correspondence, telegrams and reports that have passed since March, 1900, between the Dominion government and the Imperial government, and between the Dominion government and the provincial government of British Columbia in regard to Mongolian immigration into Canada.-Hon. Mr. Prior.
Return of all papers, reports and other data relative to the lowering of the waters of Lake Simcoe, with a view towards reclaiming certain flooded lands.-Mr. McLeod.
Return of copies of each of the hydraulic mining leases mentioned on page 65 of the annual report of the Department of the Interior, 1900; also showing what conditions or terms of these leases have been complied with, respectively ; also, copies of all reports, letters and communications respecting each lease.-Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
Copies of all correspondence, papers, tenders, returns and other documents relating to tha government wharf at or near the ferry, Bast River Sheet Harbour, in the county of Halifax, N.S., showing the title of the Crown, if any, to this wharf, and the use which has been mado

thereof since January 1, 1897. The person or persons in charge of the wharf on behalf of the government since January 1, 1897. The moneys which have been expended by the government thereon since January 1, 1897. The dates when the sums were so expended, whether the same were expended by public contract or how otherwise; also, all such papers aforesaid as show the amount collected or received by the government, or by any person or persons on its behalf, for use of such wharf since January 1, 1897.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Copies of all orders in council, reports, correspondence, papers and documents relating to real estates at St. John, N.B., purchased by the government or by the Department of Railways and Canals for the intercolonial Railway since January 1, 1897, and relating to claims for payment or compensation therefor, including all orders in council, correspondence, documents or papers showing what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken with respect to such claim or claims.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Copies of all despatches, letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports, respecting the subjects included in the following telegram of August 2, 1900: -
' Ottawa, Ont., Aug. 2, via Bennett, Aug. 7. F. C. Wade, Dawson,-Sir Wilfrid has handed me your message. Am endeavouring to remove difficulties caused by delays in answering communications addressed to other departments. Superintendent Tache, of the Public Works Department, is now en route to Dawson with orders for the construction of trails and public buildings. government considering plan of readjustment of royalty which will lighten tax and, we think, prove generally satisfactory. Order granting representation in local council takes effect immediately. Ryley, of mining branch, en route to Dawson. Will report amendments to mining laws. Careful consideration, letters and petitions received here, convinces me every reasonable request regarding mining laws can be met in near future. Impossible for me to visit Yukon now. Hope to get there before many months.	' (Sgd.) CLIFFORD SIFTON.
-Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
Return showing the names and addresses of all parties tendering (where tenders were called for) for coal and wood, or either, for the use of the government of Canada since July 1, 1899; copy of the tender put in by each party tendering, copy of the specification issued in each ease where tenders were called for, name and address of the successful tenderer in each case, together with the kind, quality and quantity of coal and wood, or either, tendered for ; also the kind, quality and quantity of coal and wood or either, for which tenders were accepted in each case, and the prices paid; also, the location of each government building or institution supplied with coal and wood, or either, the quantity and quality and sizes of coal and wood, or either, supplied to each, and the price in each case. Also, the names and addresses of all parties supplying coal and wood, or either, without tender, since the above date to the government of Canada, the kind, quality and quantity supplied in each case by each person, the prices paid in each case, and the location of the building or institution supplied.-Mr. Clarke.
Copies of the complaints, pleas, convictions, notes of judgment and all other papers, correspondence, &c., relating to the case of Cinqmars vs. Senecal, decided by the Court of Queen's Bench (Crown side), on December 17, 1900.-Mr. Fortin.

Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel) moved :: That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that all binder twine now held by the government, together with all twine that may hereafter be manufactured by them, shall be sold direct to the farmer at a price to cover the actual cost of raw material and manufacture only, with 1 cent per pound added, and that no twine manufactured or paid for out of the Dominion treasury shall be sold or disposed of in any other way.
He said : In rising to make this motion 1 want to ask the kind indulgence of the House, which is usually extended to new members. I am aware that this is not a new question. It is a question that has been up for consideration in this House for a number of years ; but as there are a good many new members in the House, I will give a very brief review of the sale and manufacture of binder twine as carried on by the government in the Kingston penitentiary. In 1894 the late government for the first time introduced the manufacture of binder twine in the Kingston penitentiary, and installed a plant for that purpose. In 1894-5 they adopted the policy of placing a traveller upon the road and selling the twine directly to the retail merchant, and the retail merchant sold it to the farmer. The then government entered into a contract with a Mr. Kelly, of Montreal, which contract ran for five years, and expired on September 1, 1900. But in June, 1896, that government was defeated, and a new government came into power. One of the first acts of the new government was to cancel altogether the agreement made by the former government with Mr. Kelly, and to adopt a new plan for the sale of binder twine. On coming into power they found on hand at the Kingston penitentiary all the twine that had been manufactured by the government the year before, amounting to about one million pounds. They sold that twine to Coll Bros. & Co. for the average price of $4.25 per hundred pounds. That twine had cost the country an average price of $4.66 per hundred pounds, but they sold it to this firm of political friends for 41 cents per hundred pounds less than it cost this country to manufacture it. In the year 1897 they sold the twine that had cost this country an average price of $4.43 per hundred pounds to manufacture, to another firm of their friends, the Ilobbs Hardware Manufacturing Co., of the city of London, for the average price of $4.64, or 21 cents per hundred pounds over the cost of the twine during that year. In 1898, continuing the same policy, they sold the twine to H. N. Bate & Sons, another firm composed of their friends; the twine cost an average price of $4.72 per hundred pounds, and they sold it to this firm at a gain of 12 cents per hundred pounds over the cost. In the following year, 1899, the twine cost an average price of $6.25 per hundred pounds to manufacture.



and tliey sold It to Hobbs & Co. for an average price of $6.51, or 26 cents per hundred pounds over the cost. The government then decided to make a change in the manner of disposing of the twine made in the Kingston penitentiary. In looking over the 'Hansard' I find that on May 9, 1900, a question was put to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister by Mr. Clancy, in these words :
What was the quality and price ot each class of hemp or other fibre purchased at the Kingston penitentiary between June 30, 1899, and January 1, 1900?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Pending the sale of the output, it nqver has been the policy of the department to make public the price either of the raw material or the manufactured product.
But that year they decided to advertise the twine, and announced publicly that the farmer could purchase his twine directly from the Kingston penitentiary. Now, I ask the House to notice the kind of advertisement they put in the newspapers. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked this question in the House :
Has the government sent out a schedule of prices at which binder twine will be sold at Kingston penitentiary up to March 1, 1900.
The Prime Minister answers :
Tes ; as follows :-
Per lb.
Lots of fifty tons and upwards-Manila.... 124 e.
"	"	" Mixed	 9Jc.
Car-load lots less than fifty tons-Manila.. 13c.
"	"	" Mixed... 10c.
Lots of one ton-Manila	 13|c.
Lots of less than one ton-Manila	 14c.
Mixed	 11c.
Now, you will notice that the twine that the government advertised could be purchased by the farmers in quantities less
than one ton for 14 cents per pound for manilia and 11 cents per pound for mixed, was manufactured by the same government at an average price of $6.25 per 100 pounds. Thus, in their announcement that they were prepared to sell twine direct to the farmer, they asked the farmer to pay, for what cost an average price of $6.25 per 100 pounds, $14 per 100 pounds for manila and $11 pel-hundred pounds for mixed, which seems to be rather a large percentage, but that was the announcement that was put in the newspaper. In looking over the Auditor General's Report. I notice that the actual output of twine from the Kingston penitentiary, in 1899. was $34,292.45 worth. It was sold, $7,258.63 worth to H. N. Bate & Sons, and $26,085.55 worth to the Hobbs Hardware Co., making a total of $33,344.18 worth. The balance was sold to the farmers. the balance being $948.27, and it cost the government of this country to advertise that $497. In coming forward to the Auditor General's Report for 1900, I notice that the total output of twine at the Kingston penitentiary was $59,481.71. They sold the largest proportion of that to two friends of Mr. BLAIN.
their own. The Hobbs Company got $35,072.57 worth, and one, John Connor, got $15,753.53 worth, making a total, purchased by these two friends of the government, of $51,426.10 worth, and the farmers just got $8,055.61 worth. It cost them to advertise that to the farmers of this country, according to the Auditor General's Report, $725. Now, the motion that I have before the House has two or three simple requests. One is that the cost of the twine manufactured by the government in the Kingston penitentiary shall first be made out, and that when the cost is made out there shall be 1 cent per pound added for expenses of shipping out the twine to the farmers. If, for illustration, in 1899, the cost of twine being an average of $6.25 per ton, according to their own report, they had added 1 per cent per pound to it and advertised to the farmers, that they could buy the total output of the Kingston penitentiary at $7.25 per 100 pounds, instead of $14 per 100 pounds for manila and $11 per hundred pounds for mixed, the government would have sold every pound of it direct to the farmers. Then, of course, as my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) says, Hobbs would not have got it. but we cannot help that. The government promised to sell it direct to the farmer, and we want to find out whether they are fulfilling the pledges they made. In answer to a question the other day, placed upon the Order paper by myself, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said they would not tell this parliament the cost of the raw material for the manufacture of the binder twine that was made in the Kingston penitentiary last year. I say that this is not fair to the people of this country. If my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) were the president of a company, and I was a stockholder, and if I went to him as a stockholder and asked him for prices in respect to the purchase of goods he was selling and in which I was interested, if I asked him after one year had expired from the time he purchased the goods and he refused to tell me, I would think that 1 had a fair grievance against the president of my company. So, I think when the people of this country, through their representatives, ask the government what the raw material cost that was paid for out of the public treasury, the government have a right to give the people a fair and simple answer, and tell them the facts of the case. I notice one or two things in the report of the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Mills) that are worthy of the attention of this House in discussing this matter. A. Bal-lantyne received for services as arbitrator, $500 in 1899. I suppose that was for arbitrating as to whether an amount ought to be paid or not. If the House would adopt the principle laid down in the motion I have submitted here, there would be no $500 to be paid for arbitration. The price would be so fixed, and it would be so low. that

tlie farmers would willingly take up the full amount of twine manufactured, and there would be no charge of $50U to be paid by the country for arbitrating disputed accounts between the government and those who purchased the twine from them. I have here the statement of a former supporter of the government, Mr. McMillan, as reported in ' Hansard ' of 1899, page 7213, Mr. McMillan says :
I understand that in the state of Michigan, where I have friends living, binder twine is manufactured by the government of that state. The first thing they do is to advertise, and they allow the farmers to send in for a certain quantity and send the money with the order.
Mr. McMillan, on the same page, says :
I believe the government should advertise and allow the farmers to send in their orders, taking at least 500 pounds of binder twine and sending the money along with the order.
That is a principle laid down by a former supporter of the government, and it seems to be a principle that they were unwilling to adopt and did not adopt. The motion that 1 submit for the consideration of the House, and I do not wish to detain hon. gentleman longer, is that the government shall sell the twine direct to the farmer for cash. They say, of course, the quantity is small that is manufactured, being only 500 tons each and every year, and that the country consumes a much larger quantity of twine. The government through their representatives have said to the farmers : The quantity of twine we manufacture is so small that we cannot supply all the farmers and therefore it would not be wise to supply any of them. I contend that the policy of the government should be that so far as the twine which they manufacture will supply the wants of the farmers, they should supply it to the farmers direct and abolish the system of first giving it to their political friends ; as for instance once in a while by advertising in the public press, and then advertising through circulars which are sent to the friends of the government who purchase twine throughout the country. X have no disposition to embarrass the government upon this small question, and when I call it a small question I mean that the amount involved is not very large, but at the same time it is of great importance to this country, and the farmers of the province of Ontario expressed themselves upon the question on the seventh of November. It was one of the most important questions for discussion in the late election, and I am quite certain that many of the Ontario electors voted against the government, because the government did not adopt the policy laid down in the resolution now before the House. Although I was elected a supporter of the Conservative party. I made the promise in my county that if the government would adopt the policy of selling the twine direct to the farmers, doing Si
away with middlemen altogether, and giving to the farmers all the advantage that the supply of twine would warrant, that X would support the government upon that question. I am here to repent that statement in the House as the representative of my constituents, and X am most anxious that that policy should be adopted. It is a policy that will remove altogether whatever suspicion surrounds the government in connection with the sale of this binder twine. I also wish to express my opinion that the government should furnish information to parliament, especially when that information is a year and a half old, when it is required by this House in the public interest. I wish now to refer to the quantity of manila that was purchased by the government in 1899 and 1900, and I refer to it because the Hon. David Mills in a pamphlet which I have here makes the statement that the farmers paid more for their binder twine last year because the government were compelled to pay more for the manila. I take the report of the Minister of Justice ending June 30, 1899, and I find that all the manila they purchased during that year was 125,000 pounds at 53 cents a pound. I would call attention to the fact that that is marked ' seconds.' I do not know that that means that the government has been selling pure manila made out of second quality, but it certainly stands there in the report that the Minister of Justice purchased second quality manila and when the government come to sell it they do not sell it as second quality, but as pure manila. It is a problem for the government to solve as to how they accomplish that. Then again I find from the report of the Minister of Justice that in the year 1900, they purchased 140,335 pounds of manila at 5} cents; 123,344 pounds at 51 cents, and only 8.320 pounds at 9 cents. In view of these figures I do not think that the people of Canada will agree in the statement that the reason why the farmers had to pay so much for their twine last year was that the government had to pay so much for their manila. I thank the House for their kind attention, and I am most anxious that this motion should be adopted, which I move, seconded by Mr. Johnston, of Cardwell.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: The motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is one that certainly should not meet with the opposition of any representative of an agricultural constituency, and I think will receive the support of every member representing constituencies in Manitoba and North-west Territories. During the late campaign there were few questions that interested the farmers more or received their closest attention and criticism than the hinder twine question, and quite naturally. In that country where population is filling in, where land is being taken up and a greater acreage being brought under culti-

vation every year, where an increased quantity of binder twine will be required each succeeding season, it is of the utmost importance that our farmers should be placed in a position to secure their twine at the cheapest possible price consistent with a legitimate business profit.
When Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice, it was deemed advisable in order not only to afford labour to our convicts in the Kingston penitentiary, but also to break the power of a combine that was said to exist in the twine industry in Canada, and to afford our farmers cheaper twine, to establish a plant for its manufacture in that institution. This action was taken with the result that twine could be purchased in those days, notwithstanding the outcry of a combine existing, at 6 and 61 cents a pound. The argument has been used that owing to the limited amount manufactured at Kingston, 500 tons annually, it would have very little effect in lowering the price ; but I think when that twine was sold to the farmers direct, as it was at that time, it acted as a great lever on the other manufacturers of twine and did result in preventing them from demanding an exorbitant figure for their output.
When the present government came into power they changed the manner of its disposal, and instead of selling to the farmers direct, they handed it over to their own political friends at a greatly reduced price so thair our farmers had to pay for the same twine, only 41 cents being received for it one year, while the consumers had to pay 10 and 11 cents the same season. The supporters of the government claim that it was owing to the increased price of the raw material consequent upon the American-Philippine war that raised the price of the finished product, but the returns brought down to the House during the last session of parliament explodes that contention ; for, while there undoubtedly was a rise in the price of tne raw material, it was not at all in keeping with the large price our farmers were compelled to pay for the twine : nor was any explanation forthcoming as to why the contractors were able to secure from the government the penitentiary twine at so comparatively low a figure notwithstanding the increased price of the raw material.
It has been said that tenders were called for, and the twine went to the highest tender, but that was not the case every year. It is true, as has been pointed out, that private circulars had been sent out to a number of the government's political friends inviting tenders ; but it was only after considerable agitation had sprung up in the country, because of the government's action, that public advertisements in the press of the country were resorted to. Even then, as evidenced by the disclosures that took place before the Public Accounts Committee, these contractors were permitted to Mr. ROCHE.
manipulate the tenders in) their own interest and in such a manner as to surround the whole affair with great suspicion. Recognizing the justice of the outcry by the farming community, the government last year made a pretense of complying with their wishes and advertised in their party papers that farmers could secure twine direct from the penitentiary up to March 1. This was a practically valueless concession, as those of us who represent rural constituencies are fully aware, and the government seeing this extended the time to May 1. Even this was of very little account, for there is not one farmer in a thousand who will purchase his twine months before he requires it, and, as far as our western farmers are concerned, it was of no value whatever. In that country our crops do not mature before the middle of August, and how unreasonable it would be to expect them to take advantage of this so-called concession and purchase their twine during seeding time, when they are not in a position to know what amount they, will require, whether their crops will be a failure or a success, or whether they will require any twine at all or not. Besides, how many of our farmers in ai new country have bank accounts that they can afford to speculate by purchasing their twine four months before they will require it.
So, I say, so far as our western farmers are concerned-and I venture to say it is the same in the east-this so-called boon to the farmers is a sham and of no material benefit whatever. Had the government done as this resolution asks them to do, dealt directly with the farmers at any time and at all times during the whole season, at a slightly increased price above the cost of manufacture, the farmers would have been the beneficiaries, and, I believe, the exchequer would have derived more benefit as well ; for in some instances in the past the contractors have secured the twine below the cost of manufacture.
The unfair argument made by our opponents during the late campaign in regard to the position we on the opposition benches took on this binder twine question was that owing to the government having taken the duty off, we were called upon to pay a higher price for our twine. This is an entire misrepresentation of our position. When the Conservative government left power, twine only bore a revenue tariff, and the penitentiary twine was sold direct to the farmers if they so desired. After the present government assumed the reins of office, they wiped out the duty. If, in the ordinary course of events, that action would have resulted in giving cheaper twine to our farmers, that was prevented by the government refusing to sell direct to the consumers, and by handing over the government twine to those who were the agents of the American combine, and who held up the farmers to the tune of thousands of

dollars over and abiSYe what they should have paid had it been handled in a proper business manner.
If the supply at the penitentiary is not sufficient, in the government's opinion, to influence materially the market price, they have the means at their disposal to increase that supply. And while it may be said that it is not the province of the government to embark in commercial enterprises, I think it was quite justifiable for the government, when in such an industry as that, if the removal of the duty merely hands over the business to those who are members of a combine, to utilize every means at their command to afford relief to our farmers.
Without occupying any more of the time of the House, especially as the mover of the motion has gone so thoroughly into his case, I beg to say that it is my intention to support the motion most heartily.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Speaker, as a disappointed farmer. I wish to say that when the binder twine plant was placed in the Kingston penitentiary, I thought that possibly the farmers would he able to get their binder twine at a somewhat lower price than before ; but in that I have been disappointed. Although I have used some of the penitentiary binder twine, I have had to pay as much for it as I have paid private dealers. Only last year I sent for some of the penitentiary binder twine, and paid 104 cents a pound for it; and I could get it for the same price from private dealers. It appears to me that that is hardly fair to the farmers that the government should carry on an establishment of this kind, and dispose of the product to people who do not use it themselves, but take it simply for the purpose of selling it to the farmers and make money out of them. In this case the cheap labour of the penitentiary comes into competition with the labour of the factories of the country ; and this is done at the expense of the ratepayers, especially the farmers, who do more to keep up that plant than any other section of the community. We claim that this manufacture should be carried on for the benefit of the farmers, and yet they have had no benefit from it so far. As the question has been ably discussed by the two gentlemen who have preceded me, I do not intend to take up the time of the House any ' further ; but I promised the farmers of my constituency that I would do anything I could to have binder twine sold to the farmers at prices as low as the dealers pay, and I hope that the government, without regard to political pulls, and without any feeling towards the opposition, will make an effort to help the farmers in this respect.


Mr. JABER ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the applause which I have received is owing to the members. most of them, knowing that I represent the only organized body of farmers in the Dominion of Canada. It is quite possible that I may not be able to speak for all the farmers ; but when I say that the body which I represent have taken a deep interest in these binder twine organizations throughout the country, and have pronounced themselves strongly upon all monopolies in binder twine, hon. members will see that I have some right to speak on the subject, especially when I hear the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) stating that the government have gone in to assist the monopolies of this country. I hope that is not true. I should be sorry to believe that the government, which promised to assist the farmers, the manufacturers, and all other classes, had gone in to assist the binder twine monopolies. I was told on my way down here that the binder twine manufacturers had held a meeting and had consulted with the minister at Ottawa, who has charge of that particular industry, on the advisability of the government assisting these manufacturers to keep up the prices; but I did not put a question on the Order paper concerning this rumour, because I could not believe possible that the government would lend its countenance to any such attempt. Governments cannot make binder twine for the farmers at less than cost any more than can individuals, hut there is nothing to prevent a government which goes into that business, furnishing the twine to the farmers at very little above cost. It seems to me that the government acted wisely when it took the duty off binder twine, but when it assists monopolies, it nullifies any good that might have resulted from its policy.
I fully endorse the resolution before the House, and hope it will carry, and thus teach the manufacturers a lesson by showing them that they cannot hope to approach any [DOT] government and expect that government to obtain the assistance of its supporters in any scheme to bleed the farmers.
The question has been raised as to what would be the best way to get the binder twine into the hands of the farmers. I am told that the government hesitates to trust the farmers individually, but that difficulty might be met by securing some prominent man in every township and making him the agent of the government for the sale of binder twine.
I have no desire to weary the House by prolonging this discussion, for I desire, and I think we all desire, a short session. For my part, I should wish the Prime Minister of this glorious country to have the opportunity of going over to the sounthern cross and show the people of Australia what confederation has done for this country. And when the Australian confederation has been organized. I would wish to see the right hon. gentleman go to South Africa, and there contribute to establish the great confederation which must take place in that

country under the British Crown. For this short digression, I am sure the House will pardon me, and I would just in conclusion urge this point. The government has a very easy way of settling this binder twine question. Let it appoint in every township a first-class man-and it is very easy to find a first-class man among the farmers-who will act as its representative, and let him sell the binder twine at the very cheapest rate, and be responsible to the government for the proper conducting of the business.


Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: The very able manner in which the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution (Mr. Blain) placed the matter before the House leaves very little to be said by me or those who follow. I do not think that the government realizes the importance of this question to the farmers of this country. It is one much more important than the duty on agricultural implements, because the cost of binder twine is an annual tax for an annual necessity. When you come to realize the fact that an ordinary farmer in Manitoba has to pay annually for his binder twine from $25 to $100, you will understand how important to him is this matter. This article is one of the necessities of the farmer, particularly of the western country. I would like to ask the House, if it weie shown that any necessity of the people generally, such as tea or sugar or tobacco, was handled by the government in the way in which my hon. friend has shown that the government has handled this article of binder twine, how long would the people submit to be so treated ? Do you think that any government or any supporter of the government would be proud of the position occupied by the government 1 No, Sir ; but because the item in question is one that affects the farmers, only it can be treated here by hon. gentlemen opposite as a fit subject for joking and not for serious discussion. I do not rise for the purpose of making factious opposition, or in any way embarrassing the government, but the proposition of my hon. friend is so very fair, and one which could so easily be adopted and put into effect, and which would bring that relief to the farmer to which he is entitled, that I cannot press it too forcibly on the attention of this House and the government. When the government started the manufacturing of binder twine in the penitentiaries, we expected great results in the interest of the farmer, but that industry has been so managed by this government that we have utterly failed to realize what was expected. As I have said, the expenditure on binder twine of any ordinary farmer in our part of the country averages from $25 to $100 per year, and consequently is a very serious item in his business. This matter, therefore, is one which the government will have to take into its most serious consideration, and I trust that the resolution of my hon. friend Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
(Mr. Blain), and the able manner in which he has submitted it, will open the eyes of the administration to the vital necessity of dealing satisfactorily with this matter before this session closes.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I happen to be a farmer during two or three months in the year, and, therefore, may claim some right to the indulgence of the House while I speak on this subject. When the government came into power in 1896


An hon. MEMBER.: A long time ago.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, for the country ; they were very anxious that monopolies should be prevented by Act of parliament-perhaps the most difficult thing to accomplish that a government ever attempted to carry out. But here, at least, was a case in which the government had it absolutely in their own power to prevent a monopoly. They have now a manufactory of this binder twine of their own, and, consequently, can sell it to the farmers at a reasonable price, covering the cost, and by doing so keep down the prices of other manufacturers. Instead of doing that, however, they deliberately combine with the other manufacturers to prevent the farmers getting the binder twine readily and cheaply from the government factory. The result of this combine between the government and the other manufacturers has been that the binder twine factories in Ontario have for the last two years divided among their shareholders dividends ranging all the way up from 40 to 100 per cent on their paid up capital. The government had it in their power to remedy that state of affairs. I do not object to a company which risks its money in manufacturing making a very handsome profit, because manufacturing business is uncertain. But binder twine is, perhaps, the simplest form of manufacturing we have in this country, and yet there is no manufacturing concern in Canada that has distributed among its shareholders in the past four years, or since this government has been in power, such enormous dividends as lias been paid by the binder twine manufacturers. I think the resolution is a proper one. The government are manufacturers of twine, and they could sell the twine to the farmers at cost price, thereby carrying out in some small measure one of their promises, and showing that they were in earnest when they declared themselves anxious to provide that there should not be any unjust combine of capital against the farmers and artisans of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: During the recent election the supporters of the present government made a sweeping statement to the farmers, regarding what they had done for them in the matter of binder twine, and took credit to themselves for

doing the first generous thing for the farmers that had been done for five years, that of selling binder twine to the farmers direct. And at what prices did they sell it ? Take one sample-they issued a sheet announcing that they would sell in less than ton lots to the farmers at 14 cents a pound for one grade, that of manila. And what did they sell it to their own friends for ? They sold it at 71 cents a pound.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the same time ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the same time, and the same quality of twine. And they ask the farmers to be grateful for their generous act to them. According to my experience one of the questions that, above all others helped to leave the government in the minority in the province of Ontario, was the way they handled the binder twine. The farmers, very properly reasoned :	If, in regard
to an article in which we are so directly and so vitally interested, the government have been treating us unfairly, how can we trust them in other things ? Many of the government's friends -I have it from these people privately, and have even heard it stated by them on the public platform-voted against the government on that question. It is only fair that this should be known, for the farmers resented being deceived as well as mulct in a large amount of money. Whether it would be a proper thing to sell to the farmers direct at cost price, I am not prepared to say. I still believe that the true principle was that acted upon by the former government. They sold the twine to an agent, who sold it to the retail dealers throughout the country; but, to guard the farmer against unfair treatment, the government reserved the right to sell direct to the farmer at 10 per cent above the price at which it was sold to the agent. This allowed a profit to all parties, while no injustice could be done. Had this government followed that course, they would have done right. But to sell binder twine at $0.21 to their friends, which was sold to the farmers at $10, was a thing for which they should be condemned. For my part, I made this a subject of attack of the government on every platform on which I spoke during the late election.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government certainly has no right to complain of the manner in which my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) introduced this question. It is a very important question, and the interest evinced in it by all sides of the House shows that that importance is recognized. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) and others who followed him have made statements which the government is not prepared to accept. The question is a large one, and, as it is understood that we are not to sit this evening, 1 will ask the House to agree to the adjournment of the debate, that we may continue the discussion at another time. As to the policy suggested by my hon. friend, I am not prepared to express an opinion. The arguments are not new to us, but have engaged the attention of the government. Some of the statements made by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and others are liable to be contradicted, and, at the proper time, I am confident, an explanation will be made in rebuttal of those statements. But, at least allow me now to express my satisfaction at the statement made by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), that the government had done a good thing when they put binder twine on the free list. This is the first time I have heard that statement from that side of the House. I agree with the hon. gentleman, and he will find that the government will always be ready to help him against monopolies of every kind. I move the adjournment of the debate.


James Clancy: I suppose it is understood that there will be an opportunity of bringing this matter up again. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows that this motion to adjourn the debate sometimes means the end of a question like this.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) knows me too well to have any such suspicion. But, to relieve his mind I may tell him that, according to the rules, this will be one of the first Orders of the Day on Wednesday evening next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 22, 1901.