1903-05-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How often and at what dates were financial terms arranged between the Dominion of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia, between January 1, 1872, and July 1, 1896 ?
2.	By what amount was the sum payable to Nova Scotia increased by these different arrangements ?
3.	What sum is at present at credit of the government of Nova Scotia, bearing interest, with the government of Canada ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: No financial terms were arranged between the Dominion of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia between the dates mentioned. There were general readjustments in 1873 and 1884 of the debt accounts of the various provinces, but they had no special relation to Nova Scotia.
3.	The sum now at the credit of Nova Scotia in the debt account is $1,056,111.12.


ST. LOUIS INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, 1904.
Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: Is it the intention of the government to take part in the St. Louis International Exhibition in 1904 ? If so, will the Canadian commissioners be simply attaches to the British commission, as in Paris in 1900 ; or will they be given all the lights and privileges of an independent national commission, such as were granted to Canada at the Philadelphia International Exhibition of 1876 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is the intention of the government to take part in the St. Louis International Exhibition in 1904.
The Canadian commissioner or commissioners who may be appointed will not be attaches to the British commission, but will be independent of it. The rights and privileges of the Canadian commission have not yet been determined.


DOMINION ELECTIONS.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That a Select Committee, composed of Messrs. Charlton, Casgrain, Russell, Barker, Demers (St. John and Iberville), Northrup, Thompson (Haldimand), and Ingram, and the mover, be appointed to consider the state of the laws respecting Dominion elections ; with power to report from time to time. And that the order respecting Bill No. 3, intituled : ' An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900,' be discharged ; and that the said Bill be referred to the said committee.
He said : Mr. Speaker, at an earlier stage in the session a discussion arose on the election law in connection with a Bill introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). In the course of that discussion I ventured to suggest that if any good could be accomplished in the way of improving the election law, it might be possible to bring it about by the appointment of a committee representing both sides of the House which would study the subject and which would probably then be able to make a report to the House. That suggestion found general favour, and after consultation with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) I placed this motion on the notice paper. I am by no means too confident that we can reform all the evils which are sometimes mentioned in connection with elections. I am afraid that some of them lie more deeply than legislation, and that in respect to some of them we would have to reform human nature before we could entirely remove them. However, I think that no harm could possibly result but that some good may come of the study of this question by a joint committee in the manner suggested. Therefore without further words, i beg to move that a committee be appointed for the purpose named. I move the motion which stands in my name.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Would the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) be good enough to tell us whether this inquiry will involve the duty of looking into the conduct of elections, the actions of officers connected with elections and offences committed during elections ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not understand that the committee will undertake to look into any election that is past.


Samuel Hughes: I mean the law.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, anything which will help to improve the election law would, I think, come under the view of the committee.


Samuel Hughes: The point I wish to make is this : At the present time only the deputy returning officer is allowed to place his initial upon, or to touch the ballot which is handed to the voter. It was my intention to bring in a Bill to deal with this subject, but when I saw that another lion, member had a Bill before the House, I thought that I would have an opportunity to offer an amendment. I think that not only the deputy returning officer should initial the ballot, but that the agent of the candidate should also be allowed to place any distinctive mark he chooses in proper form on the stub of the ballot, so that it may be identified. Would that point be eligible to be brought before the committee ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. in my judgment, it would. That is our intention.


Mr. BELL.: I presume the intention of this motion is to lay before this committee all the laws at present relating to the conduct of Dominion elections, and those that are intended to deal with irregularities at elections. It will, I presume, involve the introduction of a new Bill, although I observe that Bill No. 3, introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), is referred to a special committee for consideration. I would suppose that the intention is to review all the legislation * now in existence in Canada in reference to the conducting of elections and in reference to irregularities or wrongs done at elections, with the view of introducing a Bill that will cover the ground and probably of substituting some more efficient legislation than that which we now have.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be our desire, and certainly all these matters will come within the authority of the committee, and if they should be able to reach a conclusion that would, I should think, be in the shape of a Bill to be submitted to the House. Certainly what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has suggested would come within the scope of the inquiry.


Mr. INGRAM.: I suppose that would include the Election Act as well as the Controverted Elections Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see why we should not include both.


John William Bell: And no doubt it would also include the introduction of some measures which are altogether new-for instance, compulsory voting.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It might be so. The committee would have a free hand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) if they would find it convenient to lay on the Table of the House all communications or memoranda containing suggestions on the revision of the tariff ? Of course, I mean those which are not of a confidential nature. It would be, I think, very convenient to have them. It would help greatly in the debate that we are going to resume shortly on the fiscal policy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not- know that we could have any objection to it.
I can only say that if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tnrte) had desired it, I wish he could have asked for it at an earlier stage in the session. The correspondence will be somewhat voluminous. There is cer-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
tainly no reason why we should object to the production of any part that is not marked ' confidential,' but I would expect that the motion which my hon. friend might make would call for so much that it would take some time and considerable work in the preparation of the return. However, from a governmental point of view, there is no reason why we should not bring it down if the House desires it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: With the indulgence of the House I would say that if I am expected to make a motion it might take a little more time than it would if my hon. friends would consent to bring down as much of the correspondence as it is possible for them to do. I suppose that these documents are in shape and that it would not be much trouble to lay them on the Table of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would be glad at a later stage to make an announcement on the subject. The point is quite new. I did not anticipate bringing the papers down, not, however, on account of any objection on our part. I did not suppose they would be asked for or desired.


John William Bell: They are not confidential.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some of them may be.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Those I do not ask for.


SETTLEMENT OF RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTES.
[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir
William Mulock) moved third reading of Bill (No. 17) to aid in the settlement of railway labour disputes.
Mr. CLARKE.: I thought the hon. gentleman would have the amendments printed before he moved the third reading of the Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no objection. Let it stand.
Debate adjourned.


CONSTRUCTION OF DRY DOCKS-GOVERNMENT AID.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to repeal section 1 of chapter 9 pf the statutes of 1899, and enact, in lieu thereof, the following section :-
If any company or body corporate, approved by the Governor in Council, as having the ability to perform the work, enters into an agreement with His Majesty to construct a dry dock, with all proper and necessary equipment, machinery and plant, for the reception and repairing of vessels, at a place, and according to plans and specifications approved by the Governor in Council, on a report by the Minister of Public Works, as sufficient for the requirements of the public at such place ; the work to be completed within a time to be limited by

such agreement. Then, provided the company performs the work according to such agreement. and to the satisfaction of the Minister of Public Works, under the supervision of whose department the work shall be done, the Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, of a subsidy not exceeding three per cent per annum on the cost of the work during twenty years from the time of its completion and acceptance by the said minister ; provided that such subsidy shall not exceed thirty thousand dollars per annum ; and that the cost on which it shall be calculated shall not be greater than the value of the work as estimated by the said minister. Provided also, that the subsidy shall not be payable for any portion of the said twenty years during which the dock is not in complete repair and working order.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This resolution proposes to amend an Act which has been on the statute-book for several years. Some years ago the government constructed some docks as government works, but apart from that an Act was placed on the statute-book making provision for grants by way of aid to incorporated companies which might construct docks of the proper character subject to the approval of the government. The original arrangement was that that aid might take the shape of a subsidy equal to 2 per cent on the cost of the dock, for a period of twenty years, not exceeding, however, in any case, $10,000 per annum, which would be 2 per cent upon $500,000. That was the state of the law for some time. In the year 1899, an amendment was made whereby we still retained the 2 per cent, but we enlarged the amount upon which the payment might be made in order that docks of a larger capacity might be constructed. The Act as it now stands makes provision for payments of 2 per cent upon the cost of the dock, not exceeding, however, $20,000 per annum. The change which we now propose is to make the rate which we may pay by way of subsidy, 3 per cent instead of 2 per cent, and with a corresponding change in the total amount-instead of 2 per cent, or $20,000 we may pay in the case stated, 3 per cent, or $30,000 per annum. The change is entirely with respect to the rate per cent. It has been found that some difficulty has been experienced in floating companies to build these docks upon the present basis, and it is represented to us that if this increase be made, docks would be constructed in some places where otherwise they might not be. The only dock constructed under the old Act was the one at Halifax which was constructed by the joint aid of the imperial, the Dominion and the city governments. The city of Halifax paid a certain sum per annum, the Dominion government a certain sum per annum, and the imperial government gave a subsidy in consideration of which the ships of His Majesty's navy were received into the dock. There is a dock proposed and some progress has been made on it at Collingwood, Ontario, which no doubt would come in under the operation of this Act. They have been negotiating, and a contract was made on the basis of the present Act, but I think not much progress has been made, and I suppose the Collingwood Company would expect to avail themselves of the advantages of this Act. Another dock which has been brought to our notice is at the port of St. John, N.B., where it is represented that with this increased aid, the company will be able to establish a dock of a large character adapted to the increasing trade of the port. The policy of all governments in times past having been to aid works of this character, the only question is one of proportion, and inasmuch as 2 per cent has not been found a sufficient sum to bring about the construction of any docks in recent years, it is proposed to enlarge the aid by granting 3 per cent; with the maximum of $30,000 per annum for a period of twenty years.


Mr. MONK.: Have any companies, except that at Collingwood, applied for the aid provided for by this resolution ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I am correct in saying that no application has been made by any other company. Occasionally mention has been made of projects in other quarters, but I think I am right in saying that no application has been made by any company except the company at St. John and the company at Collingwood.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course the plans will be submitted in the usual way for approval by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no change whatever in the words of the Act in that respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it contemplated that the government itself will not in future build any dry docks ? I speak of this, because for a long time we had expected that the government would construct a dry dock in the vicinity of the port of Montreal. Would we be met by the objection, that now that this system has been inaugurated it would be incumbent upon some private parties to organize themselves into a dock company in order to come under the provisions of this resolution ; or, would the government still persist in what has been promised to the port of Montreal, and build a dry dock there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must not discuss the question of any promise to any particular port; but under this Act any body corporate, which would include the Harbour Commissioners, if they should see fit, could come in and obtain the benefits of this Act. Whether or not the government will in any case or in no case build or not build a dock in the future ; that is too definite a question for me to answer. In the present instance, the wording of the

Act is such that if the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal desire to come in under the operations of this Act, they would receive the aid. As to whether or not the government will in that case, or in other cases undertake the construction of the work as a government dock, that is a matter that would have to be considered hereafter. I am not at present able to say anything more definite.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is not a new policy at all. It is simply the extension in a small way of the existing policy which has been in force for over twenty years. The inference which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) fears may possibly be drawn from this Bill, is an inference that could as well be drawn from any previous Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I should have added that though the resolution before the House only deals, as the parliamentary rules require, with the money side of the question ; in the Bill to be founded thereon, provision will be made that the tolls to be charged on any dock to be constructed hereafter shall be subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. That has not been so in the past, but that restriction will be placed upon any docks constructed hereafter under the terms of this Act.
Mi-. BENNETT. In considering an application to aid in the construction of a dock under this Act, would the first consideration be that there would have to be a certain amount expended for the work to be constructed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have made no rule in that regard. We have rather taken for granted that docks of large size would be undertaken. The only limit is that we shall only pay the 3 per cent on the fair cost of construction ; and though the cost may be very much larger than the limit fixed, the amount of the subsidy cannot exceed $30,000. In the case of the Halifax dock the cost was very much larger than the estimated cost on which the government subsidy was paid.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not say that private enterprise must not be encouraged in cases of this kind. I think that what has suggested the present Bill is the case of the dock at St. John, N.B. Some very energetic citizens took up the proposal to erect a dock there. I understand that they received some encouragement or had some hopes of aid from the imperial government. Those hopes did not materialize. If I am not mistaken, they also received some help from the provincial government and from the city of St. John ; but they could not get along without some further help. I quite agree with my hon. friends that the measure before the House to-day is worthy of ap-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
proval. I may say also that the dock at Collingwood is being built by very energetic men. But we must not rely too much on private enterprise in large transactions of this kind. There is no country in the world which is more lacking in dock accommodation than Canada. The United States have many small docks, but they have not one large dock. During the last season there were in the St. Lawrence at one time four or five large ships which suffered damages and could not get accommodation either at Montreal or elsewhere. Suppose an accident happened between Belle Isle and Quebec ; there is only one dock at Quebec, and one at Montreal, a very small one, belonging to a private firm. 1 would call the attention of my hon. friends on the treasury benches to the great importance of equipping our harbours with this necessary improvement. Graving docks are essential to-day, and they will become more and more essential as. our fleet increases in size and number.


John William Bell: What about the dock at L6vis ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The dock at L6vis can only accommodate one ship at a time, and it is too narrow for the largest ships that ply in our waters. The boards of trade of Montreal and Quebec have applied for a second dock at Levis. We should also have one at Montreal. I only say these few words in passing, in order to call the attention of my hon. friends to this important question.


Mr. BENNETT.: While I do not propose to offer any objection to the resolution, per-ferring to wait until the Bill is brought down, it seems to me, on the face of the resolution, that unless the Bill goes further, a great deal of difficulty will arise. Since the case of the Collingwood dock has been instanced, let me call the minister's attention to the fact that there is also a dock at Owen Sound. I think the Collingwood dock was originally larger than the one at Owen Sound ; but if this Bill goes into effect, the people of Owen Sound will no doubt come and ask that the dock there which has been enlarged at the expense of the company who own it, probably with the aid of the town, be assisted by the government. To my mind the government should lay down a hard and fast principle as a starting point, to the effect that the docks to be subsidized shall be placed at a certain distance from each other, or that only one dock shall be aided in a particular water. I am not in a position to state what was the original cost of the Collingwood dock ; but unless a very large amount is expended in improving and enlarging it, it seems to me that $30,000 will be a very large grant towards it. Under the wording of the resolution, the $30,000 might be a greater inducement to the company than 3 per cent of the amount invested.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: But they can only get 3 per cent on the cost of the dock, and In any case the amount must not exceed $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not notice that it was optional. When the Bill comes down, I think there should be some provision inserted in it as to the size of docks to he aided and the distance that they must be from each other. Otherwise assistance will be asked for very small docks, and the result will be a multiplicity of small docks instead of the establishment of a few large ones.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. minister say that if this Bill becomes law, it will apply to the Collingwood dock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What I said was that I supposed the Collingwood company would expect to come under this Act in the same way as the company which built the dock at St. John. As not much progress has been made with the work at Colingwood


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Oh, yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: The dock has been there for twenty years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But I understand that the whole dock is to be reconstructed.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As I read the resolution, the aid is to be granted towards the construction of new docks, but not towards the enlargement or improvement of existing docks. I would like to know from the minister what the intention is in that respect ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the Collingwood dock in its original construction had been subsidized by the government, then anything done later would be an enlargement ; but as it did not receive any government aid in its original form, all the work done on it now is practically new construction. I understand that there is none of the small original dock remaining, but that the whole dock is being reconstructed ; and, as in the first place it received no government aid, it will be treated as an entirely new construction.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The old dock at Collingwood was simply a hole and nothing else.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understood the hon. minister to say that this is simply in pursuance of a policy inaugurated a number of years ago, and that the only change was an increase in the percentage from two to three. Might I ask whether under the Order in Council or statutory law, there is a condition precedent that the dock to be constructed should cost a certain amount ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is not any such condition, but the plans 95
have to be submitted to the Minister of Public Works and by him to the Governor General in Council for approval. Whether there should be any amount fixed may be a matter for consideration, but we are simply following the policy laid down in the Act in times past.


William Humphrey Bennett: I notice that the Act was first passed in 1899, so that it must have been passed during the hon. gentleman's term of office. Have any companies taken advantage of the two per cent clause ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Act of 1899 was an amendment. The original Act was passed many years before.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that we should encourage the building of dry docks, but under the provision of this resolution, it will be in the power of the government to grant very large amounts of public money without the special authorization of parliament. I would invite my hon. friend to consider that point when framing his Bill. For instance, when this resolution becomes law, the government will be empowered to grant over $2,000,000 of public money without the special authority of parliament- $30,000 a year for twenty years. And as the construction of these docks may become frequent, although we are proceeding on a law which has been in force a number of years, I think that it is worthy of consideration whether it is prudent to give such a very large power of disposing of public funds to the Governor General in Council.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The best answer to my bon. friend is that this Act, in one form or other, has been on the statute since 1882, and up to the present we have only subsidized one dock under it. We may, therefore, conclude that the difficulty surrounding the construction and carrying on of large enterprises of that character will always impose certain checks on the demand for public aid, although, of course, by this amendment, we are making temptation stronger than it was in the past.


Mr. SPROULE.: In my opinion the trouble will be that the percentage proposed, is not high enough, because these docks have not hitherto been paying investments by any means. The percentage is not sufficient inducement for capitalists to put money into such enterprises, and, I think, that the government might very well make it much higher.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend's criticism has something in it. It shows that the risk involved is a protection against any excessive payments under the Act. But I hope that the increase from two to three per cent will lead to the construction of one or two docks. The Collingwood dock will be finished and we will probably have one at St. John. Possibly other applications may come forward, and if there are sections where such accommoda-

[DOT]son

tion is needed, we shall not regret supplying a portion of the means to furnish it.


William Humphrey Bennett: What are we to understand by sections of the country ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier expressed the fear that under this Bill we might incur too large liabilities, but on the other hand my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that financial responsibilities involved in the construction of these docks are such that unless we give very liberal aid, such works will not be constructed at all. He says that, even with the aid we are now giving, we will not find companies prepared to undertake the risk and the responsibility.
Mr, INGRAM. I understood the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to say that this is a very old policy. Was it in existence before 1899 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said that the original statute was passed twenty years ago, which my hon. friend may not consider very old.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The first Act was passed in 1882.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: Has the hon. minister received any applications from any parties in Owen Sound with regard to increasing the capacity of the dry dock there ? And is it the intention of the government to give such parties any assistance ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works is the one to whom any such application would be addressed, and I would leave him to answer my hon. friend. As to whether any assistance would be given, I cannot say at present. It is not likely that these docks will be constructed close together. The cost of construction will be large, and if the demands of business are met in any one place, business men will not build another dock close by. Each case will be decided on its merits by the Governor General in Council, and the limitations I have suggested will regulate and restrict applications.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The reason why I asked whether any application had been made is because one of the strongest arguments used in favour of the Liberal candidate, that if elected, the government would furnish assistance for the purpose of enlarging the dry dock at Owen Sound. I would ask whether the government authorized the holding out of any such inducement on that occasion, and whether it is, the intention by this proposed Act to enlarge the dry docks at Owen Sound ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If any application were made, it must have gone to the Minister of Public Works. If any application should come from Owen Sound or any part of Canada, it will be considered and dealt with on its merits.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Owen Sound is a very much larger and more important business centre than Collingwood. The business done there is very large, and It is important that the dry dock should, be enlarged. This Bill is in the right direction. We require a larger dry dock in Owen Sound, and although the people there did not support me in the last election, to the extent they would, on account of these promises, I hope they will get the increased percentage on the same terms as Collingwood and other places mentioned by the Finance Minister.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is now in order for the Minister of Customs to support the claims of Owen Sound, because when be was politically wrecked in South Brant he was put in dry docks in North Grey.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend from North Grey was referred to the hon. Minister of Public Works for a reply to the question he put, as to whether any communication had been received from any party in Owen Sound respecting the giving of government aid for the enlargement of the dock there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will take a note of the question and inquire whether any such communications have been received at the department or not I cannot speak from memory. I did not make any promise and am not able to say what the policy of the government may be regarding this matter.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I did not understand the hon. minister to give a direct reply to the hon. member from Simcoe as to when this legislation by Order in Council on this particular subject was inaugurated. I see by the Bill that it repeals the clause of 1899. Was that the first legislation of this kind ?
T'he MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. No, that of 1882.


David Tisdale: Was it on the same lines-that they could build a dock at any point they saw fit ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the wording of the Act is precisely the same in that respect as the Act of 1882; and, although, by the amending Act, power was given to the government to give this subvention to a dock anywhere, as a matter of fact only one dock was subsidized under the Act.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: I would like to ask what success this company has had in obtaining subscriptions to stock. I have a circular issued by that concern in August, 1902, which says :
The Dominion government recognizes the necessity in the public interest of an enlarged dry dock and has decided to grant a liberal subsidy for a term of twenty years ; the annual payments to be based upon the outlays made

upon the work, and to begin, upon its completion to the satisfaction of the government engineer. The Dominion government already grants a small bounty on the tonnage of steel steamships constructed in Canada.
This is a circular in which they ask subscriptions to the stock of the company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not understand what document the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) was reading from.


Robert Lorne Richardson: A document issued by the Collingwood Ship Building Company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already stated that there is a dock in course of construction at Collingwood, that, no doubt, it would get the benefit of this Act. Hitherto they have had the benefit of the Act authorizing a payment of 2 per cent. If this Bill passes, no doubt the Collingwood Company will expect that their company will get the benefit of it, as the dock is nearing completion.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I understand that this Bill is specially designed for the benefit of the dry dock in the town of Collingwood. Now, there has been a dry dock in Owen Sound for twenty years, and I would like to know if this Bill applies equally to Owen Sound ? We want our dry dock enlarged. And, if this 3 per cent is to apply to the enlargement of other dry docks, we want it to be applied to the one in Owen Sound. As I said before, Owen Sound is the most important shipping point on Georgian 'bay, or, for that matter on the upper lakes. Hence, I would like a definite answer from the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I should like to be as definite as I can. I had the pleasure of visiting Owen Sound. It is a very charming place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister was warmly received there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In many respects Owen Sound does its duty. My only regret is that some other parts of the county are not so sensible. ,1 would like to say to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Thomson) that the only difference that I know between the two cases is, that I am not aware that the owners of the dock at Owen Sound have made any application for aid, whereas the owners of the dock at Collingwood have done so. When people want aid of this kind, though they may go to the Minister of Public Works, they generally find time to call on the Minister of Finance and ask that he do not stand in their way. I have heard from the Collingwood and St. John people. It may be that there is an application from Owen Sound, although they neglected to call on me; but to the best of my knowledge, no application has been received from them. If an application comes, it will have to be dealt with on its merits.
93}


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I may say that, even if the parties in control of the dry dock in North Grey failed to call on the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance did not forget to call on the electors of North Grey. We had the pleasure of a visit not only from the Finance Minister but also from the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), and they received their answer. Nevertheless, we want to have a large dock in Owen Sound, and1 we want this Bill to apply to that work.


Andrew B. Ingram: When I asked the Minister of Finance if this would apply to the Collingwood dock, I understood him to say that the Collingwood dock people did not know anything about it. Now, it appears that these people called on the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say otherwise.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, but I certainly thought he said that they knew nothing about this legislation.


Mr. HOLMES.: Sitting here at a little distance from the Minister of Finance, I am not sure that I have exactly heard his answers to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I want to understand clearly. I understand that this is simply a provision under which dry docks throughout the Dominion, if not too close together, may, on certain conditions, obtain government assistance. Is that .the point ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the point, except that the Act does not say anything about their being too close together. That is left to the government, but there is no limit in the Bill.


Robert Holmes: It does not apply to Collingwood specially or to any other place specially ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The day before yesterday, I received a letter from large contractors in Vancouver, which city I have the honour to represent, saying that, since the government have decided to raise this subsidy from 2 to 3 per cent, they expect to build a large dock. There has never been any question about this matter with us. We know that when the government . bring down a Bill like this, they mean business. I think this is a very commendable proposition indeed, and I know that the fact of making this Bill law will result in our having a very large dock erected in Vancouver.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to ask on what authority the directors of this Collingwood Company make this announcement, in their circular of 1902, that:

The government has decided to grant a liberal subsidy for a term of twenty years ; the annual payments to be based upon the outlays made upon the work, and to begin, upon its completion to the satisfaction of the government engineer.
In the same circular, later oil they say :
While we believe the improvements to be afforded by the additional capital will very materially increase the earnings of the company, we do not expect a higher dividend than six per cent per annum at present.
It would appear that they expect a large annual subsidy from the government for twenty years. Upon what authority did they make that announcement ?
The MINISTER OP, FINANCE. So far as concerns any past transaction the authority given to the government by legislation was to pay a subsidy of 2 per cent. From this time forward, if this Bill passes, we shall have authority to pay 3 per cent. The Collingwood dock is in course of construction, and it certainly is one of the docks that will have the aid of the government- there is no question about that. I think the information was given last year that the Collingwood dock was seeking and would receive aid. At all events it has been announced that the government would aid the Collingwood [DOT] dock.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: I presume that the document quoted by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) is the prospectus of the Collingwood Ship-building Company. Every toon, memtoer knows ttoat a dry dock company makes little or nottoing. A Ship-building company, on the other hand, may make the dividends referred to in the prospectus. I cannot speak as to this company, having nothing to do with it, good, bad or indifferent. But the hon. gentleman will see that the prospectus is in respeet to the building of ships, and one of the advantages which the company would have would be that they would be in a position to use this dry dock. The dry dock is only used to take a ship into for the purpose of repair. So, what the hon. gentleman has read applies to the prospective dividends in respect to the building of ships and not for the use of the dry clocks for other purposes than repairing ships.


William Humphrey Bennett: I wish first to be understood as not speaking in any spirit of hostility to any grant being given to the dry dock at Collingwood. Although I live in a lake town which does a very much larger shipping business, so far at all events as grain goes, than the town of Collingwood, I admire the pluck and energy of the people of Collingwood in constructing the large dock there, and in establishing certain lines of passenger boats which run to that point and have their headquarters there, and which are certainly a credit, not only to Collingwood, but to the Dominion of Canada. Now, speaking of this prospectus which is before the House, it is headed ' The Collingwood Ship-building Company,' and it throws a little light on what the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has said, that this prospectus is not referrable solely to any money that is to be expended in the advancement or enlargement of the dock at that point.
Mr. McCarthy. I did not say it was not referrable to any money to be expended.


William Humphrey Bennett: Not exclusively, he said; that is what I intended to convey. According to this document, the authorized capital is to be $2,000,000, which is referrable to the ship-building industry, and also to the establishment of a dry dock at that point. Of the capital issue there is paid up $550,000, and it is intended to issue $300,000 of new stock, of which $80,000 has already been subscribed. The date of that prospectus is August 12, 1902. Now, I assume that the largest part of this capital of $850,000 is to be put in the dry dock, and I have understood that the cost will nearly approach that sum. I understand that the company were of necessity compelled to purchase valuable real estate, so a part of the $850,000 would of necessity be expended for that purpose too. Now, the House must see that the amount to be expended upon the Collingwood dock as a whole will probably reach over half a million dollars. It was announced over a year ago that the Collingwood Dry Dock Company was to have the grant on these terms, then it may be taken for granted that any dock that is to he assisted, if this is to be taken as a precedent, must of necessity cost half a million dollars. Now, I submit that when a Bill is brought down following this resolution, it should be firmly laid down in the Bill that the cost of the dock must be a certain amount, otherwise what will be the effect ? Let me tell the Minister of Finance that in the province of Ontario the people have gone mad on what is known as the bonusing system, rival towns seeking to promote their interests will give bonuses to manufacturing concerns. We have there within a distance of seventy-five miles, on the coast line, the towns of Owen Sound, Collingwood and Midland, all ambitious. And if the government are going to grant such liberal subsidies as under this Bill they will grant, of necessity the result will be a great competition between these towns. I submit it is fair to the people of the town of Midland to have the government announce a line of policy, so that we may set our house in order and get ready for the government grant. When the Bill is brought down, it should state distinctly what amount must he the cost of the dock before it will be assisted by the government, otherwise it would he giving the government in advance a great deal of political leverage, because a certain town may be preferred by the government, and therefore get the benefit, while others may he cast to one side. I submit that when the


Robert Lorne Richardson: Bill Is brought down, there should be in it a clear cut statement as to what amount must be expended on the dock before it will receive assistance under this Act.


David Tisdale: There is another remark to be made in connection with this legislation. The Finance Minister is right in saying that the principle of making grants to dry docks by Order in Council was established in 1882, but the grant was then limited to $10,000. In 1899, after hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, they made it $20,000 ; but the necessities of Collingwood have become such that they now treble the grant and make it $30,000. Now, I can conceive that there may be eases, and probably this is one, where a small amount might be granted by Order in Council, say $10,000. The hon. gentleman also states what is no doubt correct, that when only $10,000 was granted, only one dry dock claimed assistance. But I object entirely to legislation of this kind, especially when you go beyond small amounts. Here the Finance Minister is asking us to authorize the government to issue as many million dollars as they please, provided some one will undertake to construct a dry dock. Now, when it conies to an amount that is equal to a capitalization of a million dollars, I think parliament ought to be consulted. When $10,000 was the limit the Conservative government found it was quite sufficient. Why cannot this government get up a scheme and bring it before parliament, providing that every sum to be granted must be subject to the sanction of parliament ? This system is wrong in principle, it is liable to be abused, and it makes people suspicious of such a power in the hands of the government when they can exercise it by Order in Council. There is no better illustration of the objectionable character of this system than is furnished by the town of Collingwood. Does my hon. friend who represents it, and represents it well, claim that it is his ability alone that has made that town a Liberal instead of a Conservative town ? There has been a lot of money spent and a lot of promises made in regard to public works in Owen Sound and vicinity about election times, not the last election, but the previous one, where we heard statements about * cold justice ' and 'warm justice,' and so on. We have a right to suspect that this power which is now sought may be exercised. I won't say it will be, but it puts the government of the day, I do not care which party may be in power, in the position of being suspected of using that power for political advantage. Any legislation of that kind, which enables a government by Order in Council to control public funds for party purposes, I am opposed to, especially if the amount is at all large. I approve of. the restrictions such as my hon. friend from Simcoe mentions : I approve of assistance being limited to deserving places ; but I think that before |
sums exceeding $10,000 are granted, parliament should be consulted before granting the money. In that case nobody could suspect the government, nobody would have a right to impute improper motives, and the government would be following a sound constitutional principle. There is no reason why it would not be just as easy to form a company to build a dry dock when the grant of a subsidy is subject to parliament as it would be if the government granted the subsidy by Order in Council. Again I say, I object to the principle of giving this power to the government without surrounding it with constitutional safeguards, more particularly when the subsidy amounts to a considerable sum.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I beg to say a word on behalf of the Collingwood people. I am largely responsible for the work that has been carried on there.


David Tisdale: I am not saying a word against the Collingwood people.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I undertook to recommend to my colleagues the construction of the works at Collingwood, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy was a member of parliament. He was not then a strong supporter of the government. He was quite an independent member of this House. I was invited to a banquet at the board of trade. Banquets have something good about them, and that Collingwood banquet was a great one indeed. I found around the table energetic, sterling business men. They represented to me that if some encouragement were given to them they would do their share to promote the development of the port, one of the most important ports on the great lakes. I came down to Ottawa fully convinced that this was a deserving! case. I represented to my colleagues that it was important that the government should carry out the improvements that had been undertaken there years and years ago and which were not completed. My colleagues were good enough to agree with the recommendations I made then. The improvements have been carried out. What has been the result of these improvements ? The population of the town of Collingwood has nearly doubled and large industries have sprung up. The people of Collingwood have done their part and for the improvements we have made there we have been paid in hard cash in the shape of development and progress. Let my hon. friend permit me to tell him that there was no political cajoling about Collingwood. These Collingwood men are business men before everything else. The government treated them fairly and they have acted in good faith. These were energetic men. They gave their votes to my hon. friend here (Mr. McCarthy). It may be my fault to a certain extent. I do not regret it. There are thousands and thou-| sands of people in this country who have

no strong party leanings and who are business men before everything else. Well, in Collingwood I feel that we have dealt with men of that character. These men were Conservatives in the past.


Mr. MACLEAN.: They were harbourites.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What I think is that they will always vote right. I am glad to say that they proceeded energetically with their part of the work. They had promised me that if the government would help them they would erect large works. They are to day building ships on a large scale. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has settled there. He has erected a large mill and there are other large industries established at Collingwood. The population of the town has doubled.


David Tisdale: I do not object to the expenditure. I said that this was a desirable expenditure but that there was such a large amount involved that it should first be approved by parliament.


Joseph Israël Tarte: As to the Order in Council I am no longer on the treasury benches and it is not for me to defend that part of the argument, but after having been six and a half years a minister I believe I can properly say in the light of experience that I have the conviction that governments can as a rule be trusted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Cannot ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, governments as a rule can be trusted-I say it again -whatever party they belong to. I do not believe that there enough men at the Council Board to do wrong. That is my experience. I have no interest in stating that. I have no political interest to serve in stating that as a public man for the edification of the people and also for their education, perhaps. Let me say again, and I will be borne out by those who have been Ministers of the Crown, that while there may be unworthy ministers, when you have to deal with the whole government there is not much to be feared.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find that on the 22nd January a banquet was tendered at Collingwood by the board of trade and that on that occasion the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was present as their guest. It was only fitting and proper that any needs of the town should be brought before the minister and I see that Mr. John Long who occupied the chair on that occasion made. the complaint that he thought the town was suffering. His complaint was this :
Now, as they were aware, the dock was being still further enlarged, and when finished would be equipped so as to accommodate the largest vessels floating on the lakes. He hoped the government would see its way to pay a greater per cent of its cost than two per cent which bad been promised. He wished the government Hon. Mr. TARTE.
would take over the dock and pay for its cost, and the town would operate it.
Mr. Long then went on to speak about the ship building industry in that town, and as to the future of the industry he expressed very grave doubts and misgivings. He pointed out that they were brought into competition with the British ships and he said :
At the same time British built vessels were allowed to come here and navigate in competition without any tax being imposed on them.
Mr. Long laid down two complaints; first there was the question of assistance to the dry dock and then the question of competition between the British vessels which were being brought upon the great lakes and those which were built at Collingwood. When the hon. Postmaster General came to reply he endeavoured to soothe the feelings of the Collingwood people present on that occasion. The hon. Postmaster General gave them an assurance as to what was to be done in respect to one of their complaints, but it will turn out, as I will show, that the hon. gentleman was entirely wrong in his view as to what could be done for the people of Collingwood. What did the hon. gentleman tell them ? He seems to have skimmed very lightly over the question of the dock, but he took up the question of duties on ships and he then and there told the people of Collingwood in his own language that they were to be given substantial assistance, that they were to be protected in the matter of the ship-building industry. Here is what the hon. gentleman said :
As to the question of duties on ships, raised by Mr. Long, it seemed to him that no political economist could justify admitting free a finished article and taxing the raw material.
What did that mean ? It meant that the hon. Postmaster General was holding out to these people hope that British ships would have certain restrictions placed upon them or that certain concessions would be made under the tariff in favour of the Collingwood sihip-building industry. What position are the government in to-day ? It is a question whether the hon. Postmaster General by his words meant that the government would be in a position to prohibit by this restriction of which he spoke, the entrance of British ships upon the great lakes, and yet he certainly must have meant that or he meant that the raw materials which were used in the construction of ships would have their duties reduced. The hon. Postmaster General evidently came down to his colleagues. By them he was told that it was impossible to place a restriction on British vessels coming upon the great lakes and as the government were afraid apparently to reduce the duties on the raw materials entering into the construction of ships they are endeavouring to carry out some of the promises of the hon. Postmaster General and now we find that one

of these promises is being carried out by increasing this bonus from two per cent to three per cent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: There is not the slightest connection between the resolution now before the House and my references at the Collingwood banquet in question, to the condition described by speakers as to the manufacture and importation of ships-not the slightest understanding^ between the government and the Collingwood people. Both these questions stand entirely on their own merits separately and apart, and they are to be dealt with by the government separately and apart.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Chairman, without wandering any farther from the question, permit me to call your attention to the fact that this is a dock Bill, and while no doubt there are questions of duties on ships and ship-building aids, which are all very important, I should like to confine this discussion if I can to the matter before the committee.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is very gratifying to find that hon. members on both sides of the House appreciate what is being done in the way of development in the town of Collingwood. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us, that after his first interview with the citizens of Collingwood he was impressed that they were an energetic business people, and that if they were encouraged they would develop the resources of that town and district in a manner which would be a credit to themselves and to all Canada. He tells us that having come to that conclusion he did aid the citizens of Collingwood. Truly, he did. And as a result of that aid Collingwood has embarked in a very large enterprise, namely the Collingwood Ship-building Company, which at the present time is employing seven hundred men where some years ago not a man was employed. They have that line of steamers) to which my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has referred, and these steamers carry thousands of passengers to the town each year. That line can only be successfully operated by keeping our harbour in a proper condition. In view of what the Finance Minister has said, I do not intend to wander further from the subject, than to say, that when the Postmaster General was in Collingwood .it was an accepted fact that the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company wa s to be assisted in the building of a dry dock, and at that time this increased aid was spoken of. Therefore when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) said that the Postmaster General was skating over very thin ice at that time, he is not correct. The only question before the people then was a question of giving increased aid to the dry dock, and that is being accomplished to-day by the legislation
now before the House. But, Sir* that increased aid is not only for the town of Collingwood, it is to extend throughout the whole Dominion in favour of any worthy proposition for the building of a dry dock. Let me say that there is no money in the establishment of a dry dock per se. The ship-building company can only use the dry dock for the purpose of repairing ships, and the money which can be made out of shipbuilding-if money can be made out of the industry at all-is in the actual building of new ships. Is it not an argument in favour of this very small increase, that this shipbuilding company at the very inception of its business is able to find employment for seven hundred men; is it not an argument that that employment will be extended and work and wages provided for the people of Collingwood who by their labour will assist in the carrying on of this enterprise ? The Collingwood company has already built three ships, and a great many ships now plying upon the upper lakes which hitherto had to go to the United States come there now to be repaired. We will therefore divert from the United States the repairing of these ships, and we will to that extent benefit our own country. That, Sir, is a laudable enterprise; it is an enterprise which will receive encouragement from the Canadian people when it is fully understood. I am gratified, Sir, that so far as Collingwood is concerned, we never can be looked upon with that suspicion which was suggested by the hon. member for Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale). This question has been very fully discussed, and I think we can take it for granted that very little objection will be offered by any member in this House to giving the Collingwood Ship-building Company the aid which has been asked by them.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think, Sir, that the country is beginning to view with alarm the policy of increasing subsidies to companies of this character. I have in my hand a circular issued by this Collingwood Company last August, in which they speak of being able to pay dividends of 0 per cent per annum, and the circular states that the policy of the directors will be to still further increase their works and earn greater dividends. They say they have no hesitation in recommending the stock as a sound business investment which is likely to become more valuable within a reasonable time. I believe, Sir, that the people of the country at large without respect to politics, have no objection to reasonable encouragement- being given to large business enterprises for the development of our industries and commerce. But there is a feeling of unrest and a feeling of alarm, when companies of large capital like this apply to the government to receive assistance which will enable them to pay larger dividends than that already paid by the Collingwood Ship-building Company. It is no wonder that when they are seeking such

help from the government, they can give banquets to the ministers when they go to visit Collingwood.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It was not the company that gave the entertainment. It was the board of trade and the municipal council of Collingwood which organized the banquet.	'


Robert Lorne Richardson: I suppose the company was not at all interested in it, and took no part in it. I find it father difficult to believe that. I know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) has made an attempt to separate the Ship-building Company of Collingwood from the dry dock company.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I did no such a thing.


Robert Lorne Richardson: As far as I can learn they are one and the same company, and the earnings of the one are the earnings of the other.
Mr. McCarthy. Decidedly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think, Sir, the members of this House will feel it incumbent upon them to pause before they increase the subsidies which have already been granted in this direction.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot allow the insinuation to pass, that the ship-building company was responsible for the entertainments which have been given in the town of Collingwood. That statement is absolutely without foundation. These banquets have been given by the citizens of Collingwood represented by the municipal council and the board of trade, and every man who went to that banquet paid for his ticket. It is that instinct of enterprise which has made the people of Collingwood what they are to-day. They do not sit down and wait for a company to entertain ministers or others when they visit the town. The citizens do that themselves and they pay for it themselves. I refrained from replying to the statement of the hon. member for Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), but in view of the insinuations he has thrown out, perhaps the question of politics can be referred to. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) has said that as a result of the treatment which Collingwood has received at the hands of the government, Collingwood sent a member to support the Reformers in this parliament. It is true that I have supported the government on most questions, but I supported the government because I thought the government was right. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) knows very well that the town of Collingwood has been voting for the name which I bear since 1878. and I do not expect that the insinuations which are sometimes hurled across the floor of this House, will ever get the people of Collingwood to change their allegiance.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: In respect to how many places have applications been Mr. RICHARDSON.
made to the government for an increase of this subsidy ? How many docks are likely to be built under the provisions of this proposed,' Bill, as far as the government is at present aware ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: I have already mentioned that the only places from which we have had applications are Col-liugwood, Ontario and St. John, N.B. In the case of Collingwood, the matter was discussed in times past and it was agreed that we should aid that dock to the extent of the legislation then on the statute-book which was 2 per cent. In the case of St. John, N.B., no progress has been made, but they are endeavouring to establish a company and we have reason to believe that with this increased aid a company will be established to construct a dock in St. John. Reference was made before my bom friend (Mr. Borden) entered the House, to the position of Montreal under this Bill, and 1'mentioned that if the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal should desire to avail themselves of this method of construction they would be a body corporate and would be entitled to come under the operation of this Act. There may be other places in which docks are thought of, but I think I am correct in saying that these two are the only cases that have been brought before the government. If there are any others, of course we will be prepared to look into tfiem on their merits, upon application being made.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I understand that there is a dry dock in existence iu Collingwood for a number of years which at present they are rebuilding and extending. 1 do not see how this resolution can cover that case. Here is a dock partially built and you propose to give aid to it presumedly on the approval of plans at the present time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Although there was a dock of a certain character at Collingwood for years, this is practically a new dock.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Absolutely a new dock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be treated as a new dock. If we had subsidized the Collingwood dock originally, then we would be obliged to treat this as an extension, but the original dock at Collingwood was a small concern and never received government aid. It comes under the operation of the existing law as a new dock, and not as an extension of the old one.


John Graham Haggart: That makes the case >
a great deal worse. Here is a dock which is already in existence.
Mr. McCarthy. It is not.


John Graham Haggart: A part of it is in
existence.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: There is a hole there.


John Graham Haggart: A part of it is in existence and some of the works are in

existence at the present time. The hon. gentleman intends to advance money for the purpose of purchasing the whole of it, or the value already existing is taken into consideration. It is not like a new structure.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, it is a new dock altogether.


John Graham Haggart: The Finance Minister says there is an old dock at present being repaired, and he looks on it in the light of a reconstruction.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The old dock has practically disappeared, and the aid under this Act will be upon the expenditure not on the old structure, but on the new.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any part of the old one being rebuilt ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A very trifling part.


John Graham Haggart: There is no building going on, is there ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, it is rapidly approaching completion. It is practically a new work. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) argued as if this was a bonus to a company engaged in a private enterprise. The Oollingwood dock, and all other docks which will receive aid under this Act are public docks, rendering a public service. No one who is acquainted with the importance of our inland navigation will fail to recognize the urgent need of providing dry dock accommodation on the upper lakes. The hon. member for South Grey does not find a supporter of his views in his colleague from East Grey (Mi-. Sproule) whose criticism was, not that this was an unwise measure, but that we were not proposing sufficient aid. The hon. member for South Grey says the aid is too liberal ; the hon. member for East Grey says it should be more liberal. It is difficult for us to reconcile the views of these hon. gentlemen. This money will not only aid the ship-building industry, but it will be useful to all who navigate the upper lakes; and under the proposed amendment to the law- it is not before the committee at the present time, but will come in due course-the government will have full control over the rates to be charged for the use of the dry dock. This in itself will ensure fair rates, and prevent any extortion, or any private tapi-tal that may be invested in the work being unduly remunerative to the investors. When an estimate comes to be made of what rates should be permitted to be charged, a proper account will be taken of the amount of private capital invested in the enterprise, and the amount of the probable earnings, and the rates will be so fixed as only to admit of the proper maintenance of the work and a reasonable dividend to those who contribute capital to the enterprise.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What is the length of the proposed new dock ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is about 500 feet. I was at Collingwood in the month of January ; ' my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) was present at the same time ; and I am sure that he was as gratified as I was at the great industrial activity we saw in Collingwood. It gave me the greatest possible pleasure to see the prosperity of that town through the enterprise of its citizens. They were building two magnificent ships, capable of carrying 250,000 bushels of wheat at least. Those ships were expected to be launched in the course of a few months, and I believe one of them is now about to be launched ; and the people are reaching out for further contracts. The construction of such a dock as this will not only aid those who wish to use it, but will also make possible an extension of the ship-building industry at Collingwood, a branch of industry of the greatest importance. There are iron and steel works in operation on the north shore, in the Sault Ste. Marie district, and in many ways the general public will be advantaged by the construction of this dock.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What was the length of the old dock ?
Sir. SlcCARTHY. 100 or 150 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is because of the knowledge I have of the difficulties which the shipping industry on the Georgian Bay and the upper lakes have had to contend with that I approve of this measure. For many years attempts were made to induce the government to aid in the construction of a dry dock at Collingwood or Owen Sound, but they would not grant sufficient aid. The assistance they proposed was so small that capitalists would not undertake the work, although the shipping on the Georgian bay and the upper lakes was rapidly increasing. Vessels needing the use of a dry dock had to go to the American side. The dock at Collingwood would not accommodate one of the Canadian Pacific Railway boats, which are over 300 feet long, while the dock is less than 100 feet.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The dock at Collingwood, before the change took place, would accommodate one of the Canadian Pacific boats.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The vessel in the dock was partly in and partly out ; the dock could not properly accommodate it. Therefore, there was need to devise a means whereby a dry dock could be provided on the Georgian bay. If Owen Sound avails itself of this government aid, all the better, though it may be inadvisable to have two docks in the same district. If Collingwood raises the capital for a dry dock, so much to its credit. The principle

of tlie measure is a good one, and if it lias any defect it is that it does not go far enough, the amount being too small. We gave a large subsidy for a dry dock at Kingston, and for the graving dock at Es-quimalt.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were built by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they were practically built by the government; but on the upper lakes and the Georgian bay, where the shipping interest is greater than it is in any other part of Canada, the government have given no assistance at all. When they propose to give it, I can only say that for my part, I endorse the proposition, and the only complaint I have is that they do not give greater assistance.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down does not answer the point I raised at all ; and my knowledge of his contrary nature is the only reason I venture to say a word in reply. My point has not reference to the amount or the place at all. I said that I knew of no more desirable object to which to devote public money, and I think Collingwood is entitled to a share of it in the nature of things. But I object to the principle of this Bill. I object to establishing a precedent for allowing any government by Order in Council to cover this whole country with dry docks, without submitting their proposals to parliament. I did not object to the sum of $10,000 proposed by the Conservative government ; but this was a small amount. Hon. gentlemen opposite propose to grant three times as much. Judging by the past, I do not know that $30,000 will be enough for Collingwood ; but what I say is that the government should bring down a grant, as they did in the case of Kingston and Esquimalt, and let parliament vote it. This grant of $30,000 a year, capitalized is equal to $1,000,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is only twenty years, and twenty times $30,000 make $600,000 payable every twenty years.


David Tisdale: With accumulated interest ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


David Tisdale: Only $600,000. Why, I have seen this House detained for weeks, when we were in power, over an item of $5,000. What I wish to protest against is this principle of expenditure by Order in Council. There is a feeling abroad that the government are going into lavish expenditure simply because they have a full treasury. In my opinion, fhat is the time to help the people by cutting off the duties on materials that do not need protection. I am not raising my voice against the expenditure itself in this particular instance, but what I am opposed to is giving Mr. SPROtTLE.
authority to the government to dispose of large sums outside the control of parliament. It is contrary to the principles of responsible government and it lays the government open to suspicion. Our people do not want tlie government to be put in a position, that, even when they do right, they are liable to be suspected. Take this Collingwood item, if we were asked to vote $30,000 per year over a period of twenty years, for a dry dock there, I would be the last to object, but what I do object to is the passing of a resolution of this kind, which will put it in the power of the government to expend, without the direct sanction of parliament, such an amount for the construction of dry docks whenever they may see tit. I may be old-fashioned in my ideas, I may be too much wedded to the fine old principles of constitutional British government and legislation. But these principles have done good service for a thousand years, and I do not want to see any one of them swept away, and would rather be thought old-fashioned than allow legislation, such as is now proposed, to pass without protest.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend takes exception to the principle involved in this measure, and no doubt he is now sincere. But I would like to know when he experienced this change of heart ? He objects to the principle of allowing the Governor General in Council to decide when the aid provided by this resolution should be granted, but when did he first discover that this was not sound policy ?


David Tisdale: When the amount became large.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We are not changing the principle of the law. That law was passed with the approval of my hon. friend. All we are doing is changing the percentage from two to three.


David Tisdale: I was not in the House in 1882.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend was in the government when this law was on the statutes, and during fourteen years he saw nothing in it to criticise.


David Tisdale: The limit was then


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is the principle that my hon. friend, is discussing and not the amount. It was the government which he supported that adopted the principle, and incorporated it in our statutes. My hon. friend entered that government, knowing that that statute was in existence, knowing what was in it, and he allowed it to remain without any objection on his part. The principle of that legislation was a good one until to-day, when suddenly it becomes most objectionable. When was it that this hon. gentleman became con-

verted into such an ardent defender and advocate of popular rights ? Is it only since he has been in opposition and unable therefore to give effect to his views ? But the proper time for him to have given some practical effect to his ideas was when he had the power to do so. What is the use of a man holding such strong views and refraining from giving any expression to them until he knows that his protests can have no effect ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The hon. gentleman might ask himself the same question. When did he become converted ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am now dealing with my hon. friend from South Norfolk, and while I am not questioning his sincerity to-day, I should like to know when his convictions became so radically and suddenly changed ?


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend finds fault with my hon. friend from South Norfolk for his change of principle. I think that the hon. minister might apply (his own remarks to himself. He was the most rabid of opponents of all these Acts of parliament and resolutions, passed in this House in 1882, and at other times, giving the government the power to spend money by Order in Council. But this principle, which he formerly held, he has dropped, as he has done every other, since he came into office. We are now dealing with the question of giving $10,000 per year for the building of a dry (lock, or two per cent on the cost of its construction now. What is now proposed is $30,000 per year or 3 per cent on the cost.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The principle is not changed.


John Graham Haggart: The granting of a small sum may be harmless in itself, but when you increase that sum and make it a large amount, then the question of principle becomes a very serious one. What may be indifferent when a small expenditure is at stake may become a very serious matter when it involves a large expenditure. I have in my hand a prospectus of the company in question, which states :
The company possesses at. Collingwood the only dry dock on the upper lakes, in Canada, capable ot accommodating large vessels. It is proposed to increase its capacity so as to enable it to take the largest vessels trading, or likely to trade, on these waters.
They only intend to increase the capacity of the dry dock.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the date of that prospectus ?


John Graham Haggart: August 12, 1902. The company go further and say that they have made an arrangement with the Dominion government for the purpose of assisting them in this work.
The Dominion government recognizes the necessity in the public interest, of an enlarged dry dock, and have decided to grant a liberal subsidy for a term of twenty years ; the annual payments to be based upon the outlays made upon the work.
The payments are therefore to be made upon the work of enlargement and not upon the whole work. But the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Postmaster General led us to believe that this is an entirely new work.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Practically, it is.


John Graham Haggart: They state in this prospectus, in which they ask people to subscribe money, that they have a dry dock already, and that all they need to expend in this respect is enough to enlarge that dry dock.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) allow me to make an explanation with regard to that ?


John Graham Haggart: Certainly.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I know nothing about that prospectus. But I can quite recall a statement made to me by people in Collingwood when I was there in January last. I think the statement was made by Mr. John Long, though I am not very sure. At all events, one of the gentlemen who knew all about this plan took me down to where the work was going on. He showed me the new work and told me that at first they had expected to be able to utilize part of the old work, but when they endeavoured to do so, they found i't impossible, and they had to do away with the old structure-


John Graham Haggart: At what time was the hon. minister there ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In January last. And the hon. gentleman lias read from a prospectus issued, I think, in August, last. Evidently, at that time, they expected to be able to use part of the old wharf, but afterwards found that this could not be done.


John Graham Haggart: I know nothing about the circumstances, and did not even know that there was a dry dock there. But I know that this is the prospectus on which they raised money in the market, and I understand that at present their shares are listed in the stock exchange in Toronto. But, the statement made in this prospectus is that they had made an arrangement with the government for an advance


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is under the old law.


John Graham Haggart: The prospectus states that the Dominion government recognizes the necessity in the public interest

of au enlarged dry dock and lias decided to grant a liberal subsidy for a term of twenty years. And the bon. minister finds fault with the hon. member from South Norfolk for saying that this amounts to a million dollars.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not find fault with that.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman said there was only $600,000. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is absolutely correct-a guarantee of $30,000 a year for twenty years, when you have the undertaking also, is worth in any market in the world one million dollars.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How could that be ?


John Graham Haggart: This $30,000 a year for twenty years guarantees the interest for that length of time which enables them to borrow to the full value of this $30,000 a year. Then they have the undertaking, which is an additional security.


David Tisdale: They could sell it readily for a million dollars.


John Graham Haggart: Certainly. Is that not correct ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to know how the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) makes that out.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: An annuity of $30,000 for twenty years may have various advantages to the person who is to enjoy it. But we are dealing with it from the standpoint of the Canadian taxpayer, who is to pay it. An annuity of $30,000 a year for twenty years amounts, on its face, to $000,000. But, this is to be reduced to its present cash value. An actuary would estimate that for you-the present cash value of $600,000 payable in twenty annual instalments and calculated at three per cent would be so much less, how much less I do not know. The taxpayer of Canada is not paying $000,000, but only the present value of that sum paid under the provisions named. But I will add to my hon. friend's argument for him. We are considering now only one dock, but, under this Bill there may be other docks. My hon. friend has the opportunity of magnifying this fund by multiplying it by as many docks as his imagination leads him to believe will be brought into existence. He could work up a large bill in that way.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is right looking at it from the point of view he speaks of-the present cash value of the sum to be paid by the government. But we are looking at it from the point of view of the advantage to the men who receive the money. It was from that Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
point of view that my hon. friend from South Norfolk was looking at it, and from that point of view he is quite correct. But let me refer to the point to which I drew the attention of the Minister of Finance, and which he tried to get over by saying that this was virtually a reconstructed work. But, first of all, before they are entitled to any money, before any arrangement can be made, the plan must be approved by the engineer of the department. I understand that the work is nearly completed, or, at least is well under way. How, then, can this apply to this particular case? The work is to be built under the supervision of the engineer attached to the Public Works Department or there must be a report of the engineer that this money has been expended on the work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) allow me a moment ?


John Graham Haggart: Certainly.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Before that dock at Collingwood was put under construction, Mr. Coste, an officer of the department was authorized to supervise the work.


John Graham Haggart: Is he on it ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: Was au agreement made ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: An Order in Council ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: An Order in Council passed when I was in office. The work is . perfectly regular.


John Graham Haggart: We shall be delighted to get the whole information from the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that the difficulty is that my hon friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) came in late, and so had not the benefit of the information that was given to the hon. gentlemen who were here. I stated that we had agreed to aid the Collingwood dock to the extent of two per cent.


John Graham Haggart: But here is a new agreement. The old Act which limits the amount to two per cent on the amount spent, or in this case, $20,000. But there is a subsidiary agreement, evidently, by which the government promised to bring in legislation for the purpose of paying three per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: Here is the resolution. Here is the expression of the intention of the government, and we have

the announcement from the government that it is intended to apply to this particular dry dock. They made a bargain but they were unable to carry it out under the old Act, and now they find it necessary to have further legislation-


Edward Frederick Clarke: They could not deliver the goods.


John Graham Haggart: For some reason which I do not know


An hon. MEMBER.: Banquet.


John Graham Haggart: I have the assurance of the hon. member for Simcoe that none of the parties had anything to do with that, and I accept his statement. However, there must have been a bargain to give them assistance beyond that authorized by the old statute. It is time, in any case, that this system of grants by Order in Council, all this system of governing the country by Orders in Council was done away with. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) twits the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) with being a supporter of this system in 1882. We have discarded those principles. The country has advanced, as the hon. Minister of Finance has assured us. This is a growing and a better time in intelligence and otherwise, and it is time that this kind of legislation was wiped off the statute-book- this governing of the country by Orders in Council and granting large subsidies to corporations or individuals without the direct sanction and support of parliament.


Mr. CHARLTON.: The discussion has taken a rather wide range ; and it strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that the criticisms of hon. gentlemen opposite in relation to this matter are somewhat captious and unfair. I am pleased to find that my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) has imbibed such correct and constitutional impressions with regard to the expenditure of money by Order in Council. It reminds me of the old days in opposition when a great deal of capital was made out of criticisms of that kind, and when perhaps we were not in possession of facts which might have modified our opinions with regard to the criticisms that were made. The government of which both my hon. friend from South Norfolk and my hon. friend from Lanark were supporters, distinctly recognized this principle in the matter of grants to dry docks. The principle of granting $10,000 to aid a dry dock in 1882 was on all fours with the principle of granting $30,000 in 1903, under the changed circumstances with regard to transportation, the size of vessels built and the extraordinary size of the dry docks necessary. I can see, Sir, no particular objection to the plan adopted under these resolutions on which a Bill is to be founded. I have confidence enough in the members of the ministry who meet in Council and discuss these questions
in a business-like way, I have confidence enough in their ability to arrive at a correct opinion, to believe that in an adjustment of business matters of this kind they could be fairly trusted with the discharge of that duty. I have confidence enough in their honesty to believe that they .would not stoop to anything irregular or improper in granting subsidies of this character and under the provisions of this resolution. I am not able to see how, if they were disposed to do so, it would be convenient or possible for them to travel very far from the paths of rectitude.
The building of a dry dock is a business proposition. The aid granted under this resolution by the government is not sufficient to build it. It is merely the granting of a certain amount of aid which will enable the parties engaged in the operation of building a dock, perhaps to float their bonds to secure the resources necessaiy for the purpose of going on and constructing a dock that otherwise they would be unable to do. I do not think it is necessary to come to the House of Commons with every separate and distinct proposition for the construction of a dry dock in the Dominion of Canada. Here is a general principle laid down. The government is protected in the request made upon it to grant aid by the fact that the parties making that request have got to put up more money than the government does, they have got to show their good faith and confidence in the scheme hy investing the major part of the money necessary to construct the dry dock. An annuity of 3 per cent for twenty years capitalized, does not amount to the aggregate of that annuity for that time. Six hundred thousand dollars, the maximum sum of $30,000 per annum for twenty years, falls far short of the capitalized sum of $600,000.
Now, Sir, in the discussion of this question we have had exhibited here certain local jealousies, jealousies between different ports on the Georgian bay. There is Owen Sound, there is Collingwood, there is Midland, all thriving towns, all of them important shipping points, and it is necessary for the commercial wants of the Georgian bay to have a first-class dry dock in each one of these towns. One dock would serve the purpose as well as three ; but if one would hardly have business enough to make it a paying investment, not enough in the locality which has put itself in the position of building a dry dock, which would be sufficient to meet the commercial wants of that section of the great lakes, wthy, that locality has a just cause in appealing to the government for aid, and the government is warranted in giving to that place or locality the aid necessary for constructing that dry dock.
Now, what are the circumstances upon the Georgian bay ? There has recently been developed on that bay a large commerce, a large carrying trade in grain, a large passenger traffic, a large business in lumber,

and there will be a large business in iron ore, a large business in various departments. There has been erected at Collingwood one of the finest ship-building plants on the continent, that has already turned out two large vessels, as large as the largest class of carriers on the upper lakes, a plant that is turning out two vessels now, and is prepared to add from year to year to the mercantile marine of the Dominion three or four of these vessels. This is an enterprise that is a credit to Canada, an enterprise that ought to command our respect and appeal to our pride. Well, it has been found necessary to have in connection with this business, resources and accommodations for the docking of these vessels. It was not creditable to us that vessels of this class had to be sent to Detroit, or Cleveland, or Buffalo, for repairs. We had no dry dock upon the upper lakes that would accommodate vessels of this class. One is being built at Collingwood and is approaching completion, a dry dock ample for all the purposes that will be required in docking the large class of vessels that sail the upper lakes.
Now, the objection is raised by the hon. member for North Lanark that part of this dry dock is an old dry dock, and, for some reason I am not able to understand, he says because this company is making use of a hole that has been dug there for the old dry dock, they are not entitled to this subsidy. Even if the walls of the old dry dock were capable of being utilized for the new dock, I am unable to understand why it would not be to all intents and purposes a new dry dock. But they were not capable of being utilized-they had to be torn down ; all they could use of the old dry dock was a little amount of excavation, the cross walls of the old dry dock had to be built entirely new, and to all intents and purposes it is a new dry dock. All the advantage derived by the company from the existence of the old dock was infinitesimal. Under these circumstances, I think we are wasting our time here in haggling over this matter in the way we are doing. I do not think it would be a workable method even to allow these things to drift along, and, before the government will give any assurance of aid to a company that desired to build a dry dock or make improvements of this character, to wait until parliament could be consulted. If that had been the case'with this dry dock, it would not have been constructed even now, it would not be built perhaps for years hence, and it would have been a great loss to the public interest of the Georgian bay and a loss to the commercial interests of the Dominion for that delay to have occurred.
I was in Collingwood last week and saw this dry dock. It is a creditable work. The company had to buy land right in the heart of the town to extend their dock landward. They have got an enormous plant there. In connection with the ship-building they Mr. CHARLTON.
had to take up a railway track and move it landward, they had to destroy buildings to find room for their excavation, and they have gone on here and built a dry dock of a first-class character, a dry dock that will dock a man-of-war, that will dock a vessel with a carrying capacity of 300,000 bushels. The whole of the commercial interests of Georgian bay and the upper lakes realize that this is a work of the utmost importance, realize that it is a work that reflects great credit on the enterprise of the town of Collingwood. If Collingwood is enjoying the prosperity it deserves, it is because it has had wide-awake business men that grasped the situation with courage, men who are ready to invest their money, men whom the government might legitimately aid in promoting the construction of a work of this kind. The town has subscribed a large amount, the town has stood ready at all times to promote any of these enterprises that were calculated to increase its prosperity. The result has been the location of the Cramp steel works there.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are pretty sick of it now.


John Charlton: They will be all right in regard to that. They may be sick of it but they will, I hope, have reason to be gratified that they have invested that money. I think if we look at this thing from the proper standpoint, if we realize that a dry dock is absolutely needed and needed now and that it could not have been had now if we had resorted to the method recommended by the hon. member for Sonth Simcoe (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) and the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) if we realized that the commercial interests of the Georgian bay require that improvement, that there is no investment of public money asked for in this session that will produce more satisfactory results or that will be more necessary in the public interests than that which is covered by these resolutions, if we realize all these things, then, we had better drop this discussion and be thankful that we have this ship-building plant and this magnificent dry dock accommodation at Collingwood which is sufficient for the upper lakes and the effect of which can only be to promote the commerce of this Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad to observe that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) seems to have a higher opinion of politics and politicians in this country than that which I am told he expressed a few weeks ago in a sermon which he delivered, I think, in this city.


John Charlton: That applied equally to both sides.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the hon. gentleman, of course, being on that side of the House, was speaking out of his more especial knowledge concerning his own party and indulged only in a surmise

so far as this side of the House is concerned. But, I am glad to observe that the confidence of the hon. gentleman has been somewhat restored and that he agrees entirely with the very proper remarks of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that there may be confidence extended even to a government such as this. I understand that the remarks of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart)- in regard to a dock partly constructed, or to a dock partly in existence, were intended in the sense that he desired to have this resolution drawn in such a way that it would be workable in regard to the Colling-wood dock which has more especially been mentioned in this discussion. Any observations I have in regard to it are intended in the same sense. This resolution could hardly apply to a dock which has already been constructed. I do not know whether X correctly understood the hon. member for North Norfolk when he said that this dock was partly constructed now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is far advanced.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I have not considered the question very carefully, but it would seem to me to be possible that some different construction might be given to the words of the resolution in that regard. I do not pretend to have considered it very carefully, but I can see some force in the argument of the hon. member for South Lanark. To enter into a contract with a company which is about to construct a dry dock is an entirely different thing from entering into a contract with a company which has already substantially constructed a dock, and there are reasons of public policy why a resolution of this kind should be applicable in one case and not in another. However, this is a matter entirely for the hon. Minister of Finance, and I am only offering this suggestion because I think there may be something in what has been said by my hon. friend from South Lanark. Now, the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) has spoken of a change of heart. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) did not see fit to make any observation upon a change of heart on the part of the hon. Postmaster General. I do not know that it would be necessary for me to remind the hon. Postmaster General of certain changes that he has experienced-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could also compliment the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in the same way.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-during the last five or six years in regard to matters of public policy. I would almost think that some other member of the government might make observations of that kind rather than the hon. Postmaster General. There is one matter to which I would like to call to the
attention of the hon. Minister of Finance and it is that the resolution in these terms seems to provide for a subsidy to a company which might have no need of any such assistance. I am speaking of this because this resolution does not apply to the Colling-wood docks, but it applies to docks all over Canada, wherever they may be built. As I understand the situation it is impossible for this dock to be proceeded with at Colling-wood without some assistance; nevertheless, we might not have similar conditions elsewhere, and I would point out for the consideration of the hon. Minister of Finance that while this Act is in force you might have conditions somewhere else iii Canada which would enable a company to go on with the construction of a work of this kind as a fair commercial enterprise, yielding a legitimate return and yet the Governor in Council, it seems to me, would be bound to approve of that company. The only thing that seems to be required by the terms of the motion is that the company shall satisfy the government of its ability to perform the work. Such a company as that to which I have referred could abundantly satisfy the government that it would have the ability to perform the work. Would it not be worth while to consider whether or not some amendment might be made in the terms of the resolution in that regard ? It may be that all this has been considered by the hon. Minister of Finance, and that he has some perfectly valid answer to give, but not having heard any answer up to the present time in that regard, I thought it well to bring it to his attention.
Then, there is another matter which I would like to mention. I do not know whether or not the terms of the resolution of 1882 were exactly embodied in the statute which is in force at the present time, but I observe in the concluding part of the resolution which was moved by Sir Leonard Tilley on the 16th May, 1882, this provision :
And further, that these docks shall be free for the use of all vessels and dredges owned by or in the service of the Dominion government.
I do not know whether a provision of that kind has been considered by the government.
So far as the principle of the resolution is concerned I must say that I am in favour of granting this assistance to dry docks and particularly to docks on the great lakes. It should be the object of government in this country of all political parties to build up a great shipping industry on the lakes, to increase our mercantile marine there, and I do not think, so far as my limited information goes, that that can be effectually done unless we have dry docks of sufficient capacity on the lakes to accommodate the vessels of the very large tonnage which are required now in our inland navigation. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I approve of the principle of the resolution and I hope the dry dock at Col-

ling wood will be completed and that it will be of material assistance in increasing Canadian shipping on the lake.
As far as the question of government by Order in Council is concerned, I have expressed my views in regard to that on more than one occasion in this House. I believe we should have as little government by Order in Council in this country as possible. I also believe that at present we have a little too much of it, as we possibly had before the present government came into power, but I am bound to say, so far as this particular resolution is concerned, that I do not see that the objections which are applicable in some other cases have really very much force. The only function of the Order in Council in this case is to signify approval by the government of the company. That approval is of course in regard to the ability of the company to carry out the work. It is quite right that the government shall not enter into an agreement for assistance to a company that is not able to carry out the work. You must have some tribunal to judge of the company's ability, and I do not see that you can constitute any other tribunal except the government itself for that purpose. Under these circumstances it seems to me, subject to the observations wliich'I have already made, it is a proper resolution to be passed. I trust it will have the effect of stimulating the Canadian shipping industry upon the great lakes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I suppose the government have very carefully considered the raising of the guarantee to 3 per cent. When I had the honour of being a colleague of the Minister of Finance, we made an agreement with the Collingwood Company whereby they undertook to carry out their works for 2 per cent, and they are going on with the work now. The St. John, N.B., Company thought they could get along with the same guarantee of two per cent. They have received a guarantee from the local government and from the city of St. John, but they failed to get the guarantee they expected from the imperial government. The Collingwood Company is building their dock without any guarantee from the town of Collingwood, their only inducement being the two per cent which they are entitled to under the present law. If this Bill passes, of course the Collingwood Company would have the same advantage as other companies would have, but all the same the facts are that the 3 per cent for twenty years will practically cover the total cost of the work. It is a very good guarantee. I do not blame the Minister of Finance ; I am sure he has gone carefully into it, and that he is satisfied himself that with a less guarantee the St. John Dock Company could not go on. The hon. Minister of Finance is a very careful man on matters of this kind.


Robert Laird Borden: I grant that cheerfully, and I am sure that he has given a good deal of attention to this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. leader of the opposition in a criticism which is eminently fair, read from some words of the resolution of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882, from which it would appear that any dock constructed under the provisions of the Act to be founded on the said resolution, should handle the dredges of Canada free of charge. I have not looked up the early history of the matter, but, however, that may be, it is quite evident that the Minister of Finance of that day, for good reasons no doubt, found it better to withdraw this stipulation, and while those words appeared in the original proposal to the House, they were not carried into the resolution or into the Act which was founded on the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: It will still remain a question whether in view of the increased subsidy that is being given now. some such provision should not be inserted in the present resolution.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a fair question for discussion, but it would seem that we would be giving the company a subsidy with one hand and to a certain extent taking it back with the other. As to the point, whether in some cases the subsidy of three per cent may not be more than is necessary, we have a provision which will correct that. I propose that the Bill shall provide that the tariff of tolls for the operation of these docks shall be subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. Experience has shown that it is difficult to raise capital for works of this character, and that such works when first erected are not as a rule profitable. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is aware that the Halifax dock was not for years a profitable enterprise. Even yet, I do not know that it is a money-making concern, although I am glad to know that in recent years it is busier than it formerly was. If experience should show in any case that an enterprise would pay more than a fair return to the promoters, we have the remedy in the shape of a reduction in tolls, and in that way the shipping community and all concerned will have the benefit of it. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will admit that is a fair answer to his criticism.


Robert Laird Borden: I would admit to a certain extent it is an answer, except that you might have a company doing an enormous business and paying large dividends, and if the government reduced the tolls in such a case, then at the end of twenty years it might put the company in the embarrassing position, having its tolls reduced once, of undertaking to raise them again.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The usual way is that the subsidy would prob-

ably be converted into cash and would go into the original capital expenditure. It would not affect future transactions. '


Robert Laird Borden: That might be, but there still remains the difficulty that if you reduce the tolls the company might be constrained to raise them again at the end of the twenty years.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: From the remarks of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) I would infer that it was the intention of the government to grant the increased subsidy of three per cent to the Collingwood Dry Dock, only, because Owen Sound and Midland are not many miles from that point. If that is the case, it would be a great disappointment to the people who own the dry dock at Owen Sound. The dry dock in that town is owned by the North American Bent Chair Company, who operate it, and at the last election in which I was the Conservative candidate, two members of that firm, who hitherto voted Conservative, canvassed their employees to support the government candidate because they expected a large subsidy from the government for the purpose of enlarging that dock. Now, if the hon. member for North Norfolk was inspired in his remarks-he was visited just a moment before he made them by the Postmaster General-I must say it would be a great disappointment to the people of Owen Sound-


John Charlton: I may say, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thomson) will permit me, that I am not inspired by the government. I was speaking only upon general principles, and I expressed my individual opinion that the dry dock at Collingwood would serve the purposes of the Georgian bay district. I have no objection to a dock being built at Owen Sound. I trust that my friends at Owen Sound will be able to raise the money to build one, and if they do they will get the grant under this resolution.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not mention the subject of Owen Sound to my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) nor was that very important centre in my mind when I made some observations to that gentleman on an entirely different subject.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am very glad to hear the explanation, but the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) cannot forget that he said it would be out of place for the government to grant a subsidy to Collingwood, and also to Meaford and Owen Sound, they being so close together.


John Charlton: I said nothing of the kind.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Well, words to that effect.


John Charlton: No, not to that effect even.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like to hear the Finance Minister define clearly the policy of the government in this matter. It is a matter of great importance to the constituency from which I come. If these people canvassed the electors in the late by-election on the ground of receiving a large subsidy from the government, and if the government will not grant that subsidy, I would like to know it, and the people of North Grey, especially the people of Owen Sound, would like to know it The town of Collingwood is not the only town that has constructed large vessels plying on the upper lakes. The largest and most palatial of these vessels were constructed at Owen Sound. I refer to the steamship ' Manitoba,' the ferry boat ' Ontario,' which plies across the straits at Detroit, and many other large vessels, including three cruisers which were built for the government of Canada. I would like the Finance Minister to declare specifically whether Owen Sound is to be permitted to participate in these grants. Before I sit down, I wish to congratulate the government on taking this step. I believe it is one in the right direction. For many years Canada, though possessing such a large body of fresh water, has been under such disadvantages for the lack of dry docks that a Canadian vessel of any capacity had to leave her own shores and go to an American port to be repaired. Such a condition of things was not to the credit of Canada, and I am very glad that the government have taken this step to promote the construction of dry docks in this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In order to remove any doubt as to whether the Act to be founded on this resolution will apply to a dock now under construction, I propose to insert the words ' dry dock ' in the the fifth line, the words ' or to complete a dry dock in course of construction.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would you not also include the enlargement of a dock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have other provisions relating to enlargement, which is a different matter.


David Tisdale: I am glad to see that the government are keeping faith with these two ports. The prospectus which has been read is evidence that there was some understanding on this subject, in violation of the constitution. My hon. friend the exMinister of Public Works was quite correct. He says he made an agreement at 2 per cent, and that was going as far as the law permitted. You cannot satisfy the public, nor do I think you can satisfy this House, that that company had not some promise on which they issued their prospectus. They would have no object in making absolute misstatements. It would be equivalent to a fraud to get subscriptions to their stock in that way. We have now legislation enlarg-



mg the scope of the government aid, not to meet a specific case, but generally. Whether Owen Sound will succeed in getting any portion of this aid the future only will tell, because, unfortunately for Owen Sound, my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Thomson) was elected to the opposition benches, notwithstanding this promise, and I am afraid Owen Sound will only receive cold justice, while warm justice will be given to Collingwood. Now, the Act does not go far enough. The hon. Finance Minister is making it broad enough to enable the government to keep faith with Collingwood at any rate, and we shall see what they will do with Owen Sound. But I rose to make a few remarks in reply to my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). His was an extraordinary speech. Sometimes we think him an extraordinary gentleman, and no doubt he is. He started by congratulating me on my conversion, as he put it, to sound constitutional principles in regard to Orders in Council, and he made quite a long speech justifying the government's departure from those principles in this particular Bill. My hon. friend is on record on this question, as on many others, and he ought to have a better memory than he sometimes displays in dealing with matters of this kind. In regard to Orders in Council, the hon. gentleman said :
The motion that I have put into your hands, Mr. Speaker, refers to a matter of very considerable importance, and to a line of conduct adopted by the government which, in my opinion, is a usurpation of power. The government, of course, must have a majority to sustain them as a government, but the majority should keep the government in its proper place. If it merely fills the functions of a majority and is guilty of slavish submission to the government, and permits the government to usurp the powers that a ministry of a free country ought not to possess, then the majority becomes subservient to the government and recreant to its duty to the people who sent it here. The independence of this House has been seriously impaired in the last few years from various causes, and I think we are gradually drifting into a course of procedure and into a policy in respect of which it is high time we should call a halt, and adopt a policy more in consonance with the principles of free and representative government. In the English colonies on this continent, from almost the time that they were established there was a constant struggle on the part of the people while these were crown colonies against the power exercised by the Governor in Council, and a constant demand made by the people for representative government, the benefits of which, though so highly appreciated by the early colonists, we seem in this Dominion at present to place a lower estimate upon than was placed upon them 150 to 200 years ago. The objections to the system of legislation by Order in Council are numerous.
I could give considerably more, but I will give the bon. gentleman's wind-up.
I wish to point out that in the last eight or nine years the government have, by Order in Council, adopted important fiscal legislation Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
which should not have been adopted without reference to this House.
I think the bon. gentleman's approval of this measure, contrasted with bis speech which I have quoted, justifies me in saying that his speech to-day was an extraordinary speech.


John Charlton: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will say that in my speech to-day I have merely taken ground in favour of the expenditure of money which has been already authorized by this House, and the remarks he quotes do not apply to the present occasion.


David Tisdale: I will leave the hon. gentleman to be judged by what he said, and I will venture to say that his speech, as reported in the first edition of ' Hansard,' at all events, will bear out my strictures upon him. Just one word with regard to the remark made by the hon. Postmaster Gene- ,, ral, that I had in any way changed my views on the principle of this legislation. I would simply point out that while, in many cases, the expenditure by Order in Council would be a matter of very slight import, where the expenditure involved was comparatively slight, and where it was much more convenient that such expenditure should be dealt with in this way, the question assumes an altogether different complexion when serious expenditure is at stake, and in such case I feel justified in insisting strongly that such, as a practice, is contrary to constitutional principles.
Resolution reported.


CUSTOMS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Customs Act, chapter 32, revised statutes, and to provide as follows :-
1.	That the expression ' duty ' shall include ' surtax.'
2.	That a change be made in the composition of the board of customs, and that an assistant commissioner of customs be appointed ?
3.	That authority be given for the employment of temporary officers of customs.
4.	To better define the powers of the board of customs ?
5.	That further particulars be given in invoices ; and to provide that invoices may be made out in the currency in which the goods are actually purchased.
6.	To define the rate of duty upon unenumerated articles, made of more than one material.
7.	To extend the time for the submission of claims for refund, including claims for refund on account of damage.
8.	That importers may be relieved from the payment of duty on damaged goods, abandoned in certain cases.
9.	That the basis of allowance for damage ou polished steel, and other articles, be changed.
10.	To authorize the granting of relief from the payment of duty on goods, destroyed or damaged while in the custody of the customs.
11.	That further provision be made for the valuation for duty purposes of medicinal and

other preparations, and in respect of the testing of sugars, molasses, wines, spirituous and alcoholic liquors.
12.	To authorize collectors of customs to require further proof in respect of invoices.
13.	To vest in officers the power to administer oaths.
14.	To confer further powers on the Governor in Council respecting special customs services and overtime of officers ; and also respecting the reduction of customs duties on imported goods.-The Minister of Customs.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The first clause has reference to the surtax. This is a new word Introduced into our tariff and customs laws, and it was thought well that it should be defined and included In the term ' duty.'


William Findlay Maclean: What is the definition of the word ' surtax ' in the dictionary of the free traders ? This is the first time we have had in Canada this expression introduced into our tariff laws. It is one of the most pronounced protectionist words, involving one of the most pronounced protectionist principles, and here we have free traders, who wish for free trade as they have it in England, adopting this expression. Let me offer them my congratulations.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the exact effect of making the word ' duty ' include the word ' surtax ' ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It would, I presume, be included in any ease, but this puts it beyond doubt. With reference to these changes in the Customs Act, of which I have given notice, I may say that I am bringing forward these amendments, which are not very important, this session, so that they may be included in the consolidation of the Customs laws which is now taking place.
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The present board of customs is composed of many of our appraisers, some of whom reside in Victoria, Winipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa. Montreal and Halifax. We have occasion at times to call the board together to discuss certain questions, and it may not be convenient, nor may the business be important enough, always to call officers from such distant points. It is proposed to specify that the Commissioner of Customs shall be chairman of the board, and leave to the Governor in Council the naming of such other officers as may be required to act with him and constitute the beard. Of course, new members to the board could be added from time to time. As regards the assistant commissioner, I have already given the reasons, during the discussion on the estimates, why it was thought desirable one should be appointed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the new members of the Board of Customs be members of the civil service ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They must be.


Robert Laird Borden: How is the board constituted at present ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is constituted of gentlemen in the different outposts. For instance, at Victoria, I think that the collector is one of the board. At Montreal the appraisers of dry goods and hardware are on it. At Hamilton one of the appraisers is a member, also at Toronto. Mr. Breadner, who is the chief clerk in the department here, is also a member of the board, and one or two of the other officers in the inside department.


Robert Laird Borden: What functions do they exercise, as distinguished from those of the Commissioner of Customs himself.?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As lion, gentlemen will understand, questions arise, owing to the changing conditions of business and new lines of goods coming in, in which there will be differences of opinion as to the rate of duty that should be imposed upon a certain article. If these claims are not very pressing, we set them aside until a number of them are awaiting a decision. Then a meeting of the board is held and the members of the board in meeting discuss these matters and arrive at a decision. Opinions not always unanimous, but, as in every case, questions must be decided by a majority. When a decision is reached, it is reported to the Minister of Customs. If the minister approves it and signs it, that ruling of the board of customs has the force of statute law, subject, however, to an appeal to the Governor in Council.


Mr. KEMP.: Is it contemplated under this new Act, and with these new appointments to provide, at the large ports-Montreal, Toronto and perhaps some others-appraisers who will understand each a particular line of goods ? At the present time, a single appraiser is supposed to understand hardware business, textile business, grocery business and so on. The difficulty under which we labour in this respect grows more apparent as the country's business increases. I think the business going through these larger ports is sufficient to warrant the government in specializing more than we have done in the past. This is the system followed in the larger ports of the United States. Has the government in contemplation any such step as this ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course, this Bill will not be effective in that way ; it is a matter of departmental arrangement. The question, of course, is one of importance. The objection is largely one of the expense and the multiplication of officers. No doubt it would be more satisfactory if we were able to increase our staff of appraisers, and, perhaps, at some ports where

we have not them, we should have them. But, of course, the expense of the department has increased considerably of late ; and, while we have endeavoured to keep pace with the business, we have hesitated to employ all the officers, or create all the new offices that, perhaps, might be desirable. We intend, to try to keep pace with the requirements of the service. If we find ports where the appraisers are overworked, I think the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) will have to be given effect to in one or more of the ports before very long.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the argument given by the hon. minister will hardly be an excuse for not taking some definite step at an early day. As to the question of ex pense, what the government would sa"ve by levying the duties properly chargeable on goods would more than offset the expenditures involved by the appointment of these officers. If the hon. minister has looked into the system in the larger cities in the United States, he has found appraisers who are to be considered more as specialists than are those of our own country. My own opinion is that each appraiser with us is supposed to be informed with regard to too many lines of business. He can not do justice to all, and, the proper duty not being charged, the revenue is often cheated of what it should fairly receive. I do not see that the consideration of expense should stand in the way of the improvement I have suggested.


William Findlay Maclean: The object of the Tariff Act and the appointment of the appraisers is, not only to collect revenue, but to carry out the principle of protection. There is a lack of appraising force in the Customs department, and by reason of this, Canadian manufacturers have been discriminated against. My own attention has been drawn quite recently to a case in which certain machines were brought into a city in Canada at a valuation of $1,000, when further investigation proved that they should have been brought in at a valuation of $1,800. The work of making this change had to be done by the manufacturer who was interested in the business in Canada. He found the American manufacturers sending the machines into Canada, and Canadian appraisers putting' them through the customs at a valuation of little over half of what they were bought for. So, it is not only in the interest of the revenue, but in the interests of the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workman that the appraisers should be competent and sufficiently numerous, and that they should be encouraged to perform their duties in the way of protecting the Canadian manufacturer. And in that relation I would like to ask the Minister of Customs whether there is any punishment for the perpetration of acts of this character ?


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Section 8 of the Customs law provides that, if articles are undervalued by more than fifteen per cent, double the duty on the undervaluation shall be collected. This section is mandatory. Of course, where fraud is suspected and proven, penalties are levied upon the perpetrators of them. As to machinery coming in under-valued, in some cases second hand machinery is brought in, which may not have a market value. To meet cases of that kind, we added to our staff an agent who was for many years connected with one of the large machine works. If machinery comes in at a port where there is not an appraiser or where we are not satisfied with the valuation of the regular appraiser, it is the duty of this officer to proceed to the port and appraise the article and see that it is entered at proper value. In the larger cities, I think, the appraising is done very fairly. In Toronto, for instance, we have a textile appraiser, a grocery appraiser and a hardware appraiser. These are the principal ones. I grant you that one or other of these departments would have to take in stationery, boots and shoes, and other lines. But, I think, we are pretty well manned in that respect in many ports. In addition, we have the check of the department here. If anything seems wrong, the port is written to and, if necessary, the invoices are called for and an inquiry made ; then, if there has been an under-appraisement, an amended appraisement is made and the amended duty is paid by the importer.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has taken power to appoint an assistant commissioner. Is the gentleman who is to be appointed now in the service, or will an outsider be brought hi ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He is in the service, and has been since 1896.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has raised the question of penalties for under-valuation. I presume the hon. minister finds a growing tendency to attempt to defraud the customs by undervaluation. I understand that this is not a criminal offence under the Customs Act, as it is under the law of the United States.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is certainly an offence.


Albert Edward Kemp: A criminal offence ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It has never been so dealt with since I came into office. No parties have been proceeded against with a view of having them imprisoned. But they do, no doubt, proceed in that way, and there is generally a money penalty.


William Findlay Maclean: Should there not be a clause in the Criminal Code dealing with offences of this kind ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think there is power under the Inspection Act to do that. As hon. gentlemen will understand, there are two sides to a question. Sometimes the entry may have an appearance of deliberate fraud, there are cases that look suspicious ; and where there really have been contraventions of the Act penalties have been put upon the offenders. But they put forward their side of the case and claim that they acted in ignorance of the law, that they bought the article for that price, and thought they had a right to enter it at that price. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are export prices ; foreigners, when effecting sales in this country to our own merchants, will quote an export price. Well, that is right enough, the Customs Department cannot interfere with that. If a man in another country wishes to sell his goods at 25 per cent under the domestic price, that is a perfectly legitimate transaction as between the seller and the buyer. But the law makes it imperative on the Customs Department to see that the duty is paid on the value of that article in the country of production, and that law we endeavour to carry out.


Albert Edward Kemp: Representations have been made to the Minister of Customs with respect to making the law more stringent with regard to undervaluation, and it has been proposed to adopt some clauses of the law in force in the United States. Is not that the case ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, there was a suggestion in some of the Toronto papers, I think it was in the ' Toronto News,' that we should adopt the practice of the United States in fixing the value for duty. Well, I think the writer of that article is under a mistake. The United States law is virtually the same as ours, it takes the value of the goods in the country from whence they are exported and levies the duty upon that value. It is the same in the United States, as it is with us in that respect. I do not know that you could fix any other standard. I have thought the matter over a good deal as to what should form the standard, say of the Canadian value. How would you determine the Canadian value of an article ? I think the fairest way is that when an article Is sold in the country of production you get an affidavit from the seller, and at present as hon. gentlemen know we do not require such affidavit, it is something that we put in operation since I took charge of the department. But previous to that, all the exporter had to do was to certify his invoice as correct. Well, he sold goods, we will say, 20 per cent less than they were sold in the country of production, but the transaction was correct as between the two individuals, the buyer actually bought them for that money, but that was not the value at which they should be entered for duty.
So the importer here would say, when he was called upon for an amended entry. Well, I did not know what the value was, the drummer told me that was the price. Well, the man who sells the goods knows, and we will oblige him to make a declaration on his invoice that the price appearing on the invoice is the price at which the goods are sold in the country from whence they are exported ; and when there is any advance, then that is noted upon the invoice. Say an article was charged at $1.00 and the selling price was $1.25 ; the difference is noted, and the entry is made upon $1.25 instead of $1.00.
At six o'clock Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2,


David Henderson: I assume at the present time, from the wording of this resolution, that there is no assistant commissioner. I notice by the Customs Act, chapter 32, of the Revised Statutes, that authority is given there to appoint an assistant commissioner. Why repeat it in the proposed amendment ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no authority in the present Customs Act, as we have it, for the appointment of an assistant commissioner. There was an assistant commissioner a few years ago, but I think that was changed in 1S94, or perhaps before that. There is no provision in the present Act for the appointment of an assistant commissioner, and so we propose it now.


David Henderson: I find, referring to chapter 32, which the hon. minister proposes to amend, that clause 4 says :
There shall be a commissioner of customs who shall be the deputy of the Minister of Customs and an assistant commissioner.
I presume, from what the hon. gentleman new tells us, that the clause has been amended subsequent to the revision of the statutes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, and the assistant commissioner has been dropped.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), before the committee rose at six o'clock, was discussing the question of undervaluation. What I said that brought forth these observations was not in reference to the policy that had been promulgated, I think he said in the ' News.' I do not know what the policy was. I hardly know what it had reference to. What I was trying to impress upon the hon. minister was the fact that in our laws in regard to undervaluation, I have been informed, there is no such thing as

a penal offence. There are money penalties, but there are no penal offences such as exist under the customs laws of the United States. I was under the impression that representations had been made to the government-I do not know whether they came under the observation of the lion. Minister of Customs or of some of his colleagues-recommending that the American law be considered, and that in such cases as it is practicable, the provisions in relation to undervaluation be embodied in our law. I do not see anything in these amendments looking in that direction. The hon. Minister of Customs said that because of the facilities for preventing undervaluation and fraud upon the revenue in the larger cities, undervaluation was not likely to take place in the larger cities to as great an extent ns in the smaller towns, and that brings forward a very important matter. I, for myself, do not see that it is possible to have goods valued or to know whether the invoices represent the proper value at any of the smaller ports. I do not know how this thing is regulated in other countries, but I do know that in this country it is often said that when an invoice for goods is presented at an outlying place, it is likely to go through with greater facility than if the goods are passed through customs at a larger place. Of course, the hon. Minister of Customs has said that each invoice is reviewed by the department when it reaches Ottawa, but it is almost impossible to tell without being able to examine the goods and make a proper comparison, whether the valuation has been proper or not. The officers in these smaller places have not the information before them; they have not the price lists and necessary data. I think perhaps we have too many ports of entry, and that there are too many small places where facilities of that kind are given, and that, consequently, a great deal of fraud must result. I do not know whether the hon. minister has ever thought of making any changes in respect to the administration of the customs of this country that would obviate that kind of thing.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is this difficulty; in the United States I think they have no more ports of entry than we have in Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the whole of the United States ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not mean proportionately. I think that, perhaps, in the whole of the United States, they have no more ports of entry than wTe have in Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is what I understand.
_ The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. Repre-
' sentations have been made to me by merchants in the larger places that it would be in the interest of the community if we Mr. KEMP.
had a less number of these smaller ports, and if the ports of entry were more concentrated. Well, there is that aspect of the case ; there is no doubt about that. We do get a better examination of goods, but the difficulty we experience in reference to that is that the smaller iffaces are asking for the convenience of customs officers, and the pressure upon the department was never greater than at the present time for more ports. I think that I have at present applications from perhaps twenty places now for customs facilities. They represent that they are many miles away from a customs port, and that they cannot receive their goods without going backward and forward and thus they are making out a very strong case. I cannot very well see that you can refuse one section of the community the facilities that are given to another within proper, reasonable bounds. To say that persons living conveniently, perhaps, to one of our larger places shall enjoy customs facilities, while others living at a greater distance and who are contributing to the revenue too shall not have the same conveniences is what presents the difficulty in not only attempting to close small ports, but in dealing with applications for new ports to be created. It would be a very difficult matter indeed after a place is once established as a customs port, even where the business would not warrant it, ns far as the revenue is concerned and where the revenue actually will be perhaps 50 per cent of the sum required for the payment of the expense attendant upon its collection, to close such a port. All we have been able to do is-shall I say to resist the pressure as far as we can from other places in order that we should not increase the number of ports immoderately. Where you have ports now existing, where the revenue is a certain amount and where another place of equal importance and of equal revenue presents its claim to have customs facilities it is rather difficult to answer a request of that kind. The convenience of the public must, in a measure, be sought. It is accompanied with the disadvantage that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) has alluded to, and which we use as an argument when we are presenting the difficulties to those who are pressing for additional customs ports. It is one of the arguments that we have to make use of that we have better facilities for the examination of goods and determining what the proper value and rate of duty are at the larger places where we have competent officers. I have no doubt that the collector does his best to carry out the law, but in many of these smaller ports we have only the collector. He has to be the appraiser, he has to do the whole of the work, and he will do it to the best of his ability. However, there are no very heavy importations at these ports, and I think, taking it all in all, that perhaps no very serious charge can be made that the revenue is

suffering or that other traders whose interests must he considered as well as the collection of the revenue are put under any serious disadvantage. Of course, you can understand that if at one port goods can be entered at a lower rate of duty, or that the proper valuation is not scrutinized as well as at another, those doing business at a port with a more efficient administration would be at a disadvautgae as against those who were importing their goods through the other port. I quite recognize that, but all invoices are scrutinized by the check department in the city of Ottawa.


Mr. BLAIN.: Suppose an invoice is presented to a customs-house officer at a small point, is he the absolute judge as to the classification under which these goods shall pass the custom-house ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, he takes the entry and passes it to the best of his knowledge. All these entries at the large ports as well as the small ports come to the headquarters here, and they are scrutinized by the check department, but in the first instance, the collector has of necessity to make the entry, and he has to do it to* the best of his judgment as to his duty under the circumstances.
Mr. BLA1N. There is very considerable dissatisfaction in the commercial world with regard to the value for duty placed on certain articles. I am informed by one of the leading scale manufacturers in Toronto, that in the case of certain registering scales imported from the United States which are sold retail in Canada for $60 or $70 each, thev are valued for duty at only $0 or $7 each. The American manufacturer seeing that there is a market in Canada for a new article which is not made in Canada, invoices it from himself in the United States to himself in Canada at a low rate, and as in the case of the scales I have mentioned the difference between the value for duty and the price at which they are sold to the public is out of all proportion. Has this matter been brought to the attention of the Minister of Customs ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The question as to the proper value for scales has been before the department several times, but I do not know that the particular scale to which the hon. gentleman has referred has been under consideration. We have officers in the United States whose duty it is to ascertain the value of articles in. that country. We have not such officers in Great Britain or on the continent. The officers in the United States go to headquarters and ascertain the value from an actual inspection of the books, and the manufacturers in their own interests, wishing to have no trouble with the customshouse when they send goods to Canada, are anxious to afford our officers all proper information in that connection. Our officers satisfy themselves as to the price at
which that article is sold in the United States, and when it comes into Canada iu like quantity and in like condition, no matter what the invoice may say, the duty is levied upon the value of the article as sold in the United States.


Mr. LAY  ALL@: Are there any means by which the public can know the rate for duty that is fixed on an article ? I may state to the minister that during last winter, in the business with which I am connected, we had on two different occasions two different sets of invoices sent to us. It is, I suppose, needless to say that that was not done at our request. However, what is supposed to be a reputable business house in the United States sent us one invoice, being the price we were to pay, and another invoice being the price on which we were supposed to pay duty. We sent back the lower invoice which was the only invoice which had the certificate on it. This incident would go to show that such a practice is quite common. I may say also that the agent of a large manufacturing concern in Canton, Ohio, called on me and desired me to import a large quantity of goods, and in giving me his estimate of price he calculated the duty at just one-lialf of what we were supposed to pay f.o.b. at Canton. I asked him if that was his way of doing business and he said that it was. If that be so, and if other firms are doing the same thing, it would appear to be conducted on a fairly large scale. If the public knew the rate at which these articles were valued by the customs, I believe that the publicity would tend to prevent such things occurring.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I may say that we bring in carbons from the United States which are made in Cleveland, and when these carbons come to us the officer collects from us the duty on the price which these carbons are wholesaled for in the United States, no matter what the invoice may say.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The matter alluded to by the hon. member (Mr. La veil) would be a case of fraud, and if that came to our knowledge we would deal severely with any house which practiced it. The forwarding of the two invoices would be a fraud upon the revenue, and it would be a serious matter for that house if they were detected.


John William Bell: The point I wish to make is. that it appears to be a common practice. We declined to have any business dealings with the house whose agent suggested the lower rate for customs duty to us, and we have not sent any further orders to the man who sent us the duplicate invoices. It would appear from their representations to us. that it is a very common thing for them to do. I am sorry I did not send the duplicate invoices to the minister.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are very pleased whenever any one gives us

information that will enable us to detect frauds of that kind, and of course we do not divulge the names of those giving us the Information. Whenever a matter of that kind comes to our knowledge you may depend upon it that it is followed up, and penalties imposed that would effectually prevent its recurrence so far as that house was concerned. If a man sold a bill of goods to this country and sent a fraudulent invoice, I' question if he could collect the amount at all in Canada.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am afraid I did not make, myself clear with reference to the duty on carbons to which I have referred. We buy these earbons in the United States for SS a thousand, but as they are sold to dealers in the United States for $9 a thousand, we have to pay duty on them at the rate of $9, although we only pay $8.


Richard Blain: If these articles were presented at an outport of customs and the officer was not familiar with the value, the invoice for $8 per thousand would be the price on which the duty would be assessed. If it was afterwards shown that these goods were sold in the United States at $9, it is possible the department would take some action, but in the meantime the goods would have found their way into Canada on the valuation of $8 per thousand.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If I understand the hon. gentleman from Renfrew (Mr. Wright) he rather complains that while he only pays $8 per thousand, we make him pay duty on $9 per thousand. Sometimes we receive complaints of that kind. Parliament determines what the duty should be, and we carry it out. It is our duty under the law to collect the revenue that properly accrues. If an entry of the kind referred to by hon. friend for Peel were made at one of the smaller ports, the only check we have is that a copy of the entry has to come to Ottawa, where it is examined by our checking department. I do not say that we detect everything, but if an entry of a certain class of goods came in at a different price from that prevailing at other and larger ports, the officer would immediately call for an amended entry.


Mr. LAVELL.: When I first mentioned this matter I asked if there was any way in which the public could find out the value fixed by the department upon certain standard goods. If this information could be obtained, it would be easy to head off many of these frauds.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: When decisions are given by the department on certain questions that may not be plain, circulars are sent out to the different collectors, conveying the information. In the great majority of cases the collectors themselves will know what valuation to place upon regular articles of merchandise which have a known market value. There may be Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
special cases in which they would not know. In these cases we avail ourselves of the safe-guard provided by our checking department ; and if an entry comes in which has been undervalued and an amended entry is called for, that would be a guide for the collector in the future. In addition to that, there are trade journals which are made use of, such as the ' Iron Age,' as guides for ascertaining correct valuations.


John Reeve Lavell: Is there any way in which one business man can find out the figure at which goods are being imported by others ? Take, for example, a certain class of carriage, which is well known in the. trade. It is purchased at a certain price, but is invoiced at below that price. One dealer might accept that invoice and another might refuse it. Is there any way in which a person importing these goods or the general public can get information as to their valuation from the Customs Department ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course, the Customs Department is not at liberty to reveal to the general public any invoices or values ; but the officers themselves are supposed to know the values, and to be able to tell the importer, when he comes to make his entry, what the proper value for duty should be. Further than that I do not know that we can go.


Mr. SCOTT.: I wish to ask the minister if within recent months any specific charges have been placed before him in relation to the improper or fraudulent importation of German goods under the British preference. The reason I ask this is that during the famous tour of the leader of the opposition and his party of friends through the west last fall, members of his party made charges throughout the country-one member in particular, I think it was the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain)-at various public meetings, which charges by inference or implication meant that certain citizens of the North-west Territories had been guilty of fraud in bringing into Canada German goods under the British preference.


Richard Blain: I may say that the hon. member for West Assiniboia is quite correct when he says that the party travelling in the west last year with the hon. leader of tlie oposition made the charges against the government that German goods "were brought into this country under the British preference. That would not be news to this House, for the hon. member for West Toronto, when discussing the matter at the last session, showed this House, and his statement went uncontradicted, that a large quantity of German goods were imported from time to time into the country. The hon. member for West Assiniboia has made a statement that is very wide in its character, to the effect that some members of the party made this charge at every place in

western Canada. That Is not true. I may say that I made reference to it at one point in the west, though it could have been truthfully made at every meeting, because it was well understood. The charge has been made by the Liberal-Conservative party in this House, that German goods were brought into this country under the guise of the British preference. The government, endorsed by the hon. member for West Assiniboia, said that was not correct ; but what is the condition of things to-day ? The government at this session of parliament give notice to the world that they would abolish the preference. WTiy are' we discussing this item now ? For the reason that we are going to place in the customs tariff of this country a surtax specially directed against German goods. That is surely a proof that some irregularity is going on-the goods manufactured in Germany were brought into this country and under that so-called British preference, which has proven to the people of this country and to the government itself to be not a British preference, but in the interest of Germany and other foreign countries.


Thomas Walter Scott: 
Mr. BROCK.: Has this any connection with the customs matter we are now discussing ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, I shall endeavour_to come a little nearer to the customs matter.


John Graham Haggart: We might as well have the others, what are the facts ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: 1 have allowed a good deal of latitude because I understand that so much has to be said about various matters in this connection that we may as well have them discussed now, and then we will pass over the other items more rapidly. It is pretty hard, in a discussion of this kind, to keep hon. members down to the particular clause before the committee, and probably we may as well now have a general discussion of the whole resolution and then pass the remaining clauses more rapidly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I want to endorse the objection taken by the hon. member for Toronto. I do not think that we should go outside the particular resolution before that committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so too, but I would not care to have these statements go unchecked, and I do not think that statements of this kind should be allowed to be made from hon. gentlemen opposite and then have a ruling from the Chair which would prevent our replying. If necessary we will move that the committee rise for the purpose of dealing with those matters which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has, with so much good taste, brought before the House, when my hon. friend from King's is not here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that there will be ample opportunity on other votes to discuss all these matters, and I hope that the committee will confine itself to the particular subject before it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am willing to accede to the request of my hon. friend, but if he wants to avoid the discussion of irrelevant matters of this kind, I hope he will put a little better check on some of his injudicious followers, such as the hon. member for Assiniboia, or otherwise we shall have a very long discussion on somewhat irrelevant matters, which would not be pleasing to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that there is quite as much fault on the side of my hon. friends opposite in departing from the strict letter of the various resolutions.


William Findlay Maclean: Not to-night.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have discussed in Committee of Supply all sorts of questions, and no objection was takeu, although I think objection should have been taken on both sides.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with my toon, friend.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have not quite finished the statement I intended making, but 1 will endeavour, after the very severe reproof made me by the hon. leader of the opposition-


Robert Laird Borden: And the hon. Minister of Finance.


Thomas Walter Scott: And, if my hon. friend wishes, indirectly by the hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Mr. I-IAGGART. Directly.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am perfectly willing to gratify the hon. gentleman and accept the reproof in good part, and I will endeavour to confine myself to the matter before us as closely as possible. I hope that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, did not understand me as making any charge against the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler).


Robert Laird Borden: I refer to certain alleged remarks quoted in the absence of the hon. member for King's, as having been made by him, which that hon. gentleman has previously contradicted. This, 1 said, was not in good taste, and I see no reason for changing my opinion.


Thomas Walter Scott: I hope that my hon. friend did not understand me as having attributed to the hon. member for King's any statement which that hon. gentleman denied. I endeavoured to convey to the committee the fact that the hon. member for King's had contradicted, and, as.a matter of fact, had been compelled to contradict, certain statements he was alleged to have made in the west. Since the opening of the session my hon. friend himself has deemed it necessary to contradict certain statements alleged, in his own organ in Winnipeg, to have been made by him.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I did nothing of the' kind. I said that the report was not a full report of what I had said, that I had said something further on that occasion, and the newspapers admitted that I had.


Peter Macdonald: I hope that the members of the committee will confine themselves to the resolution before us, and not refer to anything which has -taken place in any other section of the country.


Thomas Walter Scott: Before I am through, I have here a statement to present which is in the form of a statutory declaration, regarding what was said by my hon. friend from Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
Peel. I may say that my hon. friend, when in the town of Regina, where I live, went into a mercantile establishment and purchased an article of German ware in the form of a teapot, and if that teapot were not exhibited more than once, and if my hon. friend did not repeat his remarks in several places during his tour, then I am very much misinformed. In fact that teapot, became a feature of the tour and was spoken about at every meeting, and referred to in every newspaper. I have been very much surprised not to have seen it during this session on the desk of the hon. gentleman, or to have heard from him remarks concerning it similar to those ihe made in the west. If the statements were proper ones to make in the west, they should also be made here. With regard to his statement that he only spoke concerning this teapot at one point, let me read this statutory declaration, made by Mr. William Trant, whom, -my hon. friends who were on that trip, will remember very well, because >io accompanied them during a part of it: CANADA.
North-west Territories.
I; William Trant, of Regina, in the said Territories, solemnly declare :
1.	That I am a reporter for the newspaper press ;
2.	That from the 25th day of September to the 3rd day of October, in the year 1902, I attended public meetings as follows, that is to say, a meeting at Moose Jaw on the said 25th day of September ; a meeting at Regina on the 26th day of September ; on the 27th day of September a meeting at Qu'Appelle ; on the 29th day of September a meeting at Wolseley, and in the evening of the same day one at Grenfell ; on the 30th September a meeting at Whitewood, and on the evening of the same day one at Wapella ; on the 1st day of October a meeting at Moosomin ; on the 2nd day of October a meeting at Virden, in the province of Manitoba, and on the 3rd day of October a meeting at Brandon, all in the year 1902, and that I attended said meetings in my said capacity as reporter.
3.	That at the said meeting held at Moose Jaw on the said 25th day of September, at the meeting held on the 27th day of September at Qu'Appelle, and at the meeting aforesaid held on the evening of the 30th day of September at Wapella, I heard and I noticed a speech at each of the three said meetings delivered by a person who told me his name was Richard Blain, and that he was a member of the House of Commons, representing the constituency of Peel.
4.	That at each and every of the three meetings mentioned in the paragraph next immediately preceding, the said Mr. Blain said that the British preference then existing was used by manufacturers in Germany to send their goods to Canada as British goods and so defraud the revenue of the Dominion of Canada ; and further, he, the said Richard Blain, explained that the said object was attained by the said manufacturers in Germany, first having the said goods shipped to England and thence reshipped to Canada as British goods entitled to the preference given such goods by the law of Canada.

5.	And I declare particularly that at the aforesaid meeting held at Qu'Appelle on the said 27th day of September A.D.,	1902, the said
Richard Blain produced a razor which he said he had bought at Regina, in the said Territories, the day before and which he said was a razor of German manufacture and had been imported into Canada under the British preference in the manner described in the paragraph next immediately preceding.
6.	And I further say particularly that at the aforesaid meeting held in the evening of the 30th day of September, in the year 1902, at Wa-pella, the said Richard Blain said he had bought a teapot in Regina that had been made in Germany, and that the merchant who had sold him, the said Blain, the said teapot, or the assistant to the merchant had, at the request of the said Richard Blain, shown him the Invoice of the goods, of which the said teapot formed a part, and that the said Invoice was as if for goods that were shipped from England and had received the benefit of the British preference.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of * the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.'
(Sgd.) WM. TRANT.
Declared before me at Regina, in the said Territories, 13th day of February, A.D. 1903.
(Sgd.) JAS. BALFOUR,
A notary public in and for the
North-west Territories.
This is, to a certain extent a generalized statement, but I would ask you to take note of the fact that Mr. Trant makes the statement that the hon. gentleman made the statement on the subject at the meeting at Wapella.


Some hon. MEMBER.: More.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will tell the hon. gentleman what he said at another point according to a statement of another gentleman.


DOMINION OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Province of Manitoba.
To wit :	%
In the matter of a speech delivered by Mr. Blain, M.P., in Victoria Hall, Morden, on October 8, 1902.
I, Robert George McCuish, editor of the Morden ' Chronicle ' of village of 7.1orden, in the province of Manitoba, do solemnly declare that the following quotation from Mr. Blain's speech, which appeared in an editorial headed ' Mr. Blain's teapot ' in the Morden * Chronicle ' on October 16th, is correct :-
Then follows the report of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) remarks which appeared in the Morden ' Chronicle ' and the editor makes a statutory statement to the truth and accuracy of the report, 1 shall not weary the House by reading
that.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Read.


Thomas Walter Scott: Very well :
The preference is not a preference on British goods. I have here a teapot bought in Regina (holding it up) made in Germany and it came in under the preferential tariff. The merchant
who brought it in told me he got the benefit of the preference on it. The Liberal-Conservative party say the preferential tariff is not in the interests of Canada as these things should be made in Canada. This teapot is stamped ' made in Germany ' it was purchased there and there was no British labour put on it or British material in it but it got the preference of 333e per cent. Exporters get the same preference on German goods shipped from London as on British made goods and we are opposed to the preference in so far as it lets in German goods. If a traveller comes along and takes an order for $100 worth of German goods, he takes them from Berlin to London and invoices them at $125 under the British preference and so a preference is given cn German goods. We tell the Liberals that the preference is working a benefit to Germany and an injury to Canada.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of ' The Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
(Sgd.) R. G. McCUTSH.
Declared before me at village of Morden, in the province of Manitoba, this 21st day of January, A.D. 1903.
(Sgd.) STEWART M. BAT MAM,
A commissioner, &c.
What is recited in the declaration is ex-aetly what I have read as the report of my bon. friend's speech. And the committee will notice that the hon. gentleman stated at Morden that he bought this tea pot in Regina and that the merchant informed him that the teapot had come in under the preference. So, the merchant was indirectly accused of fraud by my hon. friend. The merchant-at my request I may say- furnished me with a statement respecting the matter. He writes to me :
Regina, N.W.T., December 23, 1902.
Walter Scott, Esq., M.P.,
Regina, N.W.T.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication pointing out that at certain public meetings in the eastern part of the Territories and in Manitoba, Mr. Richard Blain, M.P.. one of the party of gentlemen who accompanied Mr. R. L. Borden, M.P., on his western tour, spoke as follows :-
I have already read to the Committee the report of the speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read, read.
Mr. SCOTT-(reading) :
The preference is not a preference on British goods. I have here a teapot, bought in Regina, made in Germany and it came in under the preferential tariff. The merchant who brought it in told me he got the benefit of the preference on it. The Liberal Conservative party say the preferential tariff is not in the interests of Canada as these things should be made in Canada. This teapot is stamped ' Made in Germany.'


Richard Blain: What meeting was that ? Mr. SCOTT. At Morden. And Mr. McCuish makes this statutory declaration.


Richard Blain: That is the same meeting ?
30G3


Thomas Walter Scott: No, there was the meeting at Wapella. Mr. Trant makes the statement with regard to that.


Richard Blain: X did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott). I was asking for information.
Mr. SCOTT-(reading) :
It was purchased there and there was no British labour put on it, or British material in it, but it got the preference of 33J per cent. Exporters get the same preference on German goods shipped from England as on British-made goods and we are opposed to the preference in so far as it lets in German goods. If a traveller comes along and takes an order -for $100 worth of German goods he takes them from Berlin to London and invoices them at $125 under the British preference and so a preference is given on German goods.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Louder.


Thomas Walter Scott: Now, I come to the merchant's own statement, and I wil read this loud enough for hon. gentlemen to hear.
I note also that as you pointed out a portion of the press makes the charge that the Regina firm from whom Mr. Blain bought the teapot has been guilty of defrauding the customs in as much as the benefit of the preference could not have been obtained upon such an importation without the making of a false declaration. I believe that the Smith & Ferguson Company, Limited, is the firm against which the charge is directed, because when in Regina, Mr. Blain did buy a teapot marked ' made in Germany ' over our counter. And in justice to the firm I beg respectfully to say that the charge is wholly untrue.
There can be no question, because this is the only firm in Regina that carries this particular line of German ware.
As I have stated, Mr. Blain when in Regina, paid a visit to our store and purchased a German teapot from Mr. T. W. Peart, one of our salesmen. He made particular inquiries about his purchase, asking where the article was manufactured, how it was shipped to Regina, &c.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) prepare that or did his friends ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I place it before the House for what it is worth.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the hon. gentleman might well answer my question.


Thomas Walter Scott: It may have been the merchant's assistant who sold the tea-pot.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the hon. gentleman say that Ills friend prepared it ?


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is free to give the information or withhold it, as he pleases.
Mr. SCOTT-(reading) :
He also volunteered to Mr. Peart the information that the consignment of goods of which this teapot was a part had come into Canada under the British preferential tariff, which in-Mr. BLAIN.
formation Mr. Peart was not in a positon either to confirm or deny.
So, it was my hon. frieud who was giving the information and not the merchant.
The fact is, however, that if the fraud were committed it was not committed by our firm as the duty upon the consignment of which the teapot was a part was not paid by us at Regina but was paid by the brokers from whom we purchase the consignment at Montreal. '
One of the newspaper statements which you place before me credits Mr. Blain with saying that the teapot was part of a consignment worth $100. The consignment actually was invoiced to us at $346.68. The goods are known as Stransky steel ware.
Aud will the hon. gentleman note this-
The invoice is dated at New York, where is the head office of the company in America. We ordered the goods through the broker in Montreal and the duty was paid at Montreal. The goods were shipped from Montreal to Regina via Canadian Pacific Railway and came through in the original large wooden boxes in which they left Germany, each of which is bound with iron. On each box, printed in large letters is the word ' German.'
Great evidence of fraud in this.
On the side of the boxes, also printed in large letters are the words ' Stran3ky steel ware lasts for years.' On each piece of ware in the consignment which included teapots, basins, pitchers, pans, &c., there is pasted a label bearing the number of that piece and in bold blackfaced type the word ' Germany.' I have to say emphatically that when Mr. Blain sought to convey the impression that we informed him that these goods come in under the British preference he was either labouring under a misapprehension or was guilty of deception. We had nothing to do with the payment of duty. We do not know what duty was paid and could not give Mr. BlaiL Information which we do not possess.
(Sgd.) J. W. SMITH,
President of The Smith & Ferguson Co., Ltd.
I may state that Mr. Smith was at that time and is at present mayor of the city of Regina. '


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to read the last paragraph again, or to send the document over to me ?
Mr. SCOTT-(reading) :
I have to say emphatically that when Mr. Blain sought to convey the impression that we informed him that these goods come in under the British preference he was either labouring under a misapprehension or was guilty of deception. We had nothing to do with the payment of duty.
Mr. BIjAIN. That is the point.


Thomas Walter Scott: -(reading.)
We do not know what duty was pail, and could not give Mr. Blain information which we do not possess.
But the fact appears, as the committee has already learned, that these goods came via New York in a large wooden box in

which they were put by the firm in Germany, with ' Germany ' stamped on the box. There are ninety-nine chances to one against any fraud having been committed with regard to these goods. If my hon. friend still thinks there is any doubt about the matter, I can furnish further information with regard to the invoices, and we will have an inquiry made and find out at Montreal whether my hon. friend's charges were true or untrue.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would just give us the balance of that letter, or send it over to me. I suppose, air. Chairman, you would allow the document to be laid on the Table ?
Hon. air. HAGGART. It is obligatory on him to do so.
air. DEPUTY SPEAKER. I have no control over the hon. member for Assiniboia. He is free to lay the document on the Table or not.
Hon. air. HAGGART. When an lion, gentleman reads any document in the House he is obliged to lay it upon the Table of the House.
air. DEPUTY SPEAKER. A minister is obliged to do so when he quotes from a public document.
Hon. air. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.). We should have both the document and teapot laid on the Table.
air. DEPUTY SPEAKER, AVhen a minister cites from a public document and bases an argument thereon, he is bound to place it on the Table. But a private member can cite from a public document without this necessity.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). I would like to know the difference between a minister and a private member in this House. There is no difference whatever.
The AlINISTER OP FINANCE. There is no difference in person, but there is a difference in the functions.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). Any one who quotes from a public document has to place it before the House, and a minister has no privileges in this House that a back-bench member has not.
The AlINISTER OP FINANCE. A minister should have a control of a public document which a private member does not possess, and if a minister uses that document for the purposes of argument then he is bound to put the House in possession of it. But this is not a public document, it is a matter entirely for the hon. gentlemen to settle among themselves. This is not a state document, it is not under the control of any minister. The hon. member may read it or not; he is not obliged to read it except as a matter of good taste.


Samuel Hughes: The Chairman has given the ruling that a minister has a
privilege in this House that a private member has not.
The AlINISTER OP FINANCE. Only as respects a public document.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is that if a minister reads a public document from which he cites and bases thereon an argument, he is in duty bound to place that before the House. But a private member can cite from even a public document, and he is not required to place it upon the Table.


Hon.   A@: But here is a gentleman who makes a chai'ge against another gentleman in the House, charging that my hon. friend on a particular occasion made a statement that is false. He reads an affidavit in the House in relation thereto, and do you rule that when that affidavit is read in the House the member reading it is not obliged to lay it upon the Table ?


Peter Macdonald: This is the rule, I will read it.


Hon.   A@: It is a most monstrous thing.


Peter Macdonald: On page 409 of Bourinot I find :
It has been laid down by the highest authorities that ' when a minister of the Crown quotes a public document in the House, and founds upon it an argument or assertion, that document, if called for, ought to be produced.' But it is allowable to repeat to the House information which is contained in a private communication. When such private papers are quoted in the House there is no rule requiring them to be laid on the Table.


William Humphrey Bennett: Except decency.


Samuel Hughes: Air. Chairman, I would ask you to retract your ruling about a minister having a privilege which is denied to a private member. I must request the Chairman to retract that ruling, because there is no such a thing in this House as a minister.
The AlINISTER OP FINANCE. There is such a thing in this House as a minister. Alinisters are held to account for many things for which private members are not. The ruling of the Chairman was that when a minister is quoting from a public document he is obliged to lay it on the Table if called for. The essence of the matter is that the document is a public one.


Peter Macdonald: -(reading.)
It does not appear that the English Commons has ever applied this rule to the case of private members citing public documents not in the possession of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: There have been occasions now and then. I believe, in this House when letters from persons outside the House, or statutory declarations such as that read by the hon. member for Assiniboia, have been read in the House for the purpose of contradicting or discrediting one

306S
of its members. I have always thought that the practice was absolutely wrong, and I see in ' Bourinot,' at page 408, immediately before the page from which you, Sir, have just quoted, that the rule is laid down In this way :
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside of the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
I think that is a very good rule to be followed, one which I think the dignity of the House would require and one that we should observe in the future, particularly in a case of this kind. My hon. friend from Assini-boia has not, as I understand, seen fit to observe a rule, not contained, it is true, in any written regulation of the House, 'but a rule depending on that courtesy which is usually observed among gentlemen, that is, to give to any gentleman whom it is proposed to attack notice that the atack will be made. I have not in my recollection at the present time any occasion when that rule, founded upon the usual courtesy observed between gentlemen in this House, has been departed from. The hon. member for West Assini-boia has seen fit to depart from that for reasons which are best known to himself. I would only like to say to my hon. friends on this side of the House that whatever provocation of that character may be given to them by my hon. friend from West Assiniboia, or any other hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, I trust that not one of them, on any provocation whatever, will ever see fit to follow so bad an example.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling should have gone a little further. Your ruling should have commenced further back. When this document was first proposed to be read by the hon. member for West Assiniboia reflecting upon the character and veracity of an hon. gentleman in this House, it was your duty to have interposed and to have said, according to the authority which is laid down in Bourinot, that that is not a practice which the rules of the House would permit, and that it is not a practice which tends to promote the dignity of the proceedings of this House. It may be that the hon. member for West Assiniboia may think that it comports to his position as a member of this House to make, in the first place, this attack without notice, and then, in the next place, to withhold his documents which he has seen fit to read. I do not think, if he sees fit to pursue that course-


Thomas Walter Scott: Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? I have not at all refused to let Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the hon. gentleman have these documents or to lay them on the Table.


Robert Laird Borden: I apologize at once. I have misunderstood the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am perfectly willing to lay the documents on the Table of the House or to hand them to the hon. gentleman if he desires them.


Robert Laird Borden: I apologize to the hon. member for West Assiniboia. I regret that I was so obtuse as to suppose, that, his sitting there and holding the document in his hands for a period of five minutes and awaiting the ruling of the chair, was equivalent to a refusal on his part. I most humbly apologize for the misunder-standiug in which all the other members of the House shared in regard to these papers. I am very glad there has been a misunderstanding in regard to the matter.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Chairman-


Peter Macdonald: Order.
Hon.	Mr.	HAGGART.	Sir.	Chairman,
would you allow me to make an observation before you give your ruling ?


Peter Macdonald: I wish to put myself right in regard to the accusations made against me by the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir. Borden, Halifax).
Hon.	Sir.	HAGGART.	You	can do it
a fterwards.


Peter Macdonald: Order, order. According to rule twelve-


Hon.   S@: Sir. Chairman-


Peter Macdonald: Order, order.
Some	hon.	SIE3IBERS.	Chair, chair.Hon.	Mr.	HAGGART.	Has	the Chairman the right to give a decision before hearing the point of order discussed ?


Peter Macdonald: Order. According to rule twelve-


John Graham Haggart: Sir. Chairman, I insist upon being heard before you make your ruling.


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: Sir. Hag-gart, please resume your seat and hear the Chairman.


Hon.   S@: Let me hear the rule under which he prevents me being heard before he makes his ruling.


Peter Macdonald: 'A member called to order shall sit down.' That is rale twelve. It is this :
A member called to order shall sit down, but may afterwards explain.


Samuel Hughes: So may the Chairman.


Peter Macdonald: What I wanted to explain was the reference made by the hon. leader of the opposition to iny ruling in not calling the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) to order.


Robert Laird Borden: Please do not understand me as levelling any accusation against you.


Peter Macdonald: I do not think you just conceived the meaning of this clause.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Peter Macdonald: I understood the hon. leader of the opposition to say that documents could not ]ie read in the House which made any reflection upon hon. members in the House. What the rule says is this :
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether papers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside of the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
These were not proceedings within the House to which the letters referred but proceedings in Manitoba and the North-west Territories.


Robert Laird Borden: ' Anything said by a member.'


Peter Macdonald: Yes, ' anything said by a member' within the House.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not say
so.


Peter Macdonald: These proceedings in Manitoba and the North-west Territories were not within the House and therefore the hon. member for West Assiniboia was perfectly in order in reading these papers. Had these papers referred to the conduct of any hon. gentleman within the House, or anything that he had said within the House, then, I would have at once ruled him out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read the quotation again.
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside of the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on the proceedings within the House.


Peter Macdonald: These were not within the House.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not say ' by* a member within the House ' and the object of the rule would be entirely nullified if any such construction were put upon it, because, if any hon. member is at liberty to come within this House and make an
attack in the words of a communication written by some person outside of the House upon an hon. gentleman in this House, you at once see what a condition of affairs would result. The result would be that any hon. member on either one side or the other of this House might have a most insulting communication addressed to him in regard to another member of the House, not, it is true in regard to any action of any member within the House, but in regard to some public or private action outside of the House; and then he comes into the House, reads the communication, and the Chairman says that he is perfectly in order in doing so. What was the object of the rule laid down by Bourinot ? Was it not to prevent any action of that kind ? Certainly, and it seems to me that that interpretation of the rule would better comport with the dignity of the proceedings of this House, and it seems to me to be the reasonable construction.


John Graham Haggart: Upon what order or rule Mr. Chairman, did you prevent me from making any remarks before you gave your ruling ?


Peter Macdonald: I called the hon. gentleman to order.


John Graham Haggart: How was I out of order ?


Peter Macdonald: When the Chairman gets up to decide a question-


Samuel Hughes: There was no question.


Peter Macdonald: We were deciding whether the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was in order.


John Graham Haggart: Surely you allow the discussion of a question of order before giving your ruling.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Chair, chair.


Peter Macdonald: I stood up for
the purpose of deciding whether the hon. member from West Assiniboia had the right to read these documents, and then the hon. leader of the opposition arose and quoted a passage that I did not quote, saying that my ruling was wrong in not calling him to order. I rose to put myself right and when I did so the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) rose in his place and I called him to order, and when an hon. member is called to order, according to rule twelve, he has to sit down whether he is in order or not until the matter has been decided, and then he has the privilege of rising and explaining. Now, it is very well understood that the Speaker, or Chairman, has not to sit down when an hon. member gets up whether the Speaker, or Chairman, is in order or not. The rule is that an hon. member must sit down until the point of order is decided. That is the rule and that is the procedure of parliament.


John Graham Haggart: I must object to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Every member of this House has a right to discuss a question of order before the Chair decides it, and we have an appeal from the chairman, thank goodness, to the Speaker of the House. We can at any time ask you, Mr. Chairman, to vacate the chair and ask the Speaker to come in and decide a question of order. I intend to speak to the question of order. The hon. Minister of Finance is perfectly right when he states that any member is required when he quotes from a public document to put it on the Table of the House. No member of the House has the right to quote even an affidavit, or a writing, or an article from a newspaper, when a question is discussed in the House, attacking the integrity of an hon. member of the House when the hon. member denies it. The point was decided some years ago. Sir Charles Tupper made a statement in this House and an hon. member produced an affidavit to deny it. The Speaker ruled that no affidavit or statement made by any man outside of the House could be read in the House for that purpose. Now, the chairman of this committee seeks to override that well established rule of the House. He has drawn a distinction between statements made outside of the House and statements made inside the House. There is no such distinction. A member has a perfect right to make a statement outside the House, and there is no right on the part of any member to bring in an affidavit or written document or newspaper quotation, to show that a statement made by an hon. member inside the House or outside the House is false.


William Rees Brock: One of the most important things in connection with our customs system is that there should be uniformity of valuation, and the minister has taken steps to attain that as nearly as possible 'by getting the customs appraisers to meet from time to time and make uniform rulings. I must say that in the province of Ontario, and I think in Canada generally, we have very little fault to find with the administration of our custom affairs at the present time. Under the management of the present minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson) we have had very little fault to find indeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: I am afraid, however, that the principal difficulties of the Minister of Customs, come from liis own friends who try to turn everything they can to political account.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: Apropos of this, I notice that a Bill has been introduced by a gentleman who has made himself very conspicuous this evening. It is an Act to Regulate the Sales and Provide for the Inspection of Textile Fabrics. I have not seen the Bill, but I am told that it requires that all tex-Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
tile goods shall have stamped on them what they are made of. After an experience of fifty years in the textile fabrics business, I may say that I do not believe it is possible to get persons sufficiently well posted to enable them with any degree of certainty to put such a stamp on the goods manufactured in this country alone. This Bill is introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). Now, Sir, if there is any one thing we should expect from our great west, it is that the members who represent that country in the House should be somewhat commensurate in their ideas with the broadness of the magnificent country from which they come. If there is any place from which we could expect largeness and broadness, it is from the North-west, and to have such a matter introduced to this House as was introduced this evening by a gentleman coming from the west, is rather disappointing. I think his constituents should take charge of him when he goes home, and keep him there because his conduct here is not provocative of the best feeling. He has succeeded in creating a very serious difficulty for our worthy chairman whose decisions, as a rule, we are very anxious to support in every way. When we come to consider this Bill introduced by the hon. member, I hope the Minister of Customs will be a little careful about it. because he will find that if he allows it to pass he will require to double the number of the employees who are at present dealing with textile fabrics, and I do not think that is desirable. I make these remarks having noticed that this gentleman from the North-west has introduced this very unpleasant matter this evening, although it is much more unpleasant for himself than for any member on this side of the House. I contend that he having introduced a matter of this kind, and brought into this House such discord and unpleasantness, we will have to review this Bill with a great deal of care, because I have not the least doubt that he may find himself confronted some day with some very serious affidavits from his country, whereby he could probably find a hole in the armour of even the Minister of Customs.


John Graham Haggart: On the question of Order, I wish to have it decided by ihe Speaker of the House. I rose for the purpose of discussing a question of Order and you, Mr. Chairman, rose and you said that when Order was called I had no right to make any observation on the subject. Further than that you made a ruling which I think is contrary to the rights and privileges of members of this House. I ask that yon vacate the Chair and ask the Speaker to come in for the purpose of deciding the point of Order which I intend to discuss before Mr. Speaker.


Peter Macdonald: I wish to state what is the rule of the House. The Chairman decides all questions and from his decision an appeal can be made to the

committee, but no appeal can be made to tbe Speaker of the House to decide that question of order. But if a question of order should arise, and it is required to censure a particular member for violation of order, that censure cannot be given by the Chairman, but must be referred to the Speaker. That is the difference between the powers of the Speaker and the powers of the Chairman. This committee cannot refer my ruling to the Speaker. The Speaker has no more power to rule on anything that may arise in the committee than I have, when he is in the Chair, to rule on a matter that may arise in the House. Let me read rule 70 :
Questions of order arising in Committee of the Whole House shall he decided by the Chairman, subject to an appeal to the House ; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Might I suggest to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that we have really passed from that ques tion to other matters. The point of difference between the hon. member and the Chairman was that the hon. member continued to stand on his feet while the Chairman was on his feet. Clearly the hon. member should have resumed his seat. That is the only point of difference. We have passed from that now, however, and no appeal was taken at the time, and I rather think we had better let the matter drop, especially as the documents have been sent to my hon. friend from Peel.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has hardly grasped the point. The point made by my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is this : A question of order was raised which required to be decided by the Chair. My hon. friend from Lanark rose to discuss the question. The Chairman rose to give what practically amounted to a decision upon it. The contention of my hon. friend from Lanark, which I think is well founded, is this, that the Chairman has no right to prevent any member from discussing a question of order. He cannot stop discussion on a question of order. Every member of the House has the right to express his opinion on that question, and after every one who desires to speak upon it has spoken, then and not till then is the Chairman to decide the question. Perhaps the Chairman did not understand the situation. If he did, I would not be inclined to agree with his ruling, because I do not know of any rule of this House which prevents any member of the committee from fully discussing the question of order before the Chairman gives his decision. This is the whole question, and perhaps, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance suggests, my hon. friend from Lanark has no objection now to let the matter rest. However, I will not interfere.


John Graham Haggart: The Chairman of the committee has read the rule of the House in which there is no appeal from the Chairman but to the committee. I do not think that appeal would avail much; but I have very strong opinions on the subject. I have seen this question very often decided in this House. I have again and again seen appeals from the Chairman of the committee to the Speaker of the House, and I have again and again seen the Speaker called in for the purpose of deciding the question. I have often heard the rule laid down in this House that where an hon. gentleman contradicts a statement made by a member, no matter what the opinion of the House may be, no matter what affidavits or quotations from the public press he has in support of that contradiction;' he has been refused the right to read those quotations or affidavits.


Richard Blain: I do not propose to occupy very much of the time of the House on this small question which has been introduced by a small representative from the west. There is another small representative who is interrupting me who has a record, lie had better take care of those things that crawl oil him. I may say that I do not propose to make any personal references in this House; that is not my mission here; but I will not allow insinuations to come from the other side of the House without giving an answer to those who interrupt me. The only question of difference seems to be as to whether goods from Germany have been brought into this country under the British preference. Before I proceed to say something on the question, I wish to state that during the western trip I had the honour of being present at one meeting, and one meeting only, in the town of Morden, at which I exhibited the teapot which my hon. friend said was carried up and down all through western Canada. I make that statement on the floor of the House, knowing my responsibility; and when the hon. member for West Assiniboia comes down with letters written by himself, trying to get information from gentlemen in the west to prove anything to the contrary


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg to call the hon. gentleman to order. On what basis does he say that this letter was prepared by me ?


John Graham Haggart: You said yourself that you prepared it.


Thomas Walter Scott: I said no such thing.


Richard Blain: I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman, but I certainly understood him to say that he had perhaps written it himself.


Thomas Walter Scott: I made no such statement. I stated that the letter was given to me at my suggestion, as the reading of it certainly shows.


Richard Blain: You wrote to him and got the letter back. X said the hon. gentleman was seeking to get information from the west in respect to statements X made during the western trip in respect to the German teapot which I exhibited at Morden. Let us read the letter and see if this is correct or not:
Walter Scott, Esq., M.P.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication.
How did this letter come into the hon. gentleman's hands at all ? Was it offered to the hon. gentleman In order to give him information about some statements that I had made ? Not at all; the hon. gentleman sought it by writing a letter to this gentleman.


Thomas Walter Scott: It must be perfectly plain to the House that there is a very great difference between a letter being sent to me at my suggestion and my preparing a letter.


Richard Blain: There was a telegram among these documents. Did the hon. gentleman take it out before sending the documents over ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes.


Richard Blain: I thought you did; just like what the hon. gentleman would do, of course the House would not expect anything else.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Chairman, these are not questions of order.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman asked me respecting a telegram. It was either a copy of a telegram sent by me to the gentleman at Morden or one sent by him to me.


Richard Blain: We need not thank the hon. gentleman for placing the documents on the Table. He absolutely refused to do so.


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg your pardon; I did not.


Richard Blain: I do not beg any pardon about it. I know what I am stating. Why was the question of placing the documents on the Table raised at all, if you did not refuse to place them on the Table ?


Peter Macdonald: The order in discussion is this, that the hon. member who has the floor need not permit, against his will, any 'obstruction or any question during the time he has the floor, except a question of order or a question of privilege.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is it open to me to raise a point of order ?


Peter Macdonald: Of course, a point of order can be raised; but if it is against the will of the hon. gentleman who has the floor, no interruption can take place except on a question of order or a question of privilege.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Thomas Walter Scott: I raise the point of order, that the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting me. I said before, and I say now, that I did not refuse to place the documents on the Table.


Richard Blain: I ask the hon. gentleman to state his point of order, and it will be answered. He is not going to keep the floor all night. I was just going to remark that the committee does not thank the hon. gentleman for laying these documents on the Table, because he refused to lay them on the Table, and refused to send them across for my inspection. I have to thank the hon. Minister of Customs, who, turning around, said to the hon. gentleman ; ' Lay them on the Table.'


Thomas Walter Scott: You are mistaken.


Richard Blain: I will leave it to the hon. Minister of Customs if he did not say that. I heard it, and I call upon him to say whether that is correct or not.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is that if a statement is said to have been made by an hon. member, and he rises and says that he did not make that statement, his denial must be accepted there and then.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to discuss that ruling.


John William Bell: Mr. Chairman, will you allow me ? In this case the statement was not attributed to the hon. member for West Assiniboia, and although he denies it, he had no authority to deny it. It was attributed to the hon. Minister of Customs, and the hon. member for Assiniboia had no right whatever to deny it.


Peter Macdonald: I understood the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to have said that the hon. member for Assiniboia had made a certain statement and that that hon. gentleman had denied having made it.


Robert Laird Borden: No, it was the hon. Minister of Customs who made it.


Samuel Hughes: I understand the rule to be that when an hon. member in this House makes a statement concerning another hon. member but does not make that statement of his own personal knowledge, then he must accept the denial of the hon. member, and withdraw it. But when he makes a statement of his own knowledge concerning another hon. member, there is no rule to make him retract that statement.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Assiniboia was asked to lay on the Table the documents he had read, and he refused to do so. The point of order was raised, and the Chairman of the committee read the rule from the book. But I repeat that the hon. Minister of Customs turned in his place and said to the hon. gentleman :	' Lay
them on the Table.' I leave to the hon. Min-

ister of Customs to say whether that is correct or not.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: This is the biggest tempest in a teapot I have ever witnessed.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A discussion having arisen as to whether the hou. member was compelled to lay the papers upon the Table, it was pointed out that if a minister had quoted from a public document, he could be required to lay it upon the Table, but that this rule did not apply to a private member. I then turned around in my seat, and the bon. member for Assin-iboia said to me : ' I have no objection to give them the papers,' and then I said to him : ' Lay them on the Table.'


Richard Blain: In view of this statement will the hon. gentleman now apologize to the committee and to myself for having denied the statement I made that the Minister of Customs had turned to him and told him to lay the documents on the Table ? The hon. member for Assiniboia denied this, and said that the hon. Minister of Customs had done nothing of the kind. In the face of this contradiction by the Minister of Customs of the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, how can we believe anything which that hon. gentleman may say ? This document looks as if it had been mutilated, for here is the corner of a telegram which the hon. gentleman acknowledged having torn off. He made a charge against me in his place, and when called on by the Chairman to lay the documents on the Table, instead of complying with that order, as he should have done, he tears off a part of the document and now acknowledges having done so. However, I do not propose taking up any more of the time of the committee on this point. But the contention between the hon. gentleman and myself is this : He says that I travelled up and down the country producing a certain teapot and making certain statements at every meeting I attended in the west. I repeat that at no meeting, out of the forty-five held by the hon. leader of the opposition, was that teapot presented except at one, and I challenge the hon. gentleman, or any of his friends to gainsay that statement. The meeting I refer to was held at Morden, and it does look as if the hon. gentleman were a little worried about the German goods and the tariff. During the last few years he has been pointing out in his newspaper to the western people that this government should be supported because it introduced the preferential tariff, and the consumers in the west were getting great advantages from it. Now he applauds the government because it has given notice that it will abolish that preference, and the consumer in the west will no longer have the benefit of it in the case of these goods. To show how much the merchant knew whether 97*
i	*	[DOT]
these goods came in under the preferential tariff at a low or a high valuation, let me refer to what he said himself over Ms own signature. It was in Regina, I think, that I purchased the teapot in question.
I went into a store there and asked the clerk if he sold German goods. He said, yes, we have some, a package up stairs that are not yet opened. I asked him : will you be good enough to sell me an article from one of these packages, and he replied that of course he would. I went upstairs With him, and he opened one of the packages. The first article he took from the box was this teapot. I said :	* That will do,
come down stairs and I will pay you.' I went with him to the office and he produced the original invoice. I never made the statement that the invoice whs for $100, and the hon. gentleman has no right to say that I did. What I did was simply to give as an illustration the $100 item I mentioned, and not the amount of the invoice at all.
I think the invoice was for more than $300. To show how little these people know about how these goods come into this country, let us see what they say in their letter to the hon. gentleman, by which the hon. gentleman was going to prove that these goods did not come in under the preferential tariff at all. They say : 'We have nothing to do with the payment of duties whatever. We did not know what duty was to be paid.' The hon. gentleman has produced a declaration from a gentleman with . whom we had a good deal of trouble in the west, and perhaps he will be good enough to communicate this to that gentleman, either when he goes home or in his newspaper, or by letter, or .send him the telegram which he tore off this lot of papers, or a copy of it. Will he be good enough to inform this Mr. Trant-a government official forsooth, as well-that when private citizens are travelling through the west, he should not crowd himself into their private car and beat his way through as a newspaper reporter ? He is a newspaper man like the hon. gentleman himself, so he will know how this goes. Perhaps he was a writer for the hon. gentleman's own newspaper. Will the hon. gentleman say whether he wrote the report for his own newspaper ?


Thomas Walter Scott: He did not.


An hon. MEMBER.: He was too boozy.


Richard Blain: That is right-a very proper statement; but I am not making it. Now, this is a long letter, but there is nothing in it, and I regret that the time of the committee is taken up with the matter at all. What I say is that the Liberal-Conservative party contended in this House and in the country that the British preference, so-called, was not a British preference in fact, that it allowed German goods to come into Great Britain and, after a small amount of labour had been put upon them, very

often in the shape of labels and boxes, they were then shipped to Canada under the guise of British goods and allowed to come in under the preference of 33J per cent. The hon. leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, in addressing the House, made the statement that that traffic was actually going on. And I heard the Finance Minister in his place in this House say that this was a matter that should be investigated. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Customs was ready to stand up in his place in the House and deny the statement made by the hon. leader of the opposition. And that statement so made was not denied, I repeated in the west, and I repeat it here-that, so far as the British preference allowed German goods to come into this country, we were opposed to it. That is all that the Liberal-Conservative party said. The government declared that the preference was all right. But this year the Finance Minister stated in his place, and gave notice to the Canadian people, that German goods would be retaliated against, that this country could not allow these goods to come in except on the payment of twenty-five per cent higher duty than the general tariff. I do not think it is worth while to say anything further on the teapot question. I bought a razor out there. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) stated that, and it was so.


Thomas Walter Scott: I did not say so.


Richard Blain: Did not the hon. gentleman say so ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I read it.


Richard Blain: And is not the hon. gentleman responsible for what he reads ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Address the Chair.


Richard Blain: ' Address the Chair,' says the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt). Perhaps he will be good enough to address the Chair when he is interrupting me. What I say is that I purchased the razor referred to. It was made in Germany. Did the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) make the statement that they were not German goods? They were German goods ; the label was upon the article itself, both upon the teapot and upon the razor. This kind of goods brought in under the so-called British preference to compete with the Canadian goods. I have this to say-and it is more than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) can say witli reference to the tariff-that the Liberal-Conservative party has taken one stand upon the tariff question, and that we should have one policy, a national policy for the maintenance of Canadian interest, not to allow German goods to come in to compete with Canadian goods. We have taken that stand under our honoured leader in this House. And what we say inside this House we say outside of it. And, as a humble supporter of the Conservative party, I make Mr. BLAIN.
the same statement everywhere, and advocate the national policy everywhere. I am very glad to know that in the discussion that has taken place within the last few years the government has been converted, and that under its recent action these German goods will not have the opportunity of coming in except upon the payment of much higher than the ordinary duty.


Aaron Abel Wright: Before this tempest in a teapot is over I would like to say a few words on this subject of German goods. I have been an importer for twenty-five years, importing goods both from Germany and from Great Britain, and I think I can tell the House something about the procedure in the importation of these German goods. A traveller comes and takes our order for whatever German goods we want. He guarantees us prices delivered in Montreal, duty paid. The goods are packed in Germany and brought out in the original packages to Montreal. The invoice is made out and the goods are shipped to us. The duty is paid in Montreal-we have nothing to do with paying the duty. Let it be clearly understood that these goods are sent in the original packages and some direct from a German port, the packages being marked on the outside ' Made in Germany,' each package also bearing the name of the place of shipment. How, then, can they go over to England and there be repacked and be brought in here under the preference. It is utterly impossible for anything of that kind to be done. Besides, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) says these articles are all stamped with the maker's name, or with a ticket placed upon them * Made in Germany.' Take, for instance, a razor. Suppose it to be one of Bokers' razors-the name of the maker is stamped on the blade near the shank. How can that go over to England and have anything done to make it appear as a British product ?


Richard Blain: I will tell the hon. gentle man, as he does not know.


Aaron Abel Wright: I can tell the committee how it is not done. It is utterly impossible for the goods to go to England and then have anything done to them, and to be shipped here as British goods, because, as I say, not only are they stamped ' Made in Germany ' but they come here in the original packages and the name of the maker is stamped on every article-whether it be a razor, a pair of skates or practically anything else. The teapot to which the hon. gentleman referred, he tells us had a ticket on it with the words ' Made in Germany.' How is anybody to contend that goods thus stamped can be put forward as British goods ? This point came up last year, and some of these hon. gentlemen undertook to tell us in dollars and cents the amount of German goods that went into England, and were afterwards shipped here under the preference. The hon. member for East

Toronto (Mr. Kemp) gave the exact amount. But I brought him to task by asking him bow be knew. Let me quote from ' Hansard ' just wbat took place :


Aaron Abel Wright: How does the hon. gentleman ascertain the amount of goods imported from England that have been partially made in Germany ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am making an estimate.
Now, all this talk that goes on is estimate or is based on estimate. Why. any boy ten years old can make estimates, and I think that almost any boy could estimate a good deal better than the hon. member for East Toronto. It is utterly impossible that these goods shipped to us in the original German packages can come in as British goods.


Richard Blain: Let me explain just that one point. I asked the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) to be good enough to give us an explanation, but he has not done it. I would point out to the committee how this is done. First, the razor has a bone or ivory handle, chiefly a bone handle. Then is added to it a small quantity of steel; that bone and steel are both furnished in Germany. Then the article is made and shaped in Germany, and what my hon. friend refers to is' put on in Germany. After that is done, it represents three-fourths of the value of the article. The article is then shipped over into Sheffield and polished and boxed up, and sent into this country under the British preference. Is not that a German preference ? The bone, the handle, the steel, the shaping is all done in a foreign country, and then they come over and receive a little finishing in Great Britain, and after that is done, they are invoiced under this so-called British preference, and are permitted to come to this country under the guise of the preference as British goods, when there are three-fourths of them German-made.
Mr. "WRIGHT. I would ask how the hon. gentleman knows that that razor was ever in England at all ? It is impossible for him or any other man to tell that.


Thomas Walter Scott: The point made by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright) must be clear to every person, that is, that goods marked ' made in Germany ' brought to New York, from New York to the port of Montreal, and then taken up to the North-west Territories, certainly came under the general tariff. Now, where is the possibility or likelihood of fraud ? Does not the whole evidence trend the other way ? It is at least as good as proved that there was no fraud attempted, and that these German goods, a sample of which my hon. friend bought from the merchant at Regina marked ' made in Germany,' which came into the country in a large box, that box stamped in large letters ' made in Germany,' or ' German '-I say it is ns good as proved, at all events, that no fraud was attempted and that the proper rate of duty was paid.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell us what rate of duty was paid upon this invoice of three hundred odd dollars' worth of goods that were brought into a hardware store in his own town. Because he is attempting to enlighten the committee upon this question, perhaps he would be good enough to tell us what rate of duty was paid upon them, and whether they went to Great Britain or not 5


Thomas Walter Scott: I am not able to tell that.


Richard Blain: I thought not.


Thomas Walter Scott: The merchant was not able to tell me, and the editor of the Morden ' Chronicle ' swears to the accuracy of his report, stating that my hon. friend said the Regina merchant told him what the merchant says he did not know and did not tell.


Aaron Abel Wright: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if that letter does not say distinctly that these goods came to Regina in the original package, and that the words ' from Germany ' were on the outside of the package ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: Then it would be impossible for any collector of customs to pass these goods.


Thomas Walter Scott: Practically impossible. Therefore the argument of the hon. member for Peel had no point. Notwithstanding the various reports that appeared in the Northwest newspapers, notwithstanding the statements made by my hon. friend as appears by this statutory declaration, it is plain that the goods came in under the general rate of duty. I do not know the rate of duty, but I would like to know it, and I will give the information to the Minister of Customs, which may enable him to know. The goods came in seven cases, numbered from 4364 to 4370. They were received at Regina on September 2. The Minister of Customs should take a note of this. The invoice was made out by Stransky & Company, New York. The goods were sold to Smith & Ferguson, Limited, Regina, on August 8, 1902. Perhaps before the end of the session the Minister of Customs will get us the information, and we will have the question definitely settled. Now I want to make a reference to my conduct with regard to this affidavit. My hon. friend repeated several times, in face of my specific statement to the contrary, that I refused to give the documents to the House.


Richard Blain: So you did.


Thomas Walter Scott: I say here again that I did not refuse to give the documents to the House.


Richard Blain: I leave it to the judgment of the House.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend stated that the Minister of Customs turned to me, or directed me, to pass these documents over

to my hon. friend, and X said he was mistaken. Now, I will repeat exactly what did occur. When I sat down, after reading the documents, an hon. gentleman on the other side got up and commenced making a statement. After he had said a few words he called attention to the fact that these documents ought to be given to the House. The question of order arose as to whether I should be compelled to give them to the House, and certainly I did sit back for a little while wondering what would happen. I am a new member of the House, and am not well acquainted with the rules. But I understood the Minister of Customs to say to me, in turning towards me, either ' you do not need to ' or 'you had better not,' or something to that effect.


Richard Blain: I rise to a point of order.


Peter Macdonald: You claimed the protection of the Chair when he was interrupting you, now let the member for Assiniboia go on.


Richard Blain: Then I suppose we will have the same rule applied to both sides of the House ?


Peter Macdonald: State your point of order.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understood the Minister of Customs to advise me not to give the document to the House.


Richard Blain: I rise to a point of order. When I understood the Minister of Customs to call upon the hon. gentleman to lay the documents on the Table, was that correct 1


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: That is not a point of order, that is a question of fact.


Thomas Walter Scott: As I was saying, the Minister of Customs turned round and said something to me, advising me, as I understood, not to give the documents to the House. The point of order was discussed for several minutes, and after awhile I arrived at the conclusion myself that, no matter how the point of order was determined, I would give my hon. friends the privilege of reading the documents. I then called across to the Minister of Customs and said 11 have no objection,' or something to that effect, meaning that I would prefer to give them to the House. I say now that I did not refuse to give these documents to the House. My hon. friend says I ought to apologize for this, he says I had insinuated or had contradicted the Minister of Customs. Certainly I did no such thing, and there is no call for me to make an apology in that regard. But I do think that after my hon. friend has slept over this matter himself he will arrive at the conclusion that an apology is due from him to the people of the North-west Territories, at least to the people at Morden, where he addressed that meeting and told the people that a Regina merchant had informed him so and Mr. SCOTT.
so with respect to this dutiable article, when it has now been proved that the Regina merchant told him no such thing.


John William Bell: We now see the consequence of allowing a mode of controverting a statement made by a member of this House by introducing outside evidence, which, we are informed, it is your duty to prevent.


Thomas Walter Scott: I was interrupted by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell).


John William Bell: I would like to have the ruling of the Chair.


Peter Macdonald: The ruling from the Chair is this : When a charge is made against any hon. member of having said anything, if he gets up in his place and says that he did not make such a statement the hon. member who makes the charge is bound to accept that, and to allow the matter to drop without argument. That is the rule.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, I will wait.until the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) takes this course.


Richard Blain: Takes what course ? I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: Mr. Chairman


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand that


Jabel Robinson: Mr. Chairman


Thomas Walter Scott: I am certainly willing to follow the course which has been indicated as being the proper one to follow, but the hon. member for Peel has not denied the statement made in this House that he stated to the people of Morden that a Regina merchant told him so and so. He has not made any denial that he made such a statement.


John William Bell: That is precisely what the hon. member for Peel has said, and now the hon. member for West Assiniboia is going on for the second time to introduce into this House evidence derived from parties outside of this House to controvert what the hon. member for Peel has said. He is entirely out of order, and lie has been ruled out of order on two occasions.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have not understood it so.


Peter Macdonald: Let me state it again. If an hon. gentleman charges another hon. member with having said this, that, or the other thing, on a certain occasion, and if the hon. member says that he did not say that which is charged, then, the hon. gentleman making the statement must accept that from the hon. gentleman who denies it, and the debate then and there ceases on the subject.


Thomas Walter Scott: I quite understand that. What I was pointing out was that the hon. member for Peel had not denied it, and therefore, I was not called upon to say

anything further on that phase of the subject. Just a word about the question of preferential duties. Many hon. gentlemen -whether the hon. member for Peel did so or not-have gone up and down the country and throughout the length and breadth of the North-west Territories condemning the British preference largely because a merchant in Regina had told the hon. member for Peel that he had brought in certain German goods that had got the advantage of the British preference. I have proved to-night, and I think the proof has been submitted to this committee that the hon. member for Peel was mistaken in regard to that. I believe that all my hon. friends on the other side of the House are just as much mistaken in a great many of the assertions and very much of the condemnation they make on the subject of the British preference.


Jabel Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I am about to pour some oil on the troubled waters. I ask you, Sir, to bring this committee back to the question under discussion. We have not had the question before the chair discussed within the last hour. That is my opinion ; of course, I may not be right, but I think I am right. It is your duty, Sir, to see that personalities are net discussed in this House. I regret to say that we have had nothing but persoualities since the committee resumed after recess, and that the debate has taken this form not only to-day, but yesterday as well. It appears to me that this House is getting to be a beer garden, or is getting as near to it as it	possible for it to get; in fact it
hasa^h a tempest about a teapot. It is about time that we discussed the questions that come before the House in a proper manner. Yesterday we washed all the dirty linen from Montreal and Quebec, and today we have to wash the dirty linen that comes from the North-west Territories and Manitoba.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is costing $28 a minute.


Jabel Robinson: We have had the razor question discussed, and some hou. gentlemen who are participating in this discussion look as though they never saw a razor. They might have been right on that matter, but whether they are right or not, I am sure they are not right in introducing personalities in this House. Therefore, I call upon you as chairman of this committee, to confine the debate to the question before the Chair, and not to permit personalities to be indulged in. I hope that the time of the House will not be further wasted in the way in which it has been wasted during the last two days.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish, of course, to allude to what has passed, further than to state that there has been a misapprehension,
and I simply allude to it because I do not think any hon. gentleman desires to put any other hon. gentleman in a wrong position. As far as I understand the matter, the hon. member for Peel states that he heard me saying to the hon. member for West Assiniboia to lay the papers on the Table. He heard me saying that, he said, and he judged from that that there had been a reluctance on the part of my hon. friend to do that.


Richard Blain: No, no.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will explain how that happened. Prior to that, when the discussion was going on as to what was incumbent upon a private member, I had said to my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) : You are not compelled to hand the papers to the hon. gentleman. Then, there was a little rest, and my hon. friend, speaking to me, said :	I have no objection to giving the
papers out. Then I said:	You can lay
them on the Table. That is why the hon. member for Peel, hearing that from me alone, and not hearing what my hon. friend had said to me, thought that it was through some instructions to him and not through any willingness on his part that he did it. I simply mention that.


Richard Blain: I wish to tell the hon. minister that that was not my understanding of it at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In view of the fact that it was through no unwillingness on his part, I thought it was only right that I should say that it was in view of his statement to me : ' I have no objection,' or words to that effect, to give them the papers, that I said :	Then you can lay
them on the Table.


Richard Blain: I am sure the hon. minister would not wish to misquote me.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


Richard Blain: Will you allow me to say this ? I called to the Chair and said: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) lay the papers on the Table, or send them across the floor of the House to me-and he refused to do it.


Thomas Walter Scott: No, no.


Richard Blain: Well there was a chorus of 'don't do it' from the other side of the House.


Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: That does not prove that he refused to do it.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) wished to make it appear that he was always willing to lay the papers on the Table of the House. It was because he was unwilling that the question came up for discussion at all. I made the statement that we were to thank the hon. Minister of Customs for the papers being laid on the Table, because he turned around and said

to the hon. member for Assinibola :	' Lay
them on the Table.' When the hon. member for West Assinibola got up he said that the hon. Minister of Customs did not make any such statement to him at all.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: That is just where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) is mistaken in what passed between us. But we come now to the question which is an important question, as to the introduction of goods under the preferential tariff. The committee will understand, and business men especially will understand, that it is a very difficult matter under the preferential arrangement to prevent frauds being perpetrated in the bringing in of goods. But I think the House will agree that there is a great deal said in reference to this, that, when it is traced out, as we have had to trace it out in many cases, is found to be without substantial foundation. Without any offence to the hon. member for Peel, let me point out just in this case ; I have no doubt that he thought that the German article which he exhibited came in under the preferential tariff, and that it had been manufactured in Germany.


Richard Blain: I made no such statement. What I said was that it was a sample of German goods such as were coming into this country under the guise of the British preference.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understood that it had been made as an illustration of an article that had come in under the British preference.


Richard Blain: I never made such a statement.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I thought the reason that it was exhibited was that it was an illustration that that article had come in under the preferential tariff. I do not say that no articles come in, but this article could not have come in, in such a way. If the statement of the merchant is true that it came from New York in an iron bound case to the port of Montreal where we have our sharp appraisers, then it could not come in except under the general tariff. I will examine into it, but I feel positive that that article could have come in in no other way than under the general tariff.
I cannot conceive it possible that in a port like Montreal these goods could have come in an iron bound ease with * Germany ' stamped on it, and the goods themselves being stamped ' German,' and passed our appraisers there. I am not arguing that there are no goods that so come in. We require the exporter to declare that he is a member of the firm or one who is cognizant of the facts to which he subscribes, and we have not been able to find many houses that would be so careless of their reputation as to make a false declaration.


Richard Blain: Has the minister found any goods coming in in the manner in which he Mr. BLAIN.
has described that it was possible for them to come in ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think that there have been cases before the department where the question arose as to whether there was the amount of British labour upon the goods that entitled them to the preference, but I have not in mind now any case where such goods came in. I can say that there were no goods solely of German manufacture that came in under the preference.


Richard Blain: I never said that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Nor any that were below the limit. There may have been differences of opinion as to certain goods, but there have been exceedingly few cases. If they were below the limit and we knew it we would put on the full duty. Now the German surtax does not affect the preference at all. It only does this : that now, if German goods have 50 per cent of the value created in Germany they not only pay the general tariff but they pay the surtax on top of the general tariff. If there are any members of the committee who are able to give me the benefit of their experience as to any further precautions that can be taken in the regulations under the preferential tariff I will be only too glad to hear them.


Albert Edward Kemp: These declarations are not what we understand in this country as declarations having the effect of an oath.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No; they are not affidavits. At the commencement of the preferential tariff we requn^ikhot affidavits should be made, but the^^Tjre a great many complaints. In England they cannot go to a justice of the peace and make an affidavit free of charge as we do here ; they have to go to certain parties who charge them three shillings for each affidavit. That seemed to be a tax upon them, and the department came to the conclusion that if a firm would make a false written declaration over their own hand, they would not hesitate to make a false affidavit and therefore we facilitated business by accepting these declarations.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I wish to say a few words in connection with the discussion which has been sprung upon the committee without any notice having been given to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). I can assure the hon. gentleman from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) that I shall avoid indulging in personalities, for I hold that personalities should never be heard in this House ; but I certainly think that my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has reason to complain that when affidavits were to be introduced attacking his truthfulness no notice was given to him by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). When the hon. member for Assiniboia knew he was going to raise such a question in the committee, it

was due to the hon. member for Peel that he should have been notified. It would also be conducive to the better conduct of debates, if when documents are presented to the House all the documents in connection with the matter under discussion should be laid before us. My hon. friend from Peel has declared that there was a telegram connected with these papers which was torn off before they were sent across the floor of the House.


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I am wrong in that I shall be glad to be corrected.


Thomas Walter Scott: The telegram was certainly torn off before the papers were sent across the floor of this House, but it was really torn off three or four weeks ago. It was either a copy of a telegram from me to Mr. McCuish, of Morden or from Mr. McCuish to myself, and it had no bearing on the matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have no hesitation in accepting the statement of the hon. gentleman, but I must say that these documents bear indubitable evidence in themselves that they are not complete. If an hon. gentleman reads letters in this House in reply to letters sent by him, and if he expects them to receive the credence of honourable men, it is only reasonable to ask that the letters to which these are replies should be included in the correspondence. After all, what statements are contained in these affidavits that cast the slightest discredit upon the accuracy of the assertions made by the hon. member for Peel ? I will not refer to Mr. Trant because the member for Peel has dealt with him, but let us see what are his declarations. The first three paragraphs refer to his attending certain meetings, which are not important to the issue, and then he goes on to declare :
4.	That at each and every of the three meetings mentioned in the paragraph next immediately preceding, the said Mr. Blain said that the British preference then existing was used by manufacturers in Germany to send their goods to Canada as British goods and so defraud the revenue of the Dominion of Canada, and further, he, the said Richard Blain, explained that the said object was attained by the said manufacturers in Germany first having the said goods shipped to England and thence re-shipped to Canada as British goods entitled to the preference given such goods by the law of Canada.
5.	And I believe particularly that at the aforesaid meeting held at Qu'Appelle on the said 27th day of September, A.D. 1902, the said Richard Blain produced a razor which he said he had bought at Regina in the said Territories the day before, and which he said was a razor of German manufacture and had been imported into Canada under the British preference in the manner described in the paragraph next immediately preceding.
6.	And I further say particularly that at the aforesaid meeting held in the evening of the 30th day of September, in the year 1902 at Wa-pella, the said Richard Blain said he had
bought a teapot in Regina that had been made in Germany and that the merchant who had sold him, the said Blain, the said teapot, or the assistant to the said merchant, had at the request of the said Richard Blain shown him the invoice of the goods of which the said teapot formed a part and that the said invoice was as if for goods that were shipped from England and had received the benefit of the British preference.
What does my hou. friend hope to make by reading an affidavit of that kind to the committee ? How does it asperse the character of my hon. friend from Peel for truthfulness, or affect the statements made by him or by others on this side of the House respecting the British preference, and its operation in the past in securing a preference for German goods ? The statement made in this affidavit is quite consistent with what has been said on this side of the House, and reflects accurately what the hon. member for Peel has said here and elsewhere, and what he has stated to-night. The statement is a fact that can be corroborated.


Richard Blain: It is not denied by the minister.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will the hon. gentleman take now the answer to his question ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Well, what is it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The reason I read this affidavit was that the hon. member for Peel said, in answer to a statement which I had already made, that he had only brought up this subject at one point.


Richard Blain: I never made such a statement.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is what I understood the hon. gentleman to say.


Richard Blain: What I said was this, that I exhibited a teapot at one meeting only, and that was at Morden.


Thomas Walter Scott: That was a second statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I may be particularly obtuse, but I certainly cannot appreciate what point has been made by the hon. member, for Western Assiniboia by reading this affidavit.


Thomas Walter Scott: The affidavit showed that the subject was discussed at more than one meeting.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is not denied. I had occasion to discuss the British preference on many occasions during my trip in the west.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Did you have a teapot ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I left the teapot witli the hon. member for West Assiniboia and the hon. member for Peel. The hou. gentleman brings into the discussion this affidavit, which does not amount in value, so far as the matter of the teapot is concerned, to the

[DOT]worth of the paper on which it is written, and this other affidavit made by Mr. Mc-Cuish, which I have not been able to read. Then, attached to these documents is a letter from the Smith & Ferguson Company, Limited, hardware merchants, of Regina, signed hy .T. W. Smith, the president of the company. On the second page of the letter is this statement, to which I draw the attention of the committee :
I note also that, as you pointed out, a portion of the press makes the charge that the Regina firm from whom Mr. Blain bought the teapot has been guilty of defrauding the customs, inasmuch as the benefit of the preference could not have been obtained upon such an importation without the making of a false declaration.
I appeal to my hon. friend if it accords with the measure of fair play which he would expect to have dealt out to himself to suggest to this gentleman that a portion of the press had made allegations reflecting upon my hon. friend, without giving the statements made by other portions of the press ? Why should he make suggestions to the gentleman who wrote the letter ?


Thomas Walter Scott: They were true suggestions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend from Peel has denied them again and again, and surely my hon. friend from West Assiniboia will not repeat them after that denial ? I heard the statements made by my hon. friend from Peel, and there is not a particle of truth in the suggestion that he charged the firm at Regina with fraud.


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I do not think anything in thnt letter indicates that the hon. member for Peel charged the firm with fraud. What the letter indicates is that there were certain charges made in a portion of the press against the firm, based on the statement made by the hon. member for Peel.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend bases the whole of his argument on the letter which he got from the Messrs. Smith & Ferguson, of Regina, referring to statements made in certain portions of the press and for which he wants to hold the hon. member for Peel responsible. I am sure that in his calm moments he will not regard that as a very strong argument to press against my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman, if he wanted to make this file complete, should have included in it a copy of the letter to which this is a reply. I am sure that if he had written to the members of the firm for the letter, they would willingly have sent it back. In their letter they say :
The fact is, however, that if the fraud were committed, it was not committed by our firm, as the duty upon the consignment of which the teapot was a part was not paid by us at Regina, but was paid by the brokers from whom we purchased this consignment at Montreal.
Now, I do not know' that there is much more for me to say about this matter. I Mr. CLARKE.
am sorry I cannot read the affidavit of Mr. McCuisli; but I have no doubt the hon. member for Assiniboia read it correctly. Now% the hon. Minister of Customs made a statement with regard to this matter which I think w'ill bear investigation. He said that goods manufactured in Germany could not come in under the British preference, unless they wrere enhanced in value to the extent of 25 per cent by British labour. 1-Ie also said it was impossible for these goods to come direct to the port of Montreal and get the advantage of the British preference if they were shipped in the original packages. Where does the hon. minister get his authority for these statements 1 Let me read a paragraph from the circular issued by his department defining and interpreting this regulation, to the customs collectors at Regina, at Winnipeg, at Toronto, and everywhere else throughout the Dominion :
In estimating the labour of the United Kingdom entering into the production of articles manufactured therein partly from imported material, the extent of such labour may be reckoned by the value of the manufactured article ready for shipment at the place of production after deducting therefrom the value on entering within the limits of the United Kingdom, represented hy the component parts of such articles which are the produce of countries not entitled to the benefits of the preferential tariff.
What does that mean ? It means exactly the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Peel and by others on this side of the House, that the profits of the importer can be added to the value of the goods brought in from Germany, and these profits are to be accounted and reckoned as British labour. There is no reason why these packages to which the hon. member referred, if imported into England and valued at $800 should not have been exported thence to Canada at a value of $1,000, and come in under the British preference *, and if that be the case, my hon. friend is vindicated in every statement he made. I took the liberty last year of drawing the attention of the hon. Minister of Customs to a statement made hy one of the most influential papers published in the United Kingdom, describing the way Canada w'as being robbed under this preferential clause, and I shall again quote that statement for the information of the hon. member for West Assiniboia :
How Foreigners Rob Canada.
Since Canada granted a preference tariff to Britain, tons upon tons of German and foreign textiles have been brought over to England and reshipped to Canada after the so called process of ' finishing.'
My hon. friend from Peel has explained how this is done.
In order that they may be classed as goods partly of British manufacture. In some cases this ' finishing1 in England consists simply in taking off the German and French or Austrian labels, doing the goods up again and then giv-

ing them a British name or label. There is not a branch of trade in which this stj-le of smuggling is carried on to the extent that it is in the textile trade.
Has any hon. gentleman any doubt as to what that means ? Will any one hesitate putting faith in that statement which I have taken from one of the most influential papers published in the United Kingdom, the Belfast * News ' ? If the hon. member for Assiniboia has any doubts, he can look up the files of that newspaper and see for himself whether I have not quoted exactly what it said. That statement may be further proven by the circular letter which the hon. Minister of Customs issued to his officers throughout all the customs districts, instructing them how they are to interpret this preference. That being the case, can there be any doubt entertained by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the effect of this preference, and is not my hon. friend from Peel amply sustained in every statement he made with reference to its operation, at every meeting which he had the pleasure and the privilege of addressing in Manitoba and the North-west? My hon. friend from Assiniboia has been always a great stickler for this British preference and has continually appealed to the people of the west to support the government because it had reduced the cost of the goods which they consumed which were imported under this clause of our tariff. Yet, as my hon. friend from Peel pointed out in the course of a recent debate, the hon. member for Assiniboia had not a word to say when the government introduced the surtax, which cannot fail to destroy the effect of this preference on the large importations of goods brought into England from Germany and thence exported into Canada. As the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Finance well know, that is what the surtax will do. What are the provisions of this surtax :
Articles which are the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country which treats imports from Canada less favourably than those from other countries may be subject to a surtax over and above the duties of schedule A, such surtax in every case to be one-third of the duty as fixed by such schedule A.
Such surtax shall apply to any article, the chief value of which was produced in such foreign country, although it may have been improved or advanced in value by the labour of another country, notwithstanding the provisions of the British preferential tariff and regulations thereunder.
What is the effect of this enactment ? I will let the bon. Minister of Finance answer that question. Two years ago, I asked the government its intention in regard to barring out goods partly manufactured in Germany, or manufactured from raw materials grown or produced in Germany, from the advantage of the British preference clause, and the Minister of Finance replied :
In answer to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) I beg to say : No. Such provision would practically destroy the British preference inasmuch as British manufactures are largely produced from foreign raw materials.
I do not intend to take up the time of the committee at greater length. I congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia on any political capital or advantage he has gained from this discussion, and the hon. gentleman who is leading the House (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. Minister of Customs on this additional evidence of their desire to transact, as expeditiously as possible, the business before parliament.


Jlr. CLANCY.: As the bon. member for West Assiniboia has spoken to-night with regard to the preferential tariff and bow it works, I wish now to call the attention of my bon. friend the Minister of Customs to the fact that the customs regulations make it possible for goods to be imported Id Canada under the preference, which were finished in England, without any regard as to what value had beeu added to these goods by the finishing process. I would call the attention of the minister to bis own regulations-and to the manner in which they have been carried out. Here is the affidavit to be made both by the importer and the exporter.
That the said goods are properly described in the said invoice ; that there is included as specified in the said invoice the true value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes and coverings of any kind and all charges and expenses incident to placing said goods in condition packed ready for shipment to Canada.
What does that mean ? It means that the values of all cases, coverings, crates, &c., on which there is not duty at all, may be Included in the value. It means that the labelling of the goods and everything else, whether meaningless or not, whether It adds to the value or not, may be included in order to give the appearance of twenty-five per cent of British work having been added, and thus entitle the goods to come in under the preference. The ingenuity of the trade will always take advantage of that, and I have no hesitation in saying that these regulations are open to the greatest possibilities of fraud on the revenue. I do not propose at this stage to continue the discussion and would not have said anything if the bon. Minister of Customs had not made some references himself to this point.


John Graham Haggart: As there has been oil poured on the troubled waters, I propose now to move that the committee do rise, in order that I may discuss the ru'ing which you, Mr. Chairman, made a short time ago with reference to my right of appeal from your ruling to the Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General,

who is a lawyer and an old member of this House, and also-and especially-the attention of the Finance Minister, to this point.
I said that in all cases there was an appeal from the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to the House. I was ruled out of order by you, Sir, and you quoted in support of your ruling clause 70 of the Orders of the House :
Questions of order arising in the Committee of the Whole House shall be decided by the Chairman, subject to an appeal to the House.
I, unfortunately, said that the appeal was to the Speaker. I had seen it a dozen times in this House, yea, twenty times, when the Chairman's ruling was objected to, the Chairman, perhaps, as on the present occasion, may have been at dinner, but he was called instantly from dinner and brought into the House for the purpose of deciding the question. I was overruled by you in the Chair, and you decided that there was no appeal to the Speaker in the Chair. I would like to know what the meaning of the rule is ' subject to the appeal of the House ? ' Does not the House mean the House sitting with the Speaker in the Chair ? In confirmation of my interpretation of the point, let me draw to your attention the authority whom you quoted to prove that my contention was entirely wrong, and you will see that the quotation I make applies exactly to the question now under debate:
Questions of order arising in Committee of the Whole House shall be decided by the Chairman subject to appeal to the House, but disorder in the committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof.
Now, writing in reference to that rule, Bourinot says :
The first case of appeal to the House under this rule occurred in the session of 1885, but it has its grave inconveniences, since the House is called upon suddenly and without debate to decide a question of order which many of its members may not have heard discussed in committee and the result is, in the majority of cases, a political vote. Under all the circumstances the committee should hesitate before resorting to such an extreme measure. In such a case, it is for the Chairman of the committee to report in writing the point of order which he has decided, and the Speaker must then submit the matter to^the House in the language reported to him, and put the question, ' That the decision of the Chairman be confirmed.'
And be goes on :
If it be found expedient in either House to refer a point of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the Chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question. The House will then proceed to take the matter into consideration, and the Speaker having been requested to give his opinion will decide the matter in dispute ; then unless there is an appeal to the House against the Speaker's decision, the committee will resume its proceedings.


John Graham Haggart: Now, I wisli to draw your attention, again Mr. Chairman, to my interpretation of the rules of the House, supported by Bouri-not's remarks upou the procedure ; and I have no doubt that, upou further consideration of the question, and, after consultation with the Speaker, if you will be kind enough to ask his opinion, there will be no occasion for an lion, member again to be overruled in this committee on this point, for I think that the authority I have given clearly confirms my view and establishes it as the correct one in the premises. As this is a question of privilege, and a grave one, I would like to hear the government's opinion upon it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I thought my hon. friend from South Lanark had accepted the suggestion that, as we had passed from the point then in discussion and taken up other matters, this question should be left in abeyance. He is aware that it is too late to make a formal appeal, because nless it is taken at the moment that the question arises, we are likely to be confused as to the precise point. I confess that, at the moment, with other matters that have been discussed, I have some difficulty in appreciating exactly what was the point which arose. At all events, he could not now take appeal against the decision. I think his own suggestion is a good one, that you, Mr. Chairman, might look into the matter and consider the point more at your leisure.


Robert Laird Borden: This, I understand, is not brought forward for the purpose of making a formal appeal. But, as I understand you, Mr. Chairman, your decision was that in such a case as arose, the appeal was to the committee. Of course, we do not expect any chairman to be infallible in giving decisions, as he is called upou to give them, at short notice. But I think it is perfectly proper and highly judicious for the hon. member for South Lanark to call the attention of the Chairman to the rule and its interpretation showing that the appeal in such a case is, apparently, not to the committee, ns I understood you to say, but to the House, the Speaker being called for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As 1 understood the point under discussion with the hon. member for South Lanark, it was as to whether the Speaker was bound to give an opinion. It would appear that, under the rule, the Speaker would decide nothing himself but would submit the case to the House.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. minister's pardon, the Speaker decides the point, and then if necessary, there is an appeal to the House.


Peter Macdonald: My view of the rule is just as I put it and that is my view of the rule still-that the Speaker does

not decide the question, but that the appeal is to the House.


John William Bell: How can the Chairman hold that opinion in view of the rule that the hon. member for Soutli Lanark has just read ? It is an appeal to the House, but the House is not constituted until the Speaker is in the Chair.	[DOT]


Peter Macdonald: The rule says :
Questions of order arising in Committee of the Whole House shall be decided by the Chairman, subject to an appeal to the House.
I would understand that to be an appeal not to the Speaker, but to the House, the Speaker putting the question to the House as it has been conveyed to him. I think my interpretation is perfectly correct.


John Graham Haggart: I trust, Mr. Chairman, you will take the matter into consideration and will consult the Speaker. And, perhaps, at a later day, you may revise your opinion.


Peter Macdonald: I am not of opinion that my interpretation is wrong.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, well, you are altogether wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that the rule you laid down, perhaps inadvertently, was that the appeal was to the committee. It seems quite apparent, from the rule and the interpretation by Bourinot, that the appeal is to the House constituted by the Speaker taking the Chair.


John Graham Haggart: I withdraw the motion that the committee rise.


Peter Macdonald: We can get a decision again. I am perfectly satisfied, on looking into it that my decision is in accordance with the rule.
Shall this item be adopted ?


Robert Laird Borden: What item, Mr. Chairman ?
Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER. Now, I want the committee to rule just here. When the committee decided to consider this matter item by item, did they intend that I was to keep the speakers to the consideration of the question in each item ? The committee fails to support me when I try to keep the discussion within the proper limits. Now, I want to know just here if it is the will of the committee to discuss each of these items separately ? If that be so, then the speeches must relate to each one separately. If it is understood by the committee that there is to be a general discussion upon the whole Bill, then I will know what to expect.


John Graham Haggart: The opinion of the committee should not govern you at all, Mr. Chairman. The rules of the House and the proceedings laid down in such cases should
be your guide. Never mind what the opinion of the committee is, because it would be impossible to know what it was at every moment.


Peter Macdonald: 1 must differ with my hon. friend there, because the rules say that when a resolution consists of a number of items, it is for the committee to decide whether the resolution shall be discussed as a whole or item by item. But. if the committee decide to discuss the resolution item by item, then they are to be restrained from going outside the particular item under discussion.


John Graham Haggart: The direction is positive that whether the resolution is discussed item by item or in the whole, the Chairman must be guided by the rules of the House of Commons, independent of the feeling of the committee of the moment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We had better keep the discussion to each item.


Peter Macdonald: We are on item No. 2, about the composition of the board.


John William Bell: I presume a Bill wall be found upon this resolution ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John William Bell: Unless the government are prepared to communicate their intention, to say what they mean by making a change in the composition of the board of customs, which is a difficult thing for them to do in the absence of a Bill, I do not see that we could discuss this section at the present time.


James Clancy: Before we assent to the resolution, we should understand what they mean. I think the Minister of Customs should now explain why he is seeking this cha nge.


The MINISTER OE CUSTOMS.: The intention is that the board of customs shall comprise in the future the commissioner of customs as chairman, and such other officers in the service as shall be designated or appointed by Order in Council. At present the board has upon it members from Vancouver to Halifax, and it is not convenient to summon them at all times when it may be desirable to have a meeting. It is really to get over that difficulty as much as anything else, that we propose this change. The powers of the board will be the same as before. Many members of the present board will, no doubt, continue to act in that capacity.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who are the members of the board in Montreal?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Brossard is one, the hardware appraiser, Mr. Douglas, is one, and Mr. Andrews. Mr. Thompson, of Hamilton, is on it. the hardware appraiser in Toronto is on it. These

gentlemen generally attend here. I do not know that we would call the appraisers from Vancouver or Halifax. In a'dditiou to those I have mentioned, are Mr. McMichael, the chief inspector, Mr. Breaduer, of the inside department, and Mr. Woods, another gentleman in the department.


John William Bell: What are the duties of the assistant commissioner of customs to be ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is stated in the Bill that he shall perform such duties as the Governor in Council aud the minister may assign to him. Of course he will take the position of chairman, if the commissioner of customs is absent.


John William Bell: Is it the intention of the department to divide up the duties of the commissioner and to allot a portion of them to the assistant commissioner, or is he rather to be regarded as deputy of the commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He will only be an assistant. The commissioner will be the deputy head of the department. The assistant commissioner will only be an assistant to the commissioner.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What salary will he have 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am asking the House for $2,800. The commissioner gets $3,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Three or four days ago I got a letter complaining of the way in which duties are collected on salt. I was given to understand that the amendments are not followed in Hamilton as they are in Montreal. If I remember right, I was told that in some ports they charge a duty on the bags and not in other ports. Would that matter fall under the control of the board ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That would be a matter for the department to arrange, we should attend to that ourselves. There are complaints once in a while, aud . they are always looked into and rectified. We have to have a uniform rule. If it is stated at any port that they do not understand a rule in the same way as at other ports, a ruling goes out from the department to make the custom uniform. If a new article of commerce comes in which is not specifically mentioned in the tariff, and there is a question under what head it comes, then the board gives a decision. As I said before, when they arrive at a decision it is submitted to the minister, and when the minister signs it it has the force of law, except that there is an appeal to the Governor in Council.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Is not the minister mistaken in regard to the salary of the commissioner of customs ? I understood it was only $2,800.


William Paterson: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It was $2,800, then he got $800 as chairman of the board of customs. In the east this year I did not think it desirable to have it divided and I think the committee have already endorsed the recommendation that ft be fixed at $3,600, the same as it has been in the past only it was put under two different heads. I saw no reason for that. I thought it looked better and that the commissioner was worthy of having his salary stated at $3,600. I am free to confess he is a cheap man at that money.


James Clancy: When the item in regard to the assistant commissioner was run through the committee I think the hon. minister then stated that in many instances he would take the place of the commissioner. In such a case does the assistant commissioner receive anything above the salary voted to him as chairman of the board of customs when he acts as such ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, it would be an exceptional circumstance that we should call a meeting of the board of customs during the absence of the commissioner. I do not recall anything that would occur to lead us to call a meeting of the board of customs when the commissioner of customs was away. I should want the commissioner to be there because it is important, and if he did preside he would not get any extra salary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In answer to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) I understood the hon. Minister of Customs to say that the work of the assistant commissioner would be confined to performing the duties of the commissioner in his absence and of assisting him generally. If that is his duty it seems to me that the salary of $2,800 is rather a heavy salary to pay such an officer as that. It seems to me that for a much smaller amount you could get a man whose duties are simply those of a deputy.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That amount was determined upon because when, a few years ago, we had an assistant commissioner, that was the salary that was paid. When you remember that at some of our ports the collectors get $4,000, that the commissioner who is over the whole Dominion gets only $3,600, and that the assistant commissioner, who, in his absence will have to do his work, gets only $2,800, it will be seen that their salaries are not excessive.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A collector has large financial responsibility.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The collector for the port of Lunenburg does not get the salary mentioned by the hon. minister. He is doing more work than any collector in the province of Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, he does not get $4,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The salary is so small that the man can hardly manage to live, and he is doing more work than any two, or three other collectors in the province.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Perhaps it should be increased.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: We are asking the hon. minister if he will not increase this collector's salary.
On section 3,


William Rees Brock: In employing temporary officers in the customs do they pass a civil service examination ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Not necessarily. If they become permanent officers they would have to pass the civil service examination save and except in one position; that is that of preventive officer, which is not required under the law.


William Rees Brock: If, in view of the enormous business which is being done in the customs' houses all over the country, it is necessary at all to employ a man or men I think it would be necessary to employ them permanently. I think these temporary officers are expensive and inefficient, and that by the time they become efficient they get other employment, whereas, if you required them to pass a civil service examination and put them on the permanent list you would be much more likely to get good men.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock). We have what are called temporary officers who have been eight, twelve or fifteen years in the employment of the department and I would like to have them all on the permanent list if they could pass the qualifying examination. But, they are men who are up in years, who were appointed many years ago, and who could not pass the civil service examination. They could have passed) it when they first left school. I have no doubt but they would hesitate to undertake it now and for that reason they are retained as temporary officers. In some cases we have appointed them to the only position we could without their passing the civil service examination, and that is to the position of preventive officer-but we like them to pass the examination in every ease when they can.


William Ross: There is one point I want to explain and it is that no officer over thirty-five years of age can apply for examination under the Act. He must be thirty-five years of age.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is in the inside service.


James Clancy: How many temporary officers has the hon. gentleman ? He seems
to be asking for authority to appoint temporary officers. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has in the service what may be termed temporary officers.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is in the outside service.


James Clancy: I quite understand that. In the outside service no examination is passed by persons who may be collectors or preventive officers. The hon. gentleman does not exact of those whom he makes collectors of customs that they shall pass an examination. I am not finding fault with the character of those who have been appointed, I believe they are efficient officers, but there are men of advanced years who could not pass the examination. In fact I believe it has not been the rule.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Collectors of customs have not under the law to pass the civil service examination.


James Clancy: Nor preventive officers ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Nor preventive officers. Appraisers pass a technical examination. You can understand that a man who has to value goods must undergo a technical examination, which takes place under forms set by the commissioner of customs. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman* how many temporary officers we have, but we have a very large number in different places and some of them have been ten or twelve years or more in the service.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman wants authority to make them permanent officers in the outside service. Is that the power the hon. gentleman is asking for here 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No. We have been appointing temporary officers, as all governments have been doing. You could not work the department unless there was power to appoint temporary officers at times, because the need arises very suddenly. A man is placed on the temporary list to do the work that is required of him. We thought that the Act would be made clearer in reference to the appointment of them if the power to appoint these temporary officers was specifically placed in the Act. It has been done ever since confederation, it has been recognized as an absolute necessity and we are now just simply making it clear that the law gives its sanction to such appointments.


David Henderson: Does the hon. gentleman propose to increase the number of temporary officers or do I understand that he simply wants to put himself right by taking power to do what he is at present doing but without authority or law ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Speaking of those temporary officers, while I know they cannot be made permanent under the Civil Service Act, yet at the same time steps should be taken with a view of placing them on a permanent footing in the service. There are a number of excellent officers in the customs service, and although many of them were appointed years and years ago and have continued in the employment of the government until they are passed doing anything else in life, yet they still remain In a temporary position. I do not mean to say that they should be given the annual increase in salary, but there should be some understanding that they are permanent officials. For instance, the present government have made a number of these appointments, and should a change of government take place these officials always feel uncertain as to their position. I believe that civil servants who have faithfully discharged their duties should not be subject to such a contingency. I believe they should be free from the whims of any political party and the government should consider some means of protecting that class of employees.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) says, but the Civil Service Act stands in the way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there no way of getting over it; surely the Act could be amended.


Richard Blain: Is there any fixed scale of salary for the temporary officers in the employ of the government ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no fixed scale, but there will be a provision .in the Bill that we shall not appoint temporary officers at higher salaries than permanent employees receive in the rank to which they are appointed. The statutory increase does not apply to the outside service. Applications for increases of salary come in, and we have to give our best consideration to them. Under existing circumstances I think myself that we have officers in our employ who are not receiving ample compensation, and that is one of the reasons why I will ask the House for a larger vote for next year.
On section 4,


James Clancy: Is the kon. gentleman seeking by this clause to enlarge the power of the board, or is it to define existing powers that are considered uncertain ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: When the Board of Customs makes a ruling, that ruling has the force of law wtoeu signed by the minister. Suppose a ruling is given that an article should be only 20 per cent on which 30 per cent had previously been charged at different ports, then the parties could make claims on the department, or if Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
the regulations were vice versa, the department would call upon the parties to make amended entries running back two or three years. This is to define that when a ruling of the Board of Customs is given, it takes effect at once and that there shall be no claim for refunds by the parties who have paid too much, or no claim by the government on the parties who may have paid too little.


James Clancy: Is not that unfair ? The customs officers through the country have the matter very much in their own hands, and the importers must pay such duties as are exacted. I should think that under the ordinary working of the Customs Act the cases would be rare in which the importer paid too little, because before he could get his goods he has to submit to whatever ruling the departmental officers may make.	It
seems unfair that in case a mistake was made the importer should have no means of recovering the excessive amount which lib paid.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It
might have that appearance on the face of it, but we have given this matter a good deal of consideration and I think the hon. gentleman will see that it is not so unfair as he thinks. If we said that we would not let them come upon us for refunds, but that we would call upon them to pay if the rate charged was too low, that would be unfair. But the rule works both ways and there will not be many cases in which the Board of Customs will give rulings contrary to what has been the usual practice ; although exceptional cases may occur. Suppose the Board of Customs should rule that the duty should have been 30 per cent when only 20 per cent was paid, and the department was to ask all the merchants to pay the extra 10 per cent, their reply Would be that they only charged for their goods on the basis of a 20 per cent duty and that the department was in effect taking the money out of their pockets. On the other hand, if they have paid too high a rate of duty they would have put that duty on their goods when they were selling them and these goods would have been sold in all probability on the basis of the merchant having paid 30 per cent duty.


James Clancy: It does not change the nature of the grievance that the extra tax has been paid by the customers of the importer, rather than by the importer himself. The hon. gentleman is now imposing a burden upon persons who are entirely innocent, because they were subject to the rulings of his own department and they had no alternative but to submit to the mistake of the customs officers. Some cases may arise where it is not possible to have a general rule on the matter, but so far as it is possible we should not punish innocent persons for mistakes made by the customs officials. I do not think the hon. gentleman should

have such a law. Nobody should be made to suffer for inaccuracies committed in the Customs Department, without having an opportunity for redress.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The rule is that when a person goes to a customs office to pass his entry, if there is any doubt about the duty to be paid, the article is sent to the appraiser to decide what the duty will be.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is he an expert ?


William Ross: Yes, there are expert appraisers on hardware, medicines and everything else. In case the duty paid has been less than it should be, the merchant is asked to amend his entry; but if the duty paid has been more than it should be, an appeal is made to Ottawa and the excess is refunded to him. This has been the practice in Halifax, where I was collector of customs for fourteen years, till the Tories turned me out.


James Clancy: Suppose a man pays too high a percentage of duty, and no reference is made to it at the time, and it is not discovered for a long time afterwards, say six months. There may be many cases of that kind arising in which there is great room for hardship, and I think they should not have effect given them by an Act of parliament.


William Ross: In most instances there is too little duty paid rather than too much.


James Clancy: I would like to know from the Minister of Customs what the meaning of the legislation is that he proposes to found on these resolutions.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I thought I had explained it already. What the hon. member for Victoria has said is correct, and covers the greater part of the question. If the rate charged has been too much, the case comes to Ottawa, and a refund is paid to the importer. If, on the other hand, it is discovered in the check branch that he has paid too low a rate, then he is required to make an amended entry and pay the balance. These cover the great bulk of the transactions. What this clause refers to is a case that may come before the board of customs. Such cases, however, will be very few and far between. These are cases in which there has been a certain ruling for a length of time, but when attention is called to it, the board of customs decide that the ruling has not been correct, and they lay down a correct ruling. In such cases no claims should come from parties who have paid too much nor any charge made against parties who have paid too little.


James Clancy: That is not the class of cases I call attention to. Suppose an importer pays say 30 per cent duty through the mistake of a collector when he should 98
have paid 20 per cent. He makes no complaint or protest at the time, but six months later he discovers that he paid too much. How would the hon. gentleman deal with a case of that kind under the authority he is now asking to close the door ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If it is not a decision rendered by the board of customs his claim would be considered and he would get his refund. Suppose three or four or six months have elapsed. It is true, we may have taken money that we should not have taken, but that has not been a burden on the importer. The extra duty has gone into the price which the consumers have paid for the article, and it would be practically impossible to refund the excess to them. The importer has not lost anything as an individual. In these rare cases we do not propose to pay anything on the one hand or take anything on the other. If the hon. gentleman will think the matter over until the Bill is introduced, and still sees the objection he now refers to, we will discuss it further with him.


James Clancy: I want to ask one thing more. It seems to be the object of this legislation that the department will not be compelled to exact payment in such cases ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


William Rees Brock: In another case, suppose you have charged too little duty, say 20 per cent when you should have charged 30 per cent, and the goods have been disposed of. It would be a great injustice to the merchant then to demand the additional duty because of a mistake having been made by the collector of customs.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Quite so, and, if this clause passes, we should not be compelled to ask the man for the extra 10 per cent.


William Rees Brock: That I think would be very fair.
On section 5,


James Clancy: Will that not lead to complication ? There are many cases in which some of these officers would not be able to convert the foreign currency into our currency.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They have tables for that. If goods are made say in Belgium, and purchased in Germany, the present law requires that the invoice shall be made out in the German currency. We are going to allow such invoices to be made out in Belgian currency.


David Henderson: What does the hon. minister mean by ' further particulars shall be given in the invoices.'


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That will be more definitely explained in the Bill. I think it is to see that packages and other particulars are sufficiently mentioned in the invoice.


William Rees Brock: I hope the hon. minister will see that there are no more complications than at present.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is to secure uniformity as much as possible in the invoices, and to give us sufficient information to know at once how that each invoice can be dealt with.
On section 6,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Suppose an article is made of different components. Suppose, for instance, it is made partly of iron and partly of brass, and there is a duty on the iron machinery of 25 per cent, and on the brass of 30 per cent. If only a small portion of the article is brass it will come in at the 25 per cent duty, whereas under the present it would have to be charged the higher rate.


James Clancy: Does this apply to that section of the Customs' Act which imposes a duty on unenumerated articles of 20 per cent. Or is the hon. minister making two classes of unenumerated articles ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The unenumerated articles which are charged 20 per cent, are articles that can come under no other definition, but there are certain articles which are not of this class, but which are composed of different component parts, each of which may be subject to a different duty.


James Clancy: I would suggest to the hon. minister to find some other name for the latter than that of 'unenumerated articles ' or he will be confounding them with the unenumerated articles which are charged a duty of 20 per cent.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The Bill itself clearly explains the difference, and I do not think that there will be any confusion. The unenumerated articles referred to in this clause would be manufactured articles composed of two or more materials. For instance, an article might be composed partly of iron and partly of brass. In that case, it would have to come under one or other of these denominations. That having prevailed in the past the article would have to come in under the highest duty applicable to any of the materials of which it was composed-brass, iron or whatever it might be. Under this, it will come in as I said before, under the rate of duty on the article of which it is most largely composed.


James Clancy: How would the hon. gentleman determine a case of that kind ? It seems to me he is raising a very difficult question. Suppose an article composed of a number of different materials-iron, wood, brass, some silver, some l'ead-how can this be decided with any degree of accuracy by any collector of customs ? I doubt if even a customs board could do it. I would not offer an opinion, but, no doubt, the matter has been studied in the hon. gentleman's Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
department. I believe it was found well to lay down an arbitrary rule covering articles of that kind, it being found impossible to come to a correct conclusion in each case. I am not opposing the hon. gentleman, but it seems to me he is getting into deeper water rather than reaching firm ground.


David Henderson: Suppose an article were composed of 75 per cent of something that was free and the remainder of some article that had a duty of 25 per cent. In that ease, I suppose the whole would come in free.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, no, we are not in the habit of letting anything come in free if it is composed of dutiable material.


David Henderson: Of course, the Minister of Customs is proceeding upon the idea of a tariff for revenue. I want to assist him in carrying out his policy.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is not designed to go so far as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) suggested. The article would be dutiable. But, this is a new idea.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would come in under 25 per cent as unenumerated.


David Henderson: This supersedes the unenumerated 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, it assists it, not supersedes it.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell the committee if he has been actually collecting the duties on the scale he proposes, here, or whether he is proposing a new departure from the arbitrary rule of collecting 25 per cent on these articles as coming within the class of unenumerated.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are making a new departure, and we think, establishing a fair rule. Suppose that an article is composed one-tenth of a material which is subject to a duty of 30 per cent, and nine-tenths of a material which is dutiable at 30 per cent, it would be hardly fair to charge the whole 30 per cent.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is charging 20 per cent now under the unenumerated class.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, we are charging 30 per cent. These articles do not come in under the unenumerated class. An article is accounted unenumerated only when it cannot be classified under one or other of the headings. Articles composed of iron and brass, for instance, though not specially mentioned, are not counted unenumerated, but would be classed either as manufactures of iron or as manufactures of brass.

On section 7,
To extend the time for the submission for claims for refund, including claims for refund on account of damages.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Claims for refund now are required to be put in within ten days from the date of entry or they are shut out. It is thought that that is too short a time, and we propose to extend it to fourteen days from the date of entry or landing. Sometimes an entry is made even before the goods arrive. In many cases, merchants tell us : When these goods were brought into our warehouse, opened and examined, we found they were damaged, but the ten days had elapsed, and we could not enter a claim for a refund.
On section 8,
That importers may be relieved from the payment of duty on damaged goods abandoned in certain cases.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is new. If a man has a lot of goods coming in and they are so thoroughly damaged that they are not worth to him the amount of the duty, he may abandon them altogether, in which case ,we shall have the right under the law to take the goods and destroy them, charging the importer no duty.


David Henderson: Would it make any difference how this damage was brought about, whether from fire or from careless handling on ship-board ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think this would cover cases of damage from whatever cause. The hon. gentleman will see that the object of the customs duty is to secure revenue on goods that go into consumption. If goods are damaged so much that the importer would rather abandon them than pay the duty, we would destroy them and they would not go into consumption. The question of damage would be a question for settlement between him and the parties who sent the goods.


James Clancy: Suppose the damage was caused by the transportation company from whom the importer could recover. He would abandon the goods, but he would receive the value of them from the transportation company. In that case, some person ought to pay the duty. If the damage arose in such a way that no person was liable, I could understand that the hon. minister's position would be a fair one, but not if the importer could recover the value of the goods. In that case, if the hon. gentleman proposes to relieve the parties from the payment of duties by their merely abandoning of the goods, he goes too far. If a transportation company damages goods, then they ought to be liable. Suppose a man, through carelessness in handling goods, damages them and they became of no value, would that be a reason for relieving him. if they were damaged through his own act ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman must not lose sight of the fact that the revenues we collect are on goods that go into consumption in Canada. If the goods do not go into consumption in Canada then we do not expect the people of Canada to pay anything. For instance, $1,000 worth of goods come into this country and go into a bonded warehouse and remain a year or two, they pay no duty, and they are exported to another country. Now this is what we propose : Here is a quantity of goods that are so damaged that the owner says, I will throw them out, I do not want them at all, I will give them to you instead of paying the duty on them. We take these goods, but we do not put them on the market, we destroy them. Now, these goods would have gone into consumption if they had not been destroyed, but after destroying them a like quantity of goods must come in to replace them. Look at it from the customs standpoint alone, the question of abandoning the goods is a question that may be considered with the transportation companies or others who may have damaged the goods; but so far as our revenue is concerned we only collect revenue on goods that actually go into consumption.


James Clancy: I remember a case with which the hon. gentleman is acquainted. I had paid duty upon goods entered for consumption, they were destroyed and never went into consumption. But the hon. gentleman collected a duty. I know of cases in which he has done it. I know of a case in which he came to this House and asked for a refund, he put an item in the estimates to refund to the person who had suffered a loss of that kind.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman has mentioned a case which illustrates this. A quantity of goods were destroyed at Montreal. Duty had been paid upon them, and before they got into the merchant's warehouse they were destroyed. They were in our custody. The present Act prevents us from giving him back his money as a refund. If he had not paid the duty we could not do it. If he had not paid the duty, then he would not be called upon to pay the duty, because the goods were not there. But he had paid the duty, the goods were there, and before he got them into his possession they were burned. We had the duty, but the law did not allow us to refund it. That case was one of so much hardship that I put a special item In the estimates to pay him back the money.


James Clancy: I am arguing in the hon. gentleman's proposition that no duty was supposed to be collected unless the goods went into consumption. Suppose a case where the man paid the duty, removed the goods to his own warehouse one hour after the duty was paid he took possession of them, and half a million dollars worth of goods were destroyed and never went into consumption, yet the hon. gentleman

would not think under such conditions of refunding the duty. But he based his argument that no duty is supposed to he collected on goods that do not go into consumption.


The MINISTER OK FINANCE.: The expression ' entering into consumption ' is generally understood to mean taken from the warehouse for that purpose. Once the goods are on the shelves of the merchant, I do not see how you can follow them there. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the line is drawn between goods in the warehouse which have not yet entered into consumption, and goods taken out of the warehouse.


William Rees Brock: In many cases where the goods are partly destroyed or injured, the way in which the customs deals with them is very fair, that is, they appraise the value of these goods and give a rebate equal to the damage that has been done.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the case when they are wholly abandoned, we waive the whole duty. We destroy the goods, we do not put them on the market.


William Rees Brock: That may apply to some kind of goods, say the goods are damaged or wet through, they still may have some value. Do you destroy those goods ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In that case the owner would not abandon them. We would give a proportion.


David Henderson: Take a case of fruit coming from a long distance which had become entirely decayed and not fit for use. Would the law apply in that case 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In a case of that kind it would be a fair thing to say to the man, not only must you lose the fruit, but we will make you pay the duty on it, though it may never have entered the customs at all.
9. That the basis of allowance for damage on polished steel and other articles he changed.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The present law says that we shall only allow on an amount damaged over 50 per cent. We change that, and allow for a damage of over 25 per cent, the same as we do on other goods.
On section 10,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is the clause that covers what the bon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) -alluded to. As the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has pointed out, after goods have left our possession and gone into the warehouse of the merchant, if they are burned, they are covered -by insurance, while, if the goods are burned in our possession he has to pay the duty and we have no power to give it back to him without coming to parliament,


James Clancy: because the insurance would not cover the goods on the wharf. If they are in the merchant's warehouse, in his possession, then, he has them insured, but if they are destroyed while in our possession before they have reached him and if he has happened to -pay the duty upon them we are powerless to pay him back the duty. We propose to make power, if they are destroyed in our possession, to return the duty.


James Clancy: Iam sure the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) would be able to enlighten the committee in this respect. Suppose goods were damaged by water on the ocean voyage to- such an extent that the importer was ready to abandon the goods rather than pay the duty, and he had them insured against such damage and collected the insurance-that would be just the other case to which the hon. gentleman referred. In that case the duty ought to be paid.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it necessary to have an enactment for that purpose ? In case goods are destroyed upon which the duty has been paid in the custody of the customs, is it not a matter of right that -the duties are refunded ?	.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, we have not that power. We have to ask for a special vote to cover it, but we are taking that power now.


Richard Blain: Suppose ten packages valued at $10 a piece were in t-he custody of the customs -and the custom house was burned who would be' responsible ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are -at the owner's risk.


Richard Blain: Would the government not be responsible ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


William Rees Brock: The goods are all insured In transit from the time they leave Liverpool until they reach the warehouse. They are actually insured against all accidents from the time they leave Liverpool both on the voyage and while they are in charge of the customs; in fact until they are in the possession of the merchant.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would they be insured during transit after they had been landed in Canada ?


William Rees Brock: Yes, they are insured in store, on the wharf and in the warehouse.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the case referred to by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) the goods had been landed in the afternoon and that mght before the merchant could transfer them to his warehouse they were destroyed. Therefore. there was no insurance on them


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This will be the section of the Bill that will deal . with this matter :

Upon production of satisfactory proof to the Minister of Customs of the actual injury or destruction in whole or in part of any goods by accidental fire, or other casualty, while the same remained in the custody of the officers of the customs in any customs warehouse, or while in transportation in bond from one port of entry to another port of entry in Canada, or, while within the limits of any port of entry and before the same have been landed under the supervision of the officers of the customs, the duties on the whole or the part thereof so proved to he injured or destroyed may be abated or refunded ; provided the claim be made within 14 days after the date of the casualty and that due appraisement be made* of the goods so alleged to be injured, as soon as they can be examined.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for Peel asks a auestion as to the responsibility for the loss of the goods themselves. They would be at the merchant's own risk.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, the goods themselves. We are dealing with duties only.


David Henderson: Does it not seem reasonable, when the government take possession of a man's property and retains it for two or three days until the necessary entries have been made, that they should be entirely responsible for those goods ?	1
think they ought to be liable to the individual for the property which they have in their possession.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The government are not warehousemen. Warehousing is a separate matter.


William Rees Brock: The goods are insured even when they are in .charge of the customs.


Richard Blain: What I mean is this; supposing a poor man imports an article worth $10. That article is sent from New York and put in the customs-house at Ottawa to-night, if is in the possession of the customs and the importer cannot receive it. He could not possibly get possession of it and it is burned up to-night. Is it fair that that poor man should lose that article ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Get it insured.


Mr.   BDAIN@: An hon. member says get it insured. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of these small packages are never insured.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) says they are.


William Rees Brock: I refer to importations of goods from England or elsewhere.


Richard Blain: Here are ten small articles in the customs house, in possession of the government and they are burned up-should not the government be responsible ? Is it right that these ten men should lose all their effects ? Is it not fair that the government, holding these articles, should be responsible for them until the purchasers of them have an opportunity of getting them into their possession ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If that is true in regard to a small parcel, it would be a matter of principle that would apply equally to large consignments of goods in warehouse. The question is whether the government are to be responsible for the ownership of property simply because it is put in the warehouse, because the principle is the same. I do not see how you could hold the government responsible. The government simply acts as agent in passing these goods through the customs and in collecting the duty.


William Rees Brock: If goods come in by mail and are lost, I do not think the government is responsible for them.
On section 11,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In this and the next section it will be found that, we are simply taking these from the tariff Act. For convenience, as we are getting this up with a view to the Consolidated Revenue Act. in the revision of the statutes, we are taking from the Tariff Act this and the next clause without change.
On section 13,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What officers does the hon. member propose to vest with that power ? I have had occasion to find that some officers-I do not say customs officers' particularly-are very lax about the way in which they administer an oath. They seem to think that by the person signing a paper and saying : ' This is all right,' that they have done their duty.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the way the lawyers do.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, the lawyers do not do it in that way with all due deference to my hon. friend. There should be some discretion exercised in regard to the officers who are given power to administer oaths. Some officers, and not inferior officers either, are very lax in administering oaths, and if a charge of perjury were laid, the guilty person might escape because of some technical objection. I impress upon the minister that great care should be taken in the selection of officers to whom be given this authority.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: At present we have to get an Order in Council to appoint an officer for this purpose and we want to change that so that the Customs Department can of its own action appoint such a person. There will be just as much care exercised by the department as if these officers were appointed by an Order in Council.


David Henderson: This only gives them power to administer oaths in relation to the Customs Act.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes

On section 14,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: At the present time the railway and steamship companies are charged for the extra service rendered by officers after hours. They have for years protested against that. Their argument is that the officers are there to protect the revenue of Canada and that the revenue of Canada should pay them. Where officers have rendered services outside of the hours between eight o'clock in the morning and six at night, we have charged the railway companies and steamship companies twenty-five cents an hour, and that money has been paid by them to the Receiver General, and it is checked out and paid through the collector of customs to the men who are entitled to it. I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to the contention of the transportation companies that the government itself should pay its own officers. I might have said to them that you must have your business transacted at certain hours, but it is our duty to facilitate trade and commerce, and it would be unreasonable and out of the question to require them to run their trains between eight in the morning and six at night. They hold that it is our duty to collect our revenue and pay our own servants, and I must say that they appear to have the best of the argument on their side. The hesitancy about undertaking this before, was I suppose, because a minister does not wish to undertake an expenditure which will run into many thousands of dollars, but I have made up my mind to ask the House to sanction an appropriation that will enable us in the future to pay those men who are our servants and who attend to the duties that we require of them. WTe take power under this resolution, however, in cases where we consider that private interests and not public interests are served, to charge the private interests for the service rendered. For instance, if a railway company should ask that we shall have a man at Boston to examine baggage that is coming into Canada so that it may be bonded through, we would look upon that as being a convenience to the railway company and in such a case the railway company would be required to pay for the services of that officer.


Samuel Hughes: Who fixes the salary of an officer at Boston say.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The Customs Department fixes the salary.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am bound to say that the Customs Department fixes a very small salary for some of these men in view of the arduous duties they have to perforin. The government are bound to have officers on the frontier both day and night, but I do not think that the officers on the boundary experience as much hardship as some of those in the interior of the country. For Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
instance, a pasenger is coming from the state of New York into Ontario, and he may arrive at any hour of the night and the custom officer may be obliged to be on duty. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Michigan Central at St. Thomas contribute something like $25 a month towards the pay of these officers, and to my mind that is a very small amount indeed. If the minster is going to remedy that, he will be doing right. Officers who are called out of their beds to perform duties for the country, should be better paid than they are now.


Samuel Hughes: It was announced some time ago in the newspapers, that baggage coming into this country could only be sent in bond to certain points. For instance, persons coming from Chicago to the town of Smith's Falls, and checking their baggage to that point, find it detained at the border instead of being sent on.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the commissioner met the transportation companies a little time ago and discussed this matter with them. They were anxious to have the baggage examined at the frontier as far as possible, but there were certain other points fixed upon to which the goods might be bonded. The trouble arose in this way : Suppose the goods were coming to some place this side of Cobourg, which was not a port of entry ; they could not be bonded further than Cobourg, and they would be held there to be examined. The party, having arrived at his destination, would miss his goods. It was thought most convenient to have them examined at the frontier ; but in some cases it happened that while the goods should be stopped at Cobourg for examination, the railway company might let them pass on to the other point which is not a customs point at all. That was the reason of the arrangement between the commissioner and the railways under which certain points were selected where the goods might be examined.


Samuel Hughes: I notice that in the list there were very few places to which trunks could be consigned. For instance, the town I come from is not in the list, so that a person coming there would have to have his baggage examined at the border, perhaps at midnight.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the hon. gentleman's goods were not on the same train with himself, they would be sent on the next day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this going to entail the appointment of a very large number of new officers V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think it will not entail any new appointments, but it will entail a large expenditure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the service become much more expensive than it was before ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I think we can perhaps rearrange it so that it will not cost so much, but it will cost the country a good deal more, because we shall not have the revenue from it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister made an estimate of what amount this service will cost us ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think altogether it will cost very nearly $70,000, and I am not sure but that I may have to ask for $100,000 for it.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman propose to fix the compensation in each case for the officers of the department doing these additional duties, or does he propose to come down with a general scale so that the House will know what it is paying in each case ? I am not now complaining of the departure the hon. gentleman has made, because I think what he has stated lias been a great hardship, and I see no reason why the change should not be made and the burden shifted to where it belongs, namely, on the companies. But the question is whether the hon. gentleman is taking power to deal with these cases at his own sweet will, or whether he will come down with some fixed scale.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It will not be at my own sweet will, though I suppose it will be pretty much as I wish. I should have to submit it to my colleagues, and obtain an Order in Council. Many years ago an Order in Council was passed, fixing the rate paid by the railway companies at twenty-five cents an hour, and in my judgment that is not too much.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that at the boundary line ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, wherever an officer is rendering a service. This extra amount is paid to the officer in addition to his salary. Take the port of Montreal, where we have to have men on the wharfs at night. These men get $500 a year, but they may make an extra $60 or $70 by doing extra service at night. The transportation companies now pay these men at the rate of twenty-five cents an hour, so that if we made a rearrangement, the men would go on doing the work they have been doing, but they would be paid by us instead of by the railway companies. We hope that we may be able to reorganize the department so as to economize a little. I do not think that a man who has to put in a day's work from eight a.m. to six p.m. can do his work efficiently if he also does night work, and I think we can reorganize that system and have men go on for certain hours and then be relieved by others.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the United States, does the state pay for that service ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the United States bear the whole expense
of the collection of their revenue by night and by day.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where you have a night staff and a day staff, I do not see what necessity there can be for paying men overtime, unless in the exceptional case where a man on either staff happens to be ill and has to be replaced by one taken from the other staff. But the complaint I make has reference to ports of entry, where you have no night men. A man may come from New York state and have his trunk come to this port of entry. What he wants and what the railway company wants is that he should get his trunk immediately on arrival at the station, and have that trunk released by the customs officer. But if a regular man be called out of his bed to perform that service, he should receive extra pay. In the town of my county, that railway company have been paying at the rate of $25 per month for that service, and if the hon. gentleman will rearrange that kind of service and pay the men more money, he will be doing the proper thing.


James Clancy: Section fourteen of this resolution is very far-reaching. It gives the Governor in Council power to reduce the customs duties. At present he has power to remit the duties but not to reduce them.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My hon. colleague the Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget speech that while the Governor General in Council had the power of taking off the duty altogether, he cannot reduce it. There are many cases in which the government might be disposed to reduce the duty in order to help the manufacturers of certain kinds of goods, but would not feel justified in remitting them altogether.


James Clancy: I have no hesitation in saying that this is a most unreasonable proposition. The government have now the power of remitting the duties, but only under certain conditions. They may place certain articles on the free list for certain purposes clearly specified, but without any safeguard- of that kind the hon. gentleman proposes to take the power of reducing these duties and of practically fixing the duties, which this House ought to have the right to do.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not taking the power myself.


James Clancy: the government the power to put goods on the free list, which were the composite parts of articles manufactured in this country, the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. gentleman himself protested strongly against the proposition. But his proposition goes a long ways further. It was safeguarded with everything that was possible-certain conditions had to obtain before the minister could act. Now, he opens the gate as widely as he can and asks the right to reduce the duty on any article without asking parliament.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong. You will observe that this is a paragraph to be appended to section 245 of the Act, and it will be known as subsection ' U.' We have run down the whole alphabet already to and including 'T.' So, you have given the Governor in Council power-not myself-to make regulations for many things, for instance, for slaughtering cattle and grinding corn in bond.


James Clancy: Does the Governor General do it of his own will or by the recommendation of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The Governor in Council must do it.


James Clancy: But does the Governor in Council do it upon his own motion or upon the recommendation of the minister ?
The MINISTER OF, CUSTOMS. The recommendation in these cases probably comes from the Minister of Customs. Of course, it must originate somewhere. Under subsection ' L ' which is now in existence, the Governor in Council has power to transfer to the free list articles imported to be used as material for Canadian manufacture. It is proposed here, with regard to the same class of articles, to allow the Governor in Council, instead of placing the articles on the free list, to reduce the rate of duty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it is the same thing at all, I have not seen the section of the Act to which the hon. minister has referred. But I understand that in certain specified eases mentioned in the Act the Governor in Council may transfer articles to the free list, the cases being there specified.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not
Specified! but classified generally-articles for manufacturing purposes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But upon what ground and to what extent would the Governor in Council reduce the duty ? It gives large discretionary power.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not
more than to-day.


James Clancy: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A great deal more, The Governor in Council can now place goods on the free list in certain classified instances determined by parliament.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is the same case, except that he reduce the duty instead of making the articles free.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, but it is intended to increase the classes in which the duty may be reduced.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has spoken of certain well understood limitations which, he says, will not apply in this case. He has taken up this section fourteen and judges from it alone. But this is a mere draft statement of the substance of the Bill to be introduced. In conformity with the rule respecting measures of this character, these resolutions are first presented in committee. Bift these do not purport to set forth the details which will appear in the Bill. Every restriction which surrounds the placing of goods on the free list will surround the reduction of the duty. Surely, if the Governor in Council may be entrusted as at present, to make a free gift, they may be trusted to do something less than that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: With all deference to the Minister of Finance, I would say that, in one case he is simply making certain goods free, but in the other case he is making a whole tariff. Parliament has fixed the tariff, but, under certain restrictions, has authorized the Minister of Customs or the cabinet, to allow goods to enter free to be used as material for manufacturing. That is a vastly different thing from parliament saying that the duty on a certain class of goods shall be for instance thirty per cent, but giving the government power to say to any particular class of manufacturers : Because we like you or for some other reason, we will let you have these goods at fifteen per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Taking my hon. friend's (Mr. Lancaster's) illustration-at present we can say : Because we like you, or for some other reason (quoting my hon. friend's words) we will let you have these goods, not at a reduced duty, but without any duty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, the cases are specified.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is mistaken, there is no change in the specification. The conditions will be the same in both cases. A manufacturer makes a proposition to us to transfer an article to the free list. We may feel that he is not entitled to have the goods free, for that is a great privilege, but that he makes out a fair case why the duty

should be reduced. We simply ask to be allowed to reduce the duty instead of making the goods free. How It can be argued that there is any extension of the power of th'e Governor in Council in this proposal passes my comprehension. If we have the power given us for the reasons specified to make a free gift, surely it is no extension of the power to say that we may give only part.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Suppose you want to increase the duty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But that is not proposed.


James Clancy: Surely the bon. Minister of Finance will not contend that that is an answer. He proposes that the government shall have power which should rest with parliament alone, that of fixing the rates of duty. Whether goods should be entered at a lower rate of duty or should be free are two entirely different reasons.


An hon. MEMBER.: Move it.


James Clancy: No, it may be moved at a hiter stage. What would be the effect of this ? The government have represented to the country that they have taken off some ot the protective duties they complained of, and what have they given in return ? A lower rate of duty on some raw materials coming into the country. Parliament has thought right and has deemed it safe to give authority to the Governor in Council or to the minister, to come more nearly to the case-under certain conditions to make certain articles free of duty. Now, surely, if they give the minister or the Governor in Council-that makes no difference-


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It does.


James Clancy: None whatever. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) presented an Order in Council and his Excellency refused to give it his assent he would resign. The hon. gentleman knows that his recommendations are passed-the passing of them is a mere formality. But I hope the parliament will not surrender to any party in this country the right to fix rates of duty. They may go a long way without abuse-I am not certain that it is not without abuse, though I think on the whole it has been- but there is no parallel between this special grant of power to make goods free under certain circumstances and a new departure in the form of legislation giving power to the Governor in Council to fix rates of duty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend were attacking the right of the Governor in Council, he would touch this question.


James Clancy: I am not doing that at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is where he is illogical. If he were attacking the right of the Governor in Council to deal
With this matter at all, then I could recognize that at least lie was basing his argument upon some principle. Now, it is well understood that the Governor in Council shall not be allowed to increase a tax, and it is not proposed to violate that principle. But suppose a manufacturer opening a new industry comes to us and says, I am using a certain article, and for the encouragement of this industry I would like to have it put on the free list. We say, no, we cannot do that, the duty is a considerable item, we don't want to lose it, and we do not think you have made out a good case. Your industry has already a certain tariff advantage, and if we give you free materials in addition to that, you are getting an undue advantage. But he may say, I cannot carry on my industry on these conditions, can you not give me some concession ? Then the Governor in Council shall have power to say: No, though we will not give you that thing absolutely free, we will give it to you at a lower rate of duty. If parliament is the only body to be entrusted in the one case, it is the only body to be entrusted in the other. Every condition is the same, and if it is wrong to give the Governor in Council power to reduce a duty under these precise conditions, surely it is equally wrong for parliament to give the government power to make the article free. My hon. friend would say to the manufacturer :	No, we
cannot give you that at all. Now we might get a considerable revenue out of that, but by the course proposed by the hon. gentleman we would be obliged to sacrifice the whole revenue and make it free.


Andrew B. Ingram: You are dealing with au article that may enter into manufacture.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose the manufacturer is making a class of goods upon which he has a duty of so much; would the government step in by Order in Council and say : We think the duty is too much, and we are going to pass an Order in Council to reduce it again ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have power to-day to ask to make it free, and under the proposed amendment we will take power to say to him :	No, we cannot give you all that advantage, but we will help you by reducing the duty. My hon. friend's objection would oblige us to give him the whole tiling.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, I say it is too much power to put into the hands of the Governor in Council. In the matter of the tariff, a manufacturer establishes his business ou the understanding that he is going to have so much protection. Then I say in justice to that man no power outside of parliament should be allowed to interfere with that duty, and that interference should only take place at the session of parliament. But if, in the manufacture of his goods, he is using

a certain class of raw material upon which there is a duty, and that is not interfered with by any other manufacturer, then it might be proper to reduce the duty on the raw maternal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not on the raw material, but on the material.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I object to is that when we frame a tariff it ought not to be interfered with by Order in Council. The hon. gentleman spoke about the will of the minister. Suppose you dislike the manufacturer, suppose you want to take him by the throat and say :	Unless you do so and
so we will reduce the duties 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a proposal to reduce the duty on some article, not necessarily raw material, that he is going to use. Now if a man comes and asks us to give him some concession with regard to an article not made in Canada, and where there could be no question as to its affecting any other industry, we will be able to help him, but it might be too much to give him absolute freedom. Instead of that, we reduce the duty, and the hon. gentleman thinks we are enlarging the power of the government. If he will contend that the Governor in Council should not have power to touch the tariff question at all, there is a principle in that. But if a manufacturer desires a certain privilege and we have power to make an article absolutely free, how do we enlarge our power by being able to say to him : No, we won't make it free, but we will lower the duty.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose a manufacturer establishes a business on the idea that he is getting so much protection, and the government, between the sessions of parliament, steps in and passes an Order in Council to reduce the duty on that particular article, which might drive him out of the business. I say that power should only belong to parliament.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have now the power, every government has had it, to put that article on the free list, though it may have the effect of driving the manufacturer out of business. Where is the difference ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and that is what I hold is wrong, making it absolutely free without the consent of parliament.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a consistent position, but that is not the position of the hon. member for Botliwell.


James Clancy: Suppose a manufacturer is making a certain class of goods, and he says that his goods have been driven out of the markets by the hon. gentleman, who is a free trader, not giving him adequate protection. The hon. gentleman says he is aiding that manufacturer less by giving him a reduction of duty than by making the arti-Mr. INGRAM.
cle free. That would seem a very rational argument, but in appearance it is all wrong. The hon. gentleman must justify himself When he puts the article on the free list in the public interest. But according to his own theory, if he reduced the duty partially instead of giving him additional protection, how can he argue that he is doing it in the public interest ? This is giving such a power to the hon. minister that we might just as well relieve him of the necessity of coming down to the House and asking the House to fix the duties on any article which may be brought into this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may be obtuse, but I cannot see the force of the hon. gentleman's argument. The procedure in both cases is precisely the same. You can only do this by Order in Council. I do not object to the contention that it means the Minister of Customs, because we pay great respect to his recommendations. It has to be done in the usual way, the minister has to make a report to council, council must pass judgment upon it and the decision must be published in the ' Canada Gazette.' That condition which exists now in respect to placing an article on the free list must continue to exist in respect to reducing the duty.


James Clancy: That is not the point.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is.


James Clancy: I am not quarrelling with the hon. gentleman as to who does it, or the form in which it is done. Our contention is not in respect to the way in which it is brought about. This is going a long way in the direction of giving the government power to legislate by Order in Council, to take certain articles from a fixed duty and place them on the free list. This additional power is going too far and is placing a weapon in the hands of the government that should never be wielded by any government I care not which party may be in power.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not asking additional power ; we are asking a lesser power than we have now.


David Henderson: I think the hon. gentleman is asking for a power that he will exercise very much more than he would exercise the present power.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I really do not think so.
Mi-. HENDERSON. Now, the minister at all times requires to have a revenue. He hesitates about placing an article on the free list because he knows he is going to lose the revenue that would accrue from that article. That alone would restrict him very much in the exercise of this extraordinary po'wer which has been placed in the hands of the government for so many years. It is an extraordinary power and

perhaps in that we have made a mistake. It may be desirable to go back the other way, to undo something we have done, but in regard to the partial reduction of duties, the minister may say :	I want
revenue ; here is an article on the list which pays 25 per cent. There is very little of that article coming into the country under a 25 per cent duty ; I will reduce it to 15 per cent to meet the views of this manufacturer and I will get a good deal more revenue out of a 15 per cent duty than. I will out of a 25 per cent duty. Hence, I fear that power, if it were for nothing more than the purpose of getting revenue, may be exercised a great deal more than the present power of putting an article on the free list. The government would have an incentive if they wanted revenue to make these reductions which perhaps would be altogether contrary to the wishes of parliament. There is a strong point in this and I think it is well that it should be thoroughly considered before we embody it in the law.


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: I agree that the subject is important and before the Bill to be introduced reaches its final stage, there is no reason why it should not be reconsidered. There is no disposition on the part of the government to exercise that power frequently and although the bon. gentleman describes this power as an extraordinary one I think he will find that not only by this government but by all governments it has been used very sparingly, and I am sure it will continue to be used very sparingly and only for good reasons.


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly, at this hour of the morning I have no intention of inviting further discussion on the preference tariff subject, but I do wish to make an appeal to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) regarding one of the gentlemen who was referred to, the author of one of the declarations that was presented to the House tonight. Mr. W. Trant, of Regina, is a reputable gentleman and has like all of us a reputation to uphold. The reference that was made by the hon. member for Peel to Mr. Trant was, to say the least a very disagreeable reference


Peter Macdonald: I am afraid I will be compelled to prevent this discussion from being reopened.


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg to move that this committee


Peter Macdonald: The committee have agreed to abide by each resolution and to discuss the question there submitted. I am bound to carry out their behest.


Mr.   BUAIN@: I have no disposition to modify. All I can say is that I would desire with a great deal of pleasure to have an opportunity of repeating this statement again.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 174) to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, is it open to me to make a statement on this motion ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: No, it is not regular on a motion to adjourn to make any statement. A discussion can be brought up on a motion to adjourn when it is proposed by a private member during a sitting of the House, but when we come to the adjournment the only question which is open for discussion is as to whether the House shall adjourn or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) can find other opportunities to revive the discussion if it is thought necessary, but I think it is not expedient on this motion.


Mr.   BIONIC@: Will the hon. Minister of Finance give us the order of business for to-morrow ?
The B1INISTER OF FINANCE. We will proceed in Supply with the remaining items of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, excepting one, which, by arrangement with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), will be held over, and after that with those of the hon. Blin-ister of Justice or of the hon. Minister of Blilitia and Defence as may be found the more convenient-with those of the hon. Bfinister of Justice if he is able to be present, but if he is absent, with those of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence.


Blr. ROCHE (Marquette).: BIr. Speaker, I desire to give notice to the hon. Blinister of Finance, that, when he moves the House into Committee of Supply to-morrow, it is my intention to introduce a resolution dealing with the participation of Dominion Civil Servants in elections about to take place in Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Blotion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, Blay 15, 1903.