1903-07-24

Mr. CHAS  S.@: HYMAN (London) presented the report of the special committee to whom was referred Bill (No. 66) to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 231) to confer on the commissioner of patents certain powers for the relief of the Keller Heater Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Mclsaac.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 232) to further amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900. He said : This Bill proposes to ameud what is kuown as the Manitoba Grain Act, which is an Act of very great importance in regard to the transaction of the grain business and the shipment of grain in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. It has been the subject of a good deal of consideration in this House and it has been found an extremely complicated subject and one in regard to which it was very difficult to reconcile the conflicting interests and conflicting views of different parts of the community. However, further discussion and experience have rendered it possible to bring the parties who are interested, the shippers, the buyers and the railway companies, rather more into harmony in their views. During the present session the Grain-growers Association of the west sent delegates to the city of Ottawa and they discussed the subject here during my absence with representatives of the grain dealers and the railway companies, and the result has been that they have practically arrived at an arrangement as to what would be fairly satisfactory mutually in the way of an amendment to the existing law. I may say that there is little doubt that the law as it stands at the present time is capable of improvement. I think the Bill which I am about to present and which represents something of a compromise arrangement entered into by the parties concerned will be a very great improvement in the direction of bringing about harmony and general contentment. The specific details of the Bill will, of course, be discussed further on the second reading and in committee, but in the meantime I will give a brief statement of what the Bill purposes to do. Sections 1 and 2 deal with the interpretation of the terms used in the Bill. Section 3 provides for the appointment of deputy commissioners. There is now a grain commissioner who has very considerable duties to perform under the Act and it has been found quite impossible for one man to do all tne work. Of course the work, owing to he rapid increase in the production anu shipment of grain from Manitoba and the North-west Territories, has enormously increased. It is generally admitted that more than one officer is required. Section 4 makes provision that what are known as track buyers of grain shall take out licenses. Section 5 makes provisions regarding the duties of
[Stage Direction]
weighmasters. It requires the weignmasters to keep a record of the fact when a car is leaking or in bad order. Section 6 deals with the time of rendering statements by warehousemen owning terminal public elevators. Section 7 gives the commissioner power to deal with disputes regarding applicants for elevator sites. Section 8 removes the provision which gives the commissioner discretion respecting the keeping of an account of the grain received, stored and shipped. Section 9 provides that the Act shall not require the receipt of grain where there is not sufficient accommodation in the elevator. Section 10 repeals the provision which in the present Act makes the holder of a receipt not liable for storage charges after the expiration of seven days from the giving of the notice requiring his grain to be shipped. Section 11 deals with the power of any person having grain stored in the elevator to order a car to be placed at such elevator. Section 12 amends the provisions relating to the duty of the warehousemen when grain is out of condition. Section 13 deals with the duty of the warehousemen in furnishing statements to the commissioner. Section 14 provides for the erection of flat warehouses. Section 15 defines the time within which any person who has procured a site is required to commence the erection of his elevator or warehouse.. Section 16 makes provision for the erection of loading platforms and the furnishing of cars at such platforms. Section 17 regulates the duties of grain commission merchants. Section 18 provides for the application of fees collected. Section 19 requires the officers mentioned in section 50 of the Manitoba Grain Act to make certain reports to the commisisoner. Section 20 provides penalties for infraction of the Act. Section 21 deals with the distribution of cars and makes provisions respecting the business of track buyers. Sections 22 and 23 deal with the question of storage charges.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Referring to the request made by the leader of the opposition for a further return in reference to copies of correspondence with the North-west government and the members thereof, on the question of provincial autonomy, I beg now to present a supplementary return to the Order which was passed, and in compliance with which a return was presented to this House some time ago. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that there are some of the letters which were mentioned in the list which he read to the House which cannot be found. There were letters which passed between A. L.


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: Sifton and myself, which were upon the file that I had in the council chamber and which have been mislaid. As soon as that was ascertained, I telegraphed to the Northwest government to send down copies of the letters from their files. They will be here probably in a day or two.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I may say that I have a print of some correspondence from the North-west Territories' legislative assembly which contains copies of these letters, and I can furnish it to the hon. gentleman if it is desired that they should be printed at once.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then there are the following letters :	one
dated March 15th, 1902, from Mr. Haultain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; one dated March 18th, 1902, from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Mr. Haultain, which cannot be found at the present time. Sir Wilfrid informs me that he thinks these can be got, but the result of an inquiry from his secretary brought the reply that they could not be found.


Robert Laird Borden: I have copies of all these that are mentioned on the list that I read to the House, and which can be furnished for the purpose of being printed. I think they are probably correct as they were printed by command of the territorial legislature.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I wish to mention the letters that are not in the list as presented so that there can be no mistake. There was a further letter from Mr. Haultain to myself, dated 2nd April, 1902, and another letter dated December 17th, from A. L. Sifton to myself. There is a letter dated January 31st, 1903, from Mr. Haultain to myself ; one dated February 9th, from Mr. McGee to Mr. Haultain ; one dated April 15th, from Mr. Haultain to myself ; one dated April 17th, from Mr. Haultain to Mr. Fielding, and one dated July 25th, from Mr. Pelletier to Mr. Forget. These letters have not been found up to the present time, although the clerks in charge of the files have been busily engaged searching for them. They appear to have been mislaid ; possibly they may have been taken to council. There may be some mistake about the date? which were transmitted to my hon. friend, and these mistakes may result in there being letters which are actually on the file, but which are not indicated by the exact dates. For instance, there is one letter which is stated to have been received by myself from Mr. Haultain, but I think there must be some mistake about that, it is supposed to have been received while I was away, but neither my private secretary nor any one else in the department has any record of it being received.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman would send his secretary to look over the papers I have, I think he could

get copies of all these which are referred to in the list which I read to the House.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I shall do that, and if there are any that are not comprised within this return we will have them presented in the form of a supplementary return, so that it may be complete. In the meantime, I will leave this return on the Table of the House.



QU'APPELLE, LONG LAKE AND SASKATCHEWAN RAILWAY.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I beg to present a return that was moved for by the hon. member for Provencher, asking for all copies of papers, &c., with reference to the land grant to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company ; also a list of papers, &c., in connection with the Saskatchewan Land Company with reference to their acquisition of the land grant to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, and also a return as to the land sections in connection with the said railway. I present the return so far as it relates to the transfer from the railway company, because members on the other side of the House are desirous of having these papers. The rest of the correspondence is very voluminous, and the clerks are at work on it now, and we expect to have it ready shortly.



TREADGOLD COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the personnel of the Treadgold Commission has finally been settled ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, the commission as finally issued will be to Mr. Justice Britton and Mr. B. T. A. Bell, secretary of the Canadian Mining Institute.



THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: The right lion, gentleman promised yesterday to give us the information to-day as to whether or not Sir Win. Yan Horne had consented to accept a position on the Transportation Commission.
The PRIME MINISTER iRt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I am sorry to say that I have a letter from Sir Wm. Van Horne stating that he cannot accept the chairmanship of the commission. I will hand over the letter to my hon. friend.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. H. BOURASSA (Labelle).: I wish to remind the Prime Minister that, in the first days of the session, two or three addresses were carried, for the return of some papers that have not yet been brought down. One of those addresses was in relation with the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty ; an-229
other was about the establishment of a naval reserve and a navy school in Canada ; and, I think, there was another one about the commissions granted to Canadian officers in the British army ; but I am not quite sure about the latter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will attend to the matter.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.

Robert Laird Borden: We had the assurance of my right hon. friend on Friday last and again on Wednesday that the proposed measure with regard to the transcontinental railway would be placed before the House not later than this week. Does my hon. friend propose to make any announcement to-day ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I expect, without pledging myself absolutely, to put upon the Order Paper to-day notice to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust that; my hon. friend's expectations will be fulfilled. The delays in bringing this measure before the House which has now been in session for about four and a half months, remind us very much of the delays in the celebrated case of Jarndyce vs. Jarudyce, and the House might regard itself in the position of Miss Flyte, who used to say she expected judgment on the Day of Judgment. My right hon. friend some times in days gone by has been discouraged about the progress of business, but I am sure on this side of the House we are getting discouraged in regard to the length of this session, and in connection with the delay to which the government persist in putting us day after day and week after week with regard to this matter. I definitely understood from my right hon. friend a week ago to-day, that that measure would be brought down this week. The right hon. gentleman then said it would be down probably early this week, but that it certainly would be down this week, and we are today as much in the dark as ever about it. Could not my right hon. friend at least give us an assurance as to a date beyond which he will not keep the House and the country waiting for this policy? He expects to be able to put it on the Order Paper to-day, but he does not pledge himself to do so, and we know that expectations are often disappointed. My right hon. friend's expectations with regard to this policy have been so often disappointed already that we really do not feel the same confidence in them with regard to this that we do with regard to some other matters. I would like, if my right hon. friend can do it-and I think the request is not an unreasonable one-that he should at least fix a date beyond which the House and the country will not be kept waiting for the announcement of this measure.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because expectations are often disappointed that I do not absolutely pledge myself to give the notice of motion to-day, although I think I shall be in a position to do so. My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he has reminded us of a celebrated case in which there was considerable delay. It is because I know something of the delays of lawyers that I do not absolutely pledge myself to give the notice which I expect to give. Unfortunately, I am in the hands of the lawyers at the present moment ; and, until they have completed their work, which I think they will do to-day, I cannot give that pledge. My hon. friend, being a member of the profession, knows that it would not do for me to pledge myself until I am absolutely sure that I shall be in a position to keep my word.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is the part of my right hon. friend, as a statesman, to see that the lawyers do not neglect their duty.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend an consolidate the law respecting railways.
Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to a request that was made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He had to leave to-day, and he told me that he had mentioned to the hon. Minister of Justice that he desired that this Bill should not be proceeded with to-day, but that a future day should be fixed for its consideration. He holds that if that is done the progress of the Bill will be facilitated. The Bill was only distributed, I think, yesterday and the members have hardly yet had a chance to look it over. I do not anticipate that there are any great number of points to be considered ; but if it could be left over until, say, Wednesday next, I think that would suit the hon. member for Lincoln.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would suggest that we fix Tuesday next, and if it is found in the meantime that Wednesday would suit the hon. member better, we could fix that day. I said yesterday to Mr. Lancaster that we would take the earliest possible day that would suit his convenience.


Haughton Lennox: I may say that the hon. member for Lincoln told me not to ask for anything that would delay the work of the House. While he would prefer Wednesday, he would be willing to have it taken on Tuesday if necessary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We will say Tuesday, and if in the interval that is found to be inconvenient for the hon. member for Lincoln, he can let me know and I will have the Bill kept over until Wednesday.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. CLARKE.: I understood that it was at the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice that he agreed to name a day when this Bill should be proceeded with.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. member for Lincoln came to me yesterday afternoon and asked me if I was going on with the Bill. I said I was ready to proceed with it. He said that as he had not had an opportunity to examine it since it had been reprinted, he asked me if I would postpone it until next week. I told him that I thought it would be well to have a day fixed for the consideration of the Bill, and he then agreed, as I understood, to fix Tuesday. It is immaterial to me whether we fix Tuesday or Wednesday, so long as we have an understanding beforehand, in order that other business may be brought up in the interval. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BOUNTY ON BINDER TWINE.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following resolution-The Minister of Finance.
That it is expedient to enact as follows :-
1. The Governor in Council may authorize the payment of a bounty to any corporation, firm or person manufacturing binder twine in Canada ; such bounty to be equal to the amount paid as export duty In the Philippine Islands, on manilla fibre produced in such islands, and used in the manufacture of binder twine in Canada. Such bounty shall only be payable in respect of binder twine manufactured on or after the first day of September, 1902. Provided, however. that the bounty shall not exceed three-eighths of one cent per pound, on the manilla fibre so used in the manufacture of binder twine.
3. The Governor in Council may make regulations .to carry out the intention of this Act.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At an earlier stage of the session I intimated that the government, while not willing to make any material change in the tariff in the present session, deeming that such a course would not be expedient, having regard to the general conditions of the country, might find it expedient to invite the attention of the House at a later stage to the condition of one or two industries in connection with some legislation touching the question of bounties. I mentioned at that time two particular industries, the manufacture of binder twine and the lead industry, and since that time we have introduced resolutions with regard to bounties on iron and steel. So that there are now on the notice paper three resolutions touching the question of bounties. The particular motion before us deals with the question of a bounty on binder twine. Binder twine is on our free list, and for some years the business has been carried on under that condition, and on the whole, I believe, has prospered. However, the industry has been placed at a

special disadvantage by certain United States legislation, not touching the question of import duties, but the question of export duties on the raw material which is produced in the Philippine Islands. About a year ago the United States government enacted a law under which, while an export duty of three-eighths of a cent per pound was levied on all manilla fibre exported from the Philippine Islands, and while all shippers of the material would have to pay that export duty, a special provision was made that if the material so exported from the Philippine Islands should be manufactured in the United States, and then shipped abroad, the shippers would get a rebate equivalent to the export duty. The net result is that while the manufacturer of binder twine in the United States has exemption from that duty, and can send the manufactured article into Canada free in competition with the product of our own manufacturers, the Canadian manufacturer, who imports his raw material also from the Philippine Islands, has to pay that export duty. In that way there is a substantial discrimination against the Canadian manufacturer of binder twine and in favour of the American manufacturer. It is not exactly a question of free trade. The Canadian manufacturer is placed in a much worse position than he could fie by the application of free trade principles. We have thought, therefore, that in order that we might compensate the manufacturer of Canada for that special and exceptional disadvantage under which he labours, we would provide for the payment of a bounty to the extent of the export duty. The bounty, of course, will only be paid on that portion of the manilla fibre which is imported into Canada and used in the manufacture of binder twine. Our statistics will easily show the quantity of manilla fibre imported into Canada from the Philippine Islands ; but as all that fibre is not used in the manufacture of binder twine, these statistics will not help us very much in estimating the amount that we shall have to pay under these resolutions. We propose that the bounty shall take effect on all binder twine manufactured in Canada from the 1st of September last. Our reason for fixing that date is that the law of the United States was passed upwards of a year ago, and the manufacture of all binder twine manufactured in Canada from manilla fibre for the present season began last autumn. We therefore propose that all binder twine manufactured in Canada from the 1st of September last shall be entitled to this bounty, on evidence being given that the manilla fibre which entered into its manufacture was imported directly or indirectly from the Philippine Islands and that the export duty was paid thereon. It is difficult to estimate what amount we shall have to pay under this item. It will not, however, toe a very large sum. The limitation is not as to the aggregate amount. It 2291
is as to the amount per pound of manilla fibre imported and used in the manufacture of binder twine.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Can the hon. minister inform me how many pounds of binder twine were imported into Canada from the United States last year, and the value of the same ; also, the quantity in pounds exported from Canada to the United States ? As I understand, there is an arrangement by which binder twine can be exported to the United States free of duty, though I believe there are some conditions in their law, the practical effect of which is to exclude our 'binder twine.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The total imports in 1902 were 14,927,302, I think practically all from the United States. The value of it was $1,507,344. Practically we have no exports to the United States. Binder twine under certain conditions is on the Americon free list. I think this refers to binder twine made of certain material which practically shuts out twine of our manufacture.


George Taylor: I understand the hon. minister to say that under conditions that have existed during the past year the binder twine industry of Canada flourished?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For
several years-since the tariff was adopted.


George Taylor: Since binder twine was put on the free list?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


George Taylor: I do not see how the hon. minister can say that when he tells us just now that we have imported nearly 1,500,000 pounds at a value of $1,507,000. This was all manufactured by American labour, and was sold to the Canadian farmer at higher prices than the farmer was able to buy it for before the binder twine was put on the free list. With a great flourish of trumpets the duty was taken off and some arrangement was announced to have been made under which it was said the Canadian manufacturer would have access to the markets of the United States. And to-day the minister admits that they made such conditions-and the figures prove it-that the Canadian manufacturer cannot export a pound of binder twine to the United States, though we import such a large quantity. Why does not the government protect the binder twine industry and establish this manufacture in Canada as it was before, so that Canadian labour may be employed and still the Canadian farmer get his binder twine cheaper than he can buy it today from the American trust? Instead of a vigorous policy of that kind the minister comes down and gives a little bounty, making it equivalent to what the Americans have, still leaving our market to the Americans, and gaining no chance for us to sell to them, putting about a million and a half

of Canadian money into the United States, a great portion of which is paid for labour, and leaving our farmers still subject to the extortion of trust prices for their binder twine. I understand that our binder twine factories have been practically closed for the last two or three years. They have been before the government asking for relief and this is the relief they7 are given.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) perhaps, is not aware that, during the last couple of years the Canadian manufacturers of binder twine have been able to carry on operations only by the favour of their American rivals. I make this statement because I have undoubted evidence that it is true. The American manufacturers of binder twine came over to this country and told the Canadian manufacturers :	Unless you
limit your product, we will slaughter the market, and you will not. be allowed to manufacture at all. If the Minister of Finance wishes to hold an inquiry into the case, he will find that every word of my statement is true. Under these circumstances, the minister has no right to say that the manufacture of binder twine in Canada is prospering. I say it again: The American manufacturers told the Canadian manufacturers that unless they limited their product they would be slaughtered

Mr. CLARIvE. The Americans fixed the price.	-


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course. We are practically in the hands of the American trust. That is an unfair position. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says he proposes this bounty on account of special circumstances in the binder twine industry, as it is protected in the United States. But he has no right to take that stand, in my humble opinion ; because while he invokes that pretext in his action in regard to binder twine, he intends also to ask parliament to give bounties in the case of lead and in the case of iron and steel, though these special circumstances do not exist in these industries in the United States. The principle we are asked to sanction to-day is not a fair principle. We are asked to take out of the pockets of the tax-payers of this country large sums of money to pay to the manufacturers of binder twine in Canada. If, instead of this, we had a protective policy, a straight Canadian policy, the taxpayer would not be called upon to contribute money to individuals or to firms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the farmers would get that binder twine cheaper.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, because, as I said, we are practically in the hands of the American trust to-day and have been for a year or more. Of course, I speak independently, for I am responsible for the very policy that has been followed. I do not say that it had my approval-very far from it. i Mr. TAYLOR.
But I remained a member of the government while that policy was adopted and carried out. I am fully responsible. So, I do not speak in a party spirit at all. Not by any means. But I say again that the principle we are asked to sanction to-day is not a proper remedy. It is unfair to the tax-payer ; and it will not inspire confidence among the manufacturers or induce them to invest more capital in this industry. It is, as I said on another occasion, an expedient ; and expedients have never, to my knowledge, produced permanent good results. However, those of us who do not share the views of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are obliged to accept the remedy that is offered. We cannot get everything we want; we are bound to accept what we can get.


Mr. MACLEAN.: The House and the country will hear with great regret the announcement of the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) here to-day. In substance he has told us that the efforts of the government in the direction of the revision of the tariff and increased protection have no results, but the granting of bounty on iron and steel, on lead and on binder twine. I have been studying the question rather closely of late, anil watching the signs of the times on the other side of the boundray line. If there is anything in view at the present day, it is that we have in America reached ' the crest of the wave, ' as the Minister of Finance called it some time ago. The people of the United States, as a nation and a manufacturing nation, are preparing themselves to make a slaughter house of Canada. I believe that the present financial disturbance on the other side of the line is merely precursory of a movement which is spreading all over the union which seeks wider markets, and I believe that before the day is out we shall hear something of a movement that has been inaugurated in the North-western states, with its centre in Minneapolis, which looks forward to some arrangement as a result of the coming meeting of the commission which will increase the markets of the Americans at the expense of Canadians. I believe that that movement is widespread, and that every effort will be made, when the commission meets, to break down the barriers we have and turn the Canadian market over to the American manufacturer. I believe the country views this with alarm, which will not be made less by the policy announced by the Finance Minister, limiting the action of the government to the granting of bounties to the extent he has named. If there ever was a time when we should have an up-and-up, forward protectionist policy it is to-day. We propose to go into extensive expenditure on railways in this country ; we propose to grant millions and millions of money to build railways : and yet we have not the courage in this House, and this government has not

tlie courage, to adopt a protectionist policy with regard to steel and iron. If that were the case we would have rolling mills established in this country to build all these railways, we would have, as we are likely to have, the Steel Association of the United States coming over into this country-but I am not quite sure that is the case. But we do know this, that the prospects of reciprocal trade relations between the mother country and Canada have already compelled a large number of American concerns to consider the advisability of locating their export trade arrangements in Canada. We know what has happened in the town of Peterborough. A large cereal company in the United States saw what was coming, and they organized to do all their export business from Canada, and are now establishing large works in this country. So with the steel industry, with a vigorous protectionist policy to bring it about. It is being brought about now in England because they are becoming protectionists there.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: We are not discussing the general question of the tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: But the Finance Minister opened up the whole question, and that is my excuse.


Peter Macdonald: Because the Finance Minister or some other minister has opened up an irrelevant matter, that does not make it in order. The question before us is the propriety of giving a bounty on the manufacture of binder twine. Under this resolution we cannot discuss the general tariff.
ilr. BORDEN (Halifax). But the hon. gentleman is perfectly in order, in criticising this resolution, to show to the House that a protective tariff would be a better protection.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not open up the whole question of steel, though I have no objection, if the Chairman will permit us to do so, to these three resolutions all being considered at once, if any body desires to do so.


Peter Macdonald: Notwithstanding the minister's statement, I am here to see that the discussions are in order, and I say that the tariff is not now the subject before the Chair. It is entirely out of order to discuss the propriety of giving a duty on other things. Unless the committee will decide to discuss the general question of the tariff, then I must keep the committee within reasonable bounds.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the Minister of Finance has raised the general question of the tariff by proposing a bounty. We are raising the question that duties by customs can be levied more advantageously to the commerce of the country. I think, I am in order, when the issue of protection and
free trade is raised as it has been, to refer to the general issue, and on that line, unless you interfere with me, 1 propose to continue for a few moments. My statement is that if we had had due protection in this country, not spasmodic protection like this, we would have a new era of prosperity. We would be in a position to take care of ourselves now when this threatened invasion of our territory is likely to take place. For the Americans see that we are not genuine in our protectionist views, because we know, as has been stated here to-day, that our liberty in respect to binder twine is controlled by an American trust. There are other industries that have been ignored in this country. I refer to the ship-building industry. A bounty might very well be given to the steel ship-building industry. I believe the case that has been put forward in favour of a bounty in connection with ship-building in this country is unanswerable. The hon. gentleman must have had the papers presented to him. I have seen some of them, and so far as I can gather from these papers, the time has come when a bounty ought to be applied to the steel ship-building industry of Canada, and foreign built ships ought to be excluded from the coasting trade of Canada. All we are told here to-day is that we are to have bounties on iron and steel and on lead and on binder twine. The fact is that there are a great many industries that ought to be taken up and ought to have protection applied to them in order that we may be able to meet the threatened American invasion, and get the benefit of keeping our work for our own workingmen and our own market for our own products. That time seems to be near at hand. There is another instance which I wish to mention, and that is the market gardeners of this country. Their market has been given over entirely, for all kinds of early fruit and vegetables, to the Americans. They have petitioned us from time to time for some kind of protection. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would apply the bounty principle to them. But so far the hon. gentleman has given them no encouragement, and their market is departing from them.


Peter Macdonald: I must insist upon the hon. gentleman keeping to the question. I am going to make this a test, and if the committee do not stand by me, they will have to appeal to the House in the matter. My decision is this, that the speakers must confine tlieir remarks to the question before the Chair. We cannot wander away to steel, and market gardens, and a hundred questions besides. My decision is that the discussion must be limited to the propriety of this parliament granting a bounty on the manufacture of twine in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: I am discussing the bounty question.


Peter Macdonald: The bounty is applicable to one hundred and forty questions. We are now discussing the propriety of giving a bounty to a certain industry.'


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not perfectly proper for the hon. gentleman, in criticising this resolution, to point out to the House that it is not wide enough ? I do not regard that as beyond the bounds of criticism. The hon. gentleman finds a resolution here which proposes to give a bounty to the manufacturers of binder twine ; is he not perfectly in order in pointing out that the resolution should not stop there, but should extend to various other things, which in his opinion, should receive encouragement by way of bounty ?


Peter Macdonald: I cannot understand how it could be argued in considering this question, that a bounty should be given to market gardeners because they raise cabbages and other vegetables, I cannot see the relevancy at all. I do not see the relevancy of the question of giving a bounty to every industry in the country to the special question that is before the Chair.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is it not in order to discuss the principle of bounty ?


Peter Macdonald: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, that is narrowing it down to a very small limit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask if we could put the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) in order by moving that the committee rise ?


Peter Macdonald: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can we not move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again ? May I ask your ruling on that point ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Upon such a motion as that we could not depart from the subject under discussion, the discussion would have to be strictly confined to the subject in hand. Therefore the hon. gentleman would not help us by moving that the committee rise in order to give the floor to another member. For myself, if I may assume the role of a peacemaker, although we are transgressing to some extent the rules of the House, I would be willing to allow my hon. friend from East York to speak upon the tariff question, wrhich he has so miicli at heart. Though I think he is in the wrong, I would be quite willing to allow him to expound his views.
Mr. ROCHE iHalifax). In regard to this subject of bounty


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, then with your indulgence, I will put it that way


Peter Macdonald: Am I to understand that the committee is satisfied with the present range of the discussion ?


William Findlay Maclean: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Peter Macdonald: Because' if the committee is satisfied, then the responsibility is taken off my shoulders and I lose control of the committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no.


Peter Macdonald: If I raise a point of order, I am either right or wrong. If I am wrong, I will apologize to the committee, if I am right, then I want to retain control of the committee so that I may guide it in the discussion. The way to ascertain the ruling of the House is not to move that the committee rise, but simply to say :	I appeal to the House for their
decision.


Hon.   A@: No, no, that is not the way at all.


Peter Macdonald: I beg your pardon, but, however, as that question is not before us, I do not suppose it is necessary to discuss it.


The AIINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not an uncommon thing by the general consent of the House to allow the discussion to be broadened. I am sure every member of the House on both sides desires to uphold the Chair, and we are quite satisfied that the chairman is only desirous of maintaining the rules of the House, but it is a general practice by common consent to allow the discussion to be broadened and my own opinion wrould be that the chairman should not keep us too closely to the question. There are two or three resolutions on the Oraer paper dealing with the same class of subjects and I would rather that we had liberty to refer to them, but when we do exercise that liberty we must not hold the chairman responsible for establishing a precedent which will prevent the committee at another time from keeping closely to the rule.


Hon.   A@: I think the hon. gentleman (Air. Maclean) is perfeptly in order. He is discussing the question in reference to binder twine and surely you may say that if you are going to grant a bounty on binder twine it is necessary that a similar concession should be given in regard to other articles. I have been a long time in the House and I have never heard such an interpretation given the rule as that which has been given by the chairman of the committee. Every one in the House, I am sure, desires that the dignity of the House and that the rules of order shall be preserved and especially that the ruling of the chairman shall be accepted when he is correct. But, I beg to differ from the chairman and I wish to stick strictly to the rules. He has no right to appeal to the committee. If his ruling is wrong our duty is to put it in writing, appeal to the House, call in the Speaker and have his opinion upon the

subject and if necessary appeal from the ruling of the Speaker to the House.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAICER@: That is exact-lj the position X took. I thought I was right then and I am of the same opinion still. It is the duty of any person who does not believe I am right in my ruling to appeal to the House. I would rather that an hon. member would do that than that I should sit here knowing that I am perfectly right in regard to my ruling and have it disregarded. Almost every time I have ruled in the committee in an effort to keep the committee to their work and to facilitate the despatch of business I have been overruled by one party or the other. The result is that the session is extended week after week and I am kept sitting here without any progress being made in the business. When I give a ruling that in the opinion of the committee is not according to the rule then I would like to have the opinion of the House upon the matter and then I will know whether I am right or not and will not be obliged to submit to the lectures of parties who think I am wrong when as a matter of fact I am perfectly satisfied I am right as I believe I am now. However, the responsibility will be upon the committee.


Mr. OLIVER.: There is a rule which means something or it does not mean anything. If there is a rule that requires hon. members to stick to the subject under discussion then, certainly, that rule should be enforced. If the remarks of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) are pertinent to the subject under discussion, then any member of this House can say anything he likes on any subject when any question comes before the House.


An hon. MEMBER,: No, no.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Protection or bounty.


Frank Oliver: Certainly he may say anything on any subject. It is quite evident that unless the rules are to be supported, we cannot carry on business. Of course, the chairman cannot dictate to individual members under the privilege of parliament as to what they shall say if these members are supported by other members, but unless members of this House are prepared to support the chairman in rulings that are according to common sense as well as according to the rule of the House we certainly cannot do business with very much credit to the country or to ourselves.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think that the hon. member for Axoerta (Mr. Oliver) has stated the case fairly. The hon. Minister of Finance came forward here with a proposition to grant bounties. I have not departed from that in the least and I intend to stick most closely to the subject.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Binder twine.


William Findlay Maclean: The question of bounties having been introduced I am discussing the desirability of extending these bounties to other things. I think the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and ine right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier) agree that I am within the rule. I propose to show why a bounty system should be applied to the ship-building industries of Canada as well as to binder twine and for this purpose I shall read a short communication setting out the arguments in favour of my contention.
Certain of the component parts of a ship not manufactured in Canada-but imported either from Great Britain or the United States are subject to duty. Certain other of the component parts of a ship manufactured in Canada upon which duty is not directly paid but by reason of our tariff the price includes if not the whole at least nearly the same duty as if imported. The coal used in the construction of a ship is subject to duty. Nearly the whole of the material used in the construction of a ship has to be imported either from the United States or Great Britain ; during the .last eighteen mouths almost exclusively from Great Britain, because satisfactory delivery could not be obtained in the United States. The freight and marine insurance on this material amount to considerable. The carpets and furnishings throughout pay duty directly if imported. If not imported indirectly on account of our tariff. The difference in labour is also very considerable. the wages paid in this country being fully fifteen per cent higher than in Great Britain. This difference, however, I am glad to say "would be somewhat lessened, because I believe men in this country perform more work per hour than they do in Great Britain.
In Great Britain, coal and structural material are in close proximity to the shipyards, and therefore are obtained at a minimum of cost. All parts of a ship including its furnishings are obtainable on the lowest basis of cost of production on account of the tariff of Great Brit!lOur chief competitor for the building of new ships is Great Britain, and while Canadian shipbuilding is subject to the several disadvantages above mentioned, amounting to rather more than $4 per gross registered ton, British built ships are permitted to come into Canada entirely free of duty, and are afforded the same privileges in Canada as Canadian built ships. This we do not at all object to, as Canadian built ships are afforded the same freedom in all British ports, but what we desire is that the government consider the advisability of affording such 'a rebate or bounty as will be equal to the disabilities under which we labour, amounting as stated to rather more than $4 per gross registered ton, and thus place the ship-building industry in Canada on a parity with the same industry in Great Britain. This being done I feel sure there will be no more newiy built British ships brought into Canada, but that they will be built in Canada, as they can be obtained at no more cost than if built in Great Britain, and will be more suitable at least for the lake traffic.
In the days of wooden ship-building in Canada it was considered fair to allow a rebate of $1.15 per net registered ton on the highest class of

steel-kneed vessels built in this country. Thus it will be seen that what we are now seeking was recognized years ago to the extent then required.
Then suitable wood for the construction of vessels could be conveniently had in Canada. Now scarcely any wooden ships are being built, but steel ships are taking their place, and instead of being able to obtain the material convenient to the shipyards as was the case when wood was used, the material has to be imported, as already stated.
In addition to this required subsidy of $4 per gross registered ton, it is earnestly desired that foreign built ships be excluded entirely from Canadian coasting privileges, the same as Canadian built ships are excluded from coasting privileges in foreign countries, and that foreign built ships be not admitted to coasting privileges at any rate of duty unless and until Canadian ships are admitted subject to the same rate of duty or license fee as is now charged in Canada.
The gentlemen who drew up that paper made out a case which they presented to the government some time ago which, I think, justified the extension of this principle of bounties to the production of steel ships in Canada. If it were applied to the production of steel ships in Canada we would have large shipyards all over the country. I believe that we have the ore, we have the coal and we have everything necessary for the production of steel ships, but tbe encouragement which applied protection would give them in the shape of a bounty. I think it Is time that the government had the courage of their convictions. They have not the courage of their convictions'; that is the trouble. They believe in protection but they will not live up to it. They have been converted to it and they carry out the principle at times In a spasmodic way, but if they would carry it out in its entirety in these growing times, when Canada is going ahead, when we propose to spend millions on our railways and give some encouragement to the steel ship-building industry we would have immense shipyards in the country and we would be building the ships that would run in connection with the transcontinental roads from, their ports on the upper lakes. We would he following the example of the United States which stands to-day in the first position.


Mr. FRASER.: In regard to ship-building ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, hut in regard to a great many things and the great danger to this country to-day is that it is 'threatened with an invasion of the products of the American manufacturers who attained to a position to rival Canadian manufacturers and drive them out of their own market by the thorough adoption of the principle of protection. I disagree somewhat with the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) who said that the system of bounties was not a good form of protection. In a great many cases the bounty Is the highest form of the protective system. It is sometimes the most efficacious


William Findlay Maclean: form of protection and I would like to see it applied in other directions. I not only hope to see the government extend that policy to steel ship-building, to lead, to binder twine and to steel and iron, but I would like to see it extended to a great many other things, and I would like to see the customs employed so as to increase the measure of protection that the manufacturers and workmen of this country ought to have. I have been led, as I said to the committee a short time ago, to make these remarks by reason of what is transpiring in the United States to-day. I almost fear that a financial crash of some kind is impending over there. The manufacturers are making money, the railway companies! are making money, and yet, by reason of something that lias happened there, they see their markets threatened, they have more production than they know what to do with and they are preparing to make a slaughter market of Canada as they did in the old days, but, if this government had the courage of their convictions and if they had the courage to put the protective principle into force they would give us bounties on all these things as well as customs duties so as to give increased protection to Canadian workmen and Canadian manufacturers.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I have to apologize for appearing to again rise, when a question of order was being decided by chair, but I regret to say that from this part of the House it is impossible to tell what is being said. Hon. gentlemen speaking from the lower benches upon this side of the House have their hacks turned towards us, and it is very rare that we are able to catch one word in ten that is said. We sometimes hear lion, gentlemen on the front row of the other side of the House, as there is a better opportunity of the sound being carried across. Hon. 'gentlemen speaking at the back of the chamber on the other side cannot be heard on this side without very great difficulty. With regard to the question of bounty on hinder twine, I would ask gentlemen opposite what better device could be adopted to enable our manufacturers of hinder twiue in this country to make it here than the one now proposed. The United States and Spain unfortunately went to war: the United States was the victor and they took possession of the territory where the raw material for the manufacture of binder twine grows. If we attempted to prohibit the importation of American binder twine into this country, it is possible that the United States government might retaliate by refusing to allow any of the raw material to he sold to Canada. There is a monopoly in New York at the present time for the purpose of controlling the trade altogether, and I believe that the bounty now proposed is the only possible way of aiding the manufacturers in tliis country. If we attempt'd

to slnit out American twine there might be a reprisal in the shape of a refusal to give us the raw material, and then we would be at the mercy of the American twine manufacturers altogether.


Mr.   CLARICE@: What is the export duty imposed on the raw material by the United States ?


William Roche: Three-eights of a cent, I understand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the average price paid by our farmers for binder twine last year ?


William Roche: I do not know what the farmers paid in the west exactly, but I know that the price has been falling steadily.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Is it the argument of the hon. gentleman that in order to placate those who control the production of the raw material, the people of Canada generally should have to pay this duty of three-eighths of a cent a pound ?


William Roche: What I say is that it is better to assist the industry by a bounty, under the circumstances, than by placing a higher duty on the manufactured article.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I understand from the hon. gentleman's argument that we are practically living on sufferance in this country ?


William Roche: So we are.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) would place us in a very humiliating position. If the advice of the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) were accepted, and if a duty was placed on binder twine which would protect our own manufacturers and keep them fully employed, the result would be far better, and our farmers, instead of paying 12 to 14 cents a pound for binder twine, would be paying 10 cents.


William Roche: What would the hon. gentleman do suppose we were prohibited altogether from getting the raw material out of which binder twine is made?


Mr.   CLARICE@: I would be prepared to answer that question when the prohibition was put on. The hon. gentleman is simply imagining a fallacious argument to justify him in supporting the resolution.


William Roche: I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is a positive fact.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The contention of the hon. member (Mr. Roche is well worthy of consideration. Our dealings with the United States teach us that the United States are looking after the United States all the time. If I am right in the contention that we cannot get the raw material except through the United States, then we are in the hands ol' the United States to
that 'extent. Our experience would lead us to believe that if we built up a tariff wall which wrould shut out any of their manufactures we might reasonably expect that they would build up such a wall as would prevent us getting the raw material, and so prevent us altogether from making binder twine in this country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What would be the effect of putting a bounty on the production of lead in Canada?


William Alfred Galliher: The difference is that we have the raw material for the manufacture of lead in Canada, and that we have not the raw material for the making of binder twine. It is absolutely necessary that our farmers should have binder twine and if we cannot get the raw material otherwise than through the United States, will any gentleman say that we are not in their hands to that extent?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The fallacious reasoning of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) is that because manilla comes to us through the United States we must avoid building up our binder twine industry in Canada by bounty and a duty for fear we would offend the Americans. Does he think that any nation would be so small as to prevent us giving a bounty to our manufacturers to the extent that they allow a rebate to the manufacturers on the raw material that comes from the Philippine Islands ?


William Alfred Galliher: i was talking about a duty and not a bounty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It amounts to the same thing.


William Alfred Galliher: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When manilla is exported to any other country but the United States there is an export duty on it, and the Canadian government propose to reimburse the manufacturers in Canada to the extent of that export duty, thus putting the Canadian manufacturer on the same level as the American manufacturer in respect to the raw material.


William Alfred Galliher: To that I agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but that at best is only a half-way measure, because while we reimburse the Canadian manufacturer to the extent of the export duty, we still allow the Americans to throw their twine into Canada. I want to have the Canadian market for the Canadian manufacturer, and if we did justice to the Canadian manufacturer we would not only compensate him to the extent of the export duty on the raw material, but we would go further and put a duty upon binder twine coming into Canada to secure for him the Canadian market. Is that wrong or is it right ?


William Alfred Galliher: I am not saying that it is wrong or that it is right, but if we are compelled to get our raw material through the United States, and if we shut

out American binder twine, does not the hon. gentleman think it possible that we might be prevented from getting raw material altogether ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think anything of the kind, because if that prohibition were applied to Canada it would have to be applied to the rest of the world, and no nation would dare to do that. Are we to be forever cringing to the United States or to any other country in respect to our trade. Are we to be afraid to build up any industry in this country because it may offend the United States that we should do so. I have heard that argument so often from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in past years that I am sick of it. We are not worthy of being Britons if we are not above such an argument as that. Let us do what is in the interest if our own people without regarding what any other country may think or do.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) say that the member for North Norfolk has advocated submitting to unjust demands on the part of the American people or surrendering our rights in any respect in our negotiations with them ? Is that the charge the hon. gentleman makes ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard the hon. member for North Norfolk use this argument when dealing with this subject. When a proposal was made to put an export duty on logs so as to insure the manufacture of our lumber at home, and I was advocating it, I was told by the hon. member :	" Beware, or you will exasperate the United States; they could stop commercial intercourse with us at any time, and they will do it if you go too far; you will only worry and annoy them. Don't we know that they could hinder us in many ways ? They could stop the bonding privilege that we enjoy and all commercial intercourse with us.' I refer to that because I have heard it so often, and his argument now is exactly on the same line. When in the interests of Canada we propose to do something, are we always to be told :	Don't let us do it,
because they will strike back ? They are so small a people in their national aspirations that they w'ould do it if we dared to do something in the interests of Canada. I do not think that is an argument that should ever be used in this Canadian parliament. I have always thought that as a nation we should do what the interests of this country require, regardless of any other nation, precisely as they do in the United States. They put on or take off a duty just as it suits the interests of their own people, and they do not consider whether it restricts the trade of England, Canada, Germany, or any other country. I say that the interests of our country to-day require that we should not only give this bounty, and thereby remove a handicap which our Mr. GALLIHER.
manufacturers are labouring under owing to the regulations made by the United States government, but that for the purpose of keeping our market for our Canadian manufactures, we should go further and put a duty on all binder twine coming into this country from any other country. If we did that, w*e believe the twine would not be increased in price to the consumer here, but we would build up the manufacture in Canada to such an extent that competition would bring down the price to the lowest possible figure to the Canadian consumer, as it did before, and we would have binder twine at its real worth; whereas to-day we are obliged to take it from the United States, whether the price is high or low.


John Charlton: I desire to say one word, as I have been alluded to by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I am afraid that this discussion is getting a little beyond the bounds.


Peter Macdonald: I ruled that some time ago, but the committee took it out of my hands, so that they are responsible for it.


John Charlton: I am not taking the initiative, but desire very briefly to reply to the hon. gentleman's allusion to myself. The statements made with regard to the necessity of embarking upon tariff legislation, and the criticisms made upon the conduct of the government because they are not disposed to go so far as our friends in the opposition think is proper, are in my opinion entirely uncalled for, inappropriate and out of season. We have had the statement made by the government that in consequence of certain conditions, it was not deemed proper to open the tariff question this session; and I for one supported that position entirely irrespective of any abstract or practical views I might entertain upon the question of tariff legislation. The ground taken by the government was that as negotiations of a most important character are pending, the outcome of which will create conditions that will require action in one direction or another-negotiations the outcome of which we cannot foresee, and in consequence of which we cannot predicate our action in tariff matters upon known conditions-the government would abstain from tariff legislation this session, and would wait until it knew definitely and could move intelligently in the course which it would be proper for it to take. I endorsed that position. I would endorse that position as a protectionist. I would endorse it as a member of this House governed by practical considerations. The government, notwithstanding that position, proceeds to the extent which is necessary in the public interest, to relieve certain interests in Canada which are suffering from causes which the government may be able to remove. To that extent the government are justified in moving in this matter, and

they can do it with perfect consistency with the* position they have taken. Beyond that I do not think it would be proper for the government to go. So far I would support them; beyond that I would not. With regard to the charge which the hon. member has made with reference to myself, it has been a very usual thing for more than a quarter of a century to answer anything I may have said in this House by the statement that I was a Yankee. That has always been considered a sufficient answer to set aside any argument or statement 1 might advance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may remind the hon. gentleman that I uttered no word about his being a Yankee.


John Charlton: I did not say the hon. gentleman did; I am talking about the general course pursued. The hon. gentleman says to-day that 1 have in the past advocated the adoption of policies dictated by fear of retaliation by the Americans. The inference is that in doing so I have shown a craven spirit and a desire to bow to the Americans; and when asked for some specific case, the hon. gentleman brings up the old question of the export duty on logs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have consistently, during all the years that that question has been under discussion in this House, opposed an export duty. I have opposed an export duty on anything, I do not care what it is. We are to-day, in the resolutions under discussion, meeting the question of an export duty unfairly imposed by another country for the purpose of injuring one of our interests. X condemn that export duty as being wrong. X condemn export duties in all cases as being wrong in principle. I have condemned them on every occasion in the past, and I will condemn them in the future, and in doing this, I am not showing any craven spirit or bowing to dictation from a foreign country, but merely contending for justice and fair play. I condemned the proposal to put an export duty on logs in our own country. I did that because the owner of standing pine would have its value reduced to the extent of the export duty for the benefit of the sawmill interest in the country. The friends of the sawmill interest advocated the imposition of an export duty for the benefit of that interest and to the' detriment of the standing pine owner, and its imposition was essentially unjust, bad politics, and bad political economy. I opposed that export duty on broad public principles, and I wish to say to the hon. gentleman that his insinuation with regard to the course I pursue in this matter is unfair and unworthy of him. I have stood up in this House during the thirty-one years that I have had a seat here and advocated what I believed to be Canadian interests on the broad ground of the benefit of Canada, and I have had no motive or impulse beyond this during all that time. I have done this
often in the face of opposition and prejudice, and have incurred on many occasions charges of the most unfriendly, unwarrantable and untruthful character. I stand here to say I have never been in favour of surrendering a single Canadian right. I will go as far as any man in this House or in this country in maintaining Canadian rights, and I only await the proper hour when circumstances and developments show us the proper course to pursue, in order to follow the dictates of my convictions.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: The hon. member who has just taken his seat says that the opposition proposed more than the government now propose for the binder twine industry. I wish to ask him if he thinks the government are going as far as they should go to protect that industry V Mr. CHARLTON. I do not know that that has anything to do with the question. The government are introducing a resolution granting a bounty in order to counteract an unfair discrimination in the form of an export duty which has been imposed in favour of the United States; and in doing that are only doing justice to our own manufactures.


Robert Johnston: I think it is only reasonable to ask the hon. gentleman if he thinks the proposal they have made is as far as they should go in the interest of the binder twine industry ?


John Charlton: I have only to say, as I said before, that the question of dealing with the tariff on broad principles, on the principles of protection versus free trade, is lying in abeyance, awaiting certain developments and the conclusion of certain negotiations. In the meantime, the government proposes in this resolution, not upon protective principles or non-proteetive principles, to remove the disability of an unfair discrimination that now interferes with a manufacturing interest in Canada.


Mr.   CLARICE@: What are we waiting for now before proceeding to the consideration of the revision of the tariff ?


John Charlton: We want to know whether we are to engage in a commercial war. or whether we are to have peace.


William Findlay Maclean: We have another significant announcement. First, we have the Minister of Finance saying that only three interests were to be considered. Now, a supporter of his gets up and gives us the reasons. That reason is that we are to go into negotiations with the United States, they to have the big end of the stick and we to have the little end. If we went into the negotiations having a tariff like their own, we should be able to accomplish something. The hon. gentleman says ; Do not put up the tariff now, but go to the Americans with your low tariff and make a reciprocal arrangement with them, giving them the Can-

adian market. Why, that is where hon. gentlemen opposite have always made their mistake. They should have met the Americans with tariff for tariff, and then they would be in a position to negotiate with them and maintain Canadian rights. It is the old story of ' looking to Washington.' Evidently these hon. gentlemen are going to Washington and going with their hands tied. That is not the way to tight the Americans. We should stand up to them like men ; meet them with a tariff equal to their own, impose that tariff in the interest of Canada, and make it a thoroughly protectionist tariff so as to keep our markets for ourselves.


Mr. HEYD.: The subject we are now discussing would have interested me a great deal at the time of the budget debate. But the government, for reasons that were quite clear to themselves, decided not to open this question of the duty on binder twine. I am convinced that the manufacture of binder twine, like every other industry in this country, should have its interests looked after by the government, and should not have been singled out as the only industry subjected to competition from the other side. That question was discussed at the time of the budget debate. But to reopen it now will not answer any good purpose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is opening it ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
Mr. CLANCY.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) mean unfair competition through the export duty of the United States, or through the withdrawal of the protective tariff in Canada ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: On general principles, I said, binder twine should receive the same measure of protection granted to every other industry. And I said it was not right that it should be singled out and deprived of the benefits of what we call our revenue tariff.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) to say that this is the only industry singled out in this way 7


Charles Bernhard Heyd: This and barbed wire.


William Findlay Maclean: 


Richard Blain: Well name the other as well as this.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: This is the one we are talking about. The barbed wire industry is small and very little capital was injured by putting barbed wire on the free list.
At the time, there were not many binder twine manufactories in Canada. Most of them have come into existence since. The $7.50 per ton proposed by this Bill is to compensate the manufacturers for this $0.82 bonus that the United States manufacturer gets. In so far as this bounty will be of service to the manufacturers of binder twine in this country, I am glad the government are going to give it. I should have been glad personally if they had given 12J per cent protection. All these arguments of my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) that the United States might prohibit the exportation of manilla fabric to any other part of the world but the United States, do not appear to have any effect upon the owners of Canadian binder twine factories, the men who have their money invested in this business ; for tliev have ail petitioned in favour of a tariff protection of 12J per cent. So, I do not think there is much in those arguments. The fact that confronts me is that the government have decided, after a discussion, not to open the question of a duty on binder twine. When that question once more presents itself, I shall do what I did before-urge them both privately and in the House to put on a duty. They did not listen to that plea before, and now it is too late to discuss the question. I can assure them of my sincere desire that this Bill should become law ; because, to the extent that it compensates the manufacturers of binder twine for the unfair competition to which they are subjected, it is certainly of benefit to that industry. On pure manilla, 650-foot twine, there will be the full benefit of -} cents per pound. On 600-foot twine which contains about 60 per cent of manilla, there will be a proportionate benefit, and so on through the various qualities down to the lowest on which there will be little benefit to the manufacturer. This is not so much as I would like to see. But. to get up a general discussion on this particular item is going a little far afield.
I think. And when you, Mr. Chairman, find fault with the committee for overriding your decision I venture to say that it is only because you do not put your foot down and insist on those decisions being observed. For my part, I was prepared to endorse and uphold your decision that this general question should not be discussed on the motion before the committee.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell) I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) a question. He says he is in favour of a high protective tariff on binder twine. Did lie vote for high protection on binder twine or did he vote against it ?

Mr: HBYD. I do not know that there was a resolution moved on the subject of placing a duty on binder twine. But if there had been, and if I had played to the galleries by recording my single vote on this side in favour of such a resolution, my action would have been regarded as insincere by hou. gentlemen opposite. If the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in some way or other involved the idea of putting a duty on binder twine, I can only say that I voted in favour of the government's contention on that occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the resolution was in favour of adequate protection?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But ' adequate protection,' in my opinion is a very inadequate phrase.


Mr. SCHELL.: In the discussion before us to-day we have primarily a matter of fact. We have left that and drifted into matters of sentiment and imagination. The matter of fact before us is f cents per pound on manilla. The object of this is to put our manufacturers of binder twine in as favourable a position as that they formerly occupied. But the discussion has drifted off to the matter of higher protection. I hare waited for some time to find out on what basis of protection the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) wotild wish us to go. And he has stated that his basis of protection would be the same as that of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), the adoption of a tariff equal to the American tariff. Now, suppose we put the tariff on binder twine up to 45 per cent. It is a matter of belief on my part that that would raise the price of binder twine to the consumer


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the experience?


Jacob Thomas Schell: I think it was the same thing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perhaps the hou. gentleman will allow me to say that I never said here or elsewhere, that it would be necessary to have the same tariff on all articles that the Americans have. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) will not find that in my speeches anywhere.


Jacob Thomas Schell: ' Tariff for tariff ' was the word throughout the budget debate. And my hon. friend from East York has just now stated that that is what he would propose.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Jacob Thomas Schell: If we were to apply the American tariff to this importation of 15,000,000 pounds of binder twine, that would mean a tax upon the people of this country of $487,000, say half a million dollars, upon this article alone.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But if we did not import the binder twine, we would not pay the duty.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The quantities of twine imported were about 15,000,000 pounds, and if the tariff were in force which these gentlemen advocate


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does not the hou. gentleman claim that if we imposed a tariff of 40 per cent it would raise the price 40 per cent ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: It would give them an opportunity to do it if they wished, and there are very few people in business, regardless of their politics, who do not take advantage of the opportunity. That is the experience, not only in Canada, but everywhere else, because it is human nature. If you give them the opportunity they will take advantage of it; and it is idle to talk to farmers, at all events, or to myself, and to say that if you put up the duty to 45 per cent


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman this question ? When the duty of 12)c. per pound was taken off, did it lower the price of twine ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: The hon. gentleman may answer that question himself, I claim that it did. The question before us is this, Are we now to put on a duty of 45 per cent and raise the value of the twine manufactured in Canada, on the basis of the 15,000,000 pounds, to the extent of half a million dollars, or should we put on a bounty of three-eighths of a cent per pound, which amounts to $56,250 upon that 15,000,000 pounds imported ? This three-eighths of a cent is a very small trifle, as the hon. member for East York says, ' a miserable thing.' But if it puts the manufacturers in Canada to-day upon an equal basis with the Americans, where they have been for the last six or seven years, surely that should not be called a miserable thing. The manufacture of binder twine in Canada has been a profitable 'venture for those who have been engaged in it, with one exception, and I wish to draw attention to that exception. Under the old regime it will be remembered that practically every binder twine factory in the Dominion of Canada went into the hands of an American trust, ;every one, I believe, but one. They were all bought up by an American trust, and the binder twine manufacture of Canada to-day is largely in the hands of Americans, the largest amount of capital.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the Central Prison factory bought up, and the Kingston Penitentiary ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: These were not manufacturing concerns.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And the Brantford manufactory ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: Yes, that was bought up by the Americans.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I have in my hands here to-day letters from farmers who were owners of this factory, and consumers-


Jacob Thomas Schell: I wish to state to the hon. member for St. Mary's that he is entirely wrong. The Brantford factory was bought up by Americans, and immediately after that was bought up the farmers' binder twine factory was started, and that farmers' binder twine factory was then the only independent factory in Canada, and In three years they declared a dividend to the extent of 250 per cent upon their stock. But it was not until after the Liberal government came into power, and allowed them to make these profits, when they were manufacturing without any duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They went into the trust.


Jacob Thomas Schell: No, that was when they were an independent concern. But we are drifting away from the question. The question before us is this, shall the farmers in this country, on 15,000,000 pounds of binder twine, be taxed a sum of $500,000 ; or, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, shall the manufacturers of this country be given a compensation for the injury inflicted upon them by the United States, of $56,250 7 That is a question we are discussing. brought down to actual figures. I am willing to vote in favour of the farmer paying no more than $56,000, instead of paying $500,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps the Finance Minister could tell us, in the absence of the Minister of Customs, on the basis of the imports for the last fiscal year, what will be the charge on the consolidated fund imposed by this bounty for the present fiscal year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is difficult to tell, because our imports are not entirely confined to manufacturers of binder twine ; twine is largely used for other purposes, for general cordage. But I would think that probably it would be $25,000 to $50,000, possibly more. I have some hesitation in giving an estimate, but I do not think it would exceed $50,000.


George Taylor: The member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) have, if I understood them rightly, both expressed themselves in favour of giving a bounty rather than an increased duty. Now, I presume both these 'hon. gentlemen represent largely workingmen. The Minister of Finance, in reply to my bon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke), has stated that a very large sum of money will have to be taken qut of the taxes paid ,jy the people generally to make up this bounty. Now. I want to ask these hon. gentlemen what right the workingmen of Canada have to pay taxes in order to lower the price of binder twine Mr. SCHELL.
to the farmers?-because it will have that effect. If you put on a duty, the party using the article pays the duty; the consumer pays the duty, there is no question about that. But if you put on enough duty, there would be no importation. The people in the North-west can raise all the flax we require to make our own binder twine. If the Minister of Finance wants to do what is right, let him give the people of Canada the benefit of producing the fibre to make binder twine. Why should we pay a million and a half dollars over to the people of the United States, a great portion of it being for labour, instead of keeping it for our own workingmen ? Why should not the farmers of this country, particularly in the North-west, grow the fibre and our Canadian boys manufacture it into binder twine? But we are importing it now to the extent of a million and a half dollars worth from the United States, free of duty, and it comes in here and is sold to our farmers, by the act of this government, and the industries in this country cannot go on without a bonus is paid to them. Now, the minister asks the workingmen of this country, who have no interest in binder twine at all, to help pay that tax. Why should they be compelled to do it ? I say on behalf of the workingmen, that it is unfair to them for the Minister of Finance to put his hand into their pockets and to take out the money to pay this bounty to the manufacturers of binder twine.


Mr. PUTTEE.: I must congratulate the last speaker (Mr. Taylor), who I have now heard for the first time ask why the workingmen should be taxed to provide cheaper articles for other people. I have often been bothered with that question myself, but I have answered it in a different way to what the hon. gentleman usually does. But it appears to me that the greater part of this discussion is not addressed to the main feature of the question. It has been asked, Are we to be under the sufferance of the United States? Well, if the only source of the supply of this fibre is the Philippines, we have got to answer that question in the affirmative, because that country is under the United States. Consequently, we must be under the sufferance of the United States, and it makes no difference whether we get hot about it or not, we are utterly dependent upon another nation. If that is the case, why is this export duty put on ? Is it put on to stimulate protection ? That is the legitimate office of an export duty. It is either that, or it is to stop exportation. But if it is neither of these, then it must be put on for the benefit and at the request of the manufacturers of binder twine in the United States. They have that much leverage on their government that they are able to take that much money out of their people, or out of ours, for their special benefit. Well, if that is the case, it appears to me

tliat if this three-eighths of a cent bounty that we are going to put on offsets the operation of their export duty, then I think it is most probable that they will increase the duty. X want to ask the Minister of Finance a question which he must have been thinking about for some years.
There has been in the southern states a good deal of experiment carried on with the object of proving whether any material can be produced that would take the place of manilla fibre in the manufacture of binder twine. I understand that there has been more or less attention paid to it in this country, but seeing that the matter has been before the Department of Finance for some years, it seems to me that the hon. Minister of Finance must have had his attention drawn to it and that he must have come to some conclusion upon it, and as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has given his word that we can raise a substitute in the North-west Territories, I certainly agree with him that it would be far better to try and encourage the growing of a substitute in this country than to start upon this policy, knowing that we shall all the while have to keep up with the policy in regard to the exportation of fibre from the Philippine Islands. I may be dense, but it seemed to me, when I read this resolution when it was first put upon the order paper, that that was the whole question. As a matter of fact, Is all the available supply in the Philippine Islands ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is a fact in respect to manilla.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is it a fact that there is no substitute that can be provided ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I speak with some hesitation in regard to a matter of this kind, but I am advised that there has been nothing found which can take the place of manilla for the purpose of cordage or binder twine. There is a substitute, known as sisal, which is raised in the West Indies, and it is used to some considerable extent as a substitute, but it is not as good as the original article. We do not propose to put a bounty on binder twine irrespective of the material used in its manufacture. If it is made from these substitutes imported from abroad, the condition which we are dealing with does not exist and no bounty is paid. We confine the bounty to the quantity of actual manilla used in the manufacture of binder twine. I am not aware that there is any produced in Canada at the present time" and I am not aware that there is any serious proposition at present to raise anything in Canada which would exactly take the place of manilla. We may be able to get something that will be a substitute, but up to the present time, as far as my knowledge goes, there is nothing that
the manufacturers of binder twine would accept as a fair substitute for manilla.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) looks at the Auditor General's Report, he will see the quantity of raw material purchased last year by the government institution at Kingston, and he will find that about one-sixth of the binder twine was the product of manilla, and that the rest was sisal.


Arthur W. Puttee: Nearly every industry which has had some special source of supply of raw material has had to adapt itself to some other line of material when the original supply had run out. I think it would be as well for the hon. Minister of Finance to pay attention to the matter of finding a fair substitute. At the present time we have to accept the statement, which I believe is the statement of the manufacturers, that there has been nothing so far produced that will take the place of manilla fibre in making binder twine. But if they make binder twine with other material, and if the supply of manilla is limited, we will have to find something else, and it would seem to be the part of wisdom to devote ourselves to an effort to finding a suitable substitute rather than that we should toe trying to protect ourselves when we know we shall not succeed. As to the question whether a bounty is more preferable than a protective duty, I say it is.


William Alfred Galliher: I want to answer the question put by the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor). He made, I might almost say, a tearful appeal on'behalf of the workingmen of Canada, who, he said, would be called upon to pay this tax by reason of the bounty. I do not think the workingmen of this country want to be placed in any different position from any other class of the people. The workingmen should pay their proportion of the taxes, just the same as the capitalists do and as the farmers do. I represent, it is true, a very large number of workingmen, and I am satisfied that these workingmen are willing to pay their fair share of taxation. The difference between a duty and a bounty is this : Whereas, under a duty, the party who consumes the article-in this case it is the farmer who is bound to be a consumer of binder twine whether he wishes to be or not-would have to pay that special tax


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is that, when the price is fixed by the American cordage trust ?


William Alfred Galliher: I am speaking about the difference between a bounty and a duty. The duty is paid by the person who consumes the article ; whereas, in the case of a bounty, the public at large contribute to it. As I say. the workingmen in my district are satisfied to pay their fair proportion of taxation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman prefer a bounty to a duty ?


William Alfred Galliher: On this particular question that we are discussing now, which is as to whether there shall be a bounty of three-eighths of a cent per pound put upon binder twine in order that our manufacturers of binder twine may be placed on an equality with American manufacturers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman has given expression to his approval of the principle of aiding by bounty rather than aiding by a duty. I want to know whether he is in favour of giving aid to an industry by bounty instead of by duty ?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think that is a question I am called upon to answer at the present moment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) is not bound to answer, of course.


William Alfred Galliher: The point we are discussing has nothing to do with that, because we are not discussing whether it is better to put a bounty on or whether it is better to put a duty on. We are discussing the question as to who are the people who have to pay the tax.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman made the statement that he approved of this proposition to grant a bounty on binder twine, because the community in general did not have to pay it, but the person interested.


Peter Macdonald: One hon. member on his feet at a time is the rule.


William Alfred Galliher: I never know when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is going to get up or sit down. I did not make the statement which he attributes to me. I disagree entirely with wThat he says. I did not say that a duty imposed a tax on the community. I said that with a duty a man who is compelled to pay the duty has to pay the tax himself, while in the case of a bounty the public at large-the workingman, the farmer, the capitalist and the manufacturer -all have to pay their proportionate share. That is as far as I went.


William Ross: The question before the committee is whether the resolution of the hon. Minister of Finance shall pass. We are wandering away from the question and wasting the time of the House, until I am sick and tired listening to this miserable twaddle that is spoken on a question of this kind.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) should have got up and made that speech when I decided that hon. members were violating the rules of the House.


Hon.   S@: I beg to take direct issue with the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher). He has stated that the object of the hon. Minister of Finance in ask-Mr. GALLIHER.
ing us to sanction the principle of giving a bounty is to place the Canadian manufacturer on the same footing as the American manufacturer. Is that it ?
Mr. GALLIHER, With regard to the supply of raw material.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Now, the hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken. He has not given any attention to the question under consideration. He has given no consideration whatever to it. The American manufacturer is protected to-day by a duty of 45 per cent. That is a very high duty indeed, and the Canadian manufacturer has no protection at all. That makes a vast difference. The question is very obvious, it seems to me.


William Alfred Galliher: You forget that I was speaking of the home market.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Some of my hon. friends have stated that every time we put a duty on a certain article we are imposing taxes upon the people. That is a false theory. There is not only nothing in it but there is a falsehood in it. There is nothing good in it but there is a great deal of bad in it. When a duty is imposed on an article that we can manufacture here it means that Canadian labour will produce that article instead of foreign labour. For instance in the United States they have a duty of 45 per cent on agricultural implements and agricultural implements sell cheaper in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Is there any reason uuder the sun why Canadian labour cannot manufacture binder twine as cheaply as American labour ?


William Roche: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Why not. We can get our raw material nearly as cheap as they can, and our Canadian labour is cheaper than their's, and I say without hesitation that if the Canadian manufacturer is given the home market he can manufacture just as cheaply and just as advantageously as the American manufacturer can. If we are to be saying all the time that we cannot manufacture as cheaply as the Americans, why then we will never build up industries in this country. Perhaps it is that we have not at present the equipment necessary to supply the demand for binder twine, but let the Minister of Finance say that in two years or in three years the duty will be so and so, let us have a policy and we will soon have the means to manufacture. The giving of bounties is simply taking the money from my pocket and from every other man's pocket without giving to capital any assistance for the future, and the people of this country will never stand paying bounties for all time.


Mr. SCOTT.: Is it wrong ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course it is wrong.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is not a duty wrong in the same sense ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, and for the excellent reason that if you prevent the products of foreign labour coming into this country and if you give Canadian workmen the advantages that you are giving foreign workmen, you do not increase the price.


Mr. TALBOT.: What about the consumer V


Joseph Israël Tarte: The consumer is yourself and myself and the consumer will pay the very same price.


Frank Oliver: That is not what the member for Leeds says ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Who pays the duty ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, who pays the duty. Take any article you like that we manufacture in this country and it is folly to say that we are going to pay higher prices for it than we do now.


Thomas Walter Scott: In many cases.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I say no, and I will prove it. Is there any reason why labourers in Montreal and Toronto, or in Brandon, or in Winnipeg cannot make binder twine as cheaply as the American labourer can.


Thomas Walter Scott: Possibly not.
Hon. Mi'. TARTE. There is no reason why Canadian money cannot procure the same plant ; there is no reason why Canadian labour should not be as skilful as American labour, and why under the sun could not our Canadian manufacturers sell as cheaply as American manufacturers. I know that I will be told that competition will be less and that this is the only argument, but take the manufacturer of agricultural implements and there are fifty of them in Canada and let us secure the Canadian market for the manufacturer of binder twine, and you will have competition. I do not desire to address myself to free-traders who do not want to be convinced.


Thomas Walter Scott: There are none here.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There are some of them, and I have no doubt they 'are in perfect good faith.


Thomas Walter Scott: Very few.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They are getting less.


Frank Oliver: There will be more after next election.


William Ross: I heard that speech before.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am sorry that my hon. friend does not pay more attention to it. In what position have we been during the last two or three years. Why, during the last two years we have been importing 75 per cent of our binder twine from the American trusts, mind you. These Ameri-230
can trusts have gone to the Canadian manufacturer and they have allowed them to manufacture 25 per cent and no more, because they have said to them : You are not protected in Canada and if you manufacture more than the 25 per cent we will slaughter the Canadian market. Is not that a shameful state of things ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: They fixed the price.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, the American trusts were in a position to dictate terms because there was not protection in Canada, and are we going to stand that kind of thing ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We are getting cheaper binder twine than protection would give us.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not at all. The freetraders are simply playing the game of the American trusts. I could establish by evidence before a committee of the House to-morrow that the American trusts have dictated their own terms to the Canadian people here. Is it not better that we should have binder twine made by our own people rather than by the American trusts, who are protected by a duty of 45 per cent ? Our farmers themselves have invested money in this industry


William Alfred Galliher: Are not the American trusts so far as binder twine is concerned in a position to prevent you manufacturing binder twine in Canada if you had a tariff as high as the roof ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: How could they do that ?


William Alfred Galliher: Because they control all the raw material and we are at their mercy for it.


George Taylor: You can go to England and buy all you want of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: England has to pay the export duty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not know that the American trusts control all the raw material, and I would be very much surprised if that were the ease.


Mr. BROCK.: There is an immense exportation of it to England that the American trusts cannot touch.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If we were to believe the statements that whenever we impose a duty on foreign articles we are taxing our own people, then there would be no use in our having any industry in this country whatever. But fortunately that theory is utterly false from the very bottom to the very top, and there is no doubt whatever that when a country is in a position to supply our own markets advantageously, as we are capable of doing in many many things, it is our great advantage to do so. Why have we got that' much ? We are



BEVI8ED EDITION COMMON'S

[Stage Direction]
creating centres of trade, and giving traffic to our railways and navigation companies and work to our own people. Why are so many of our countrymen in the United States ? Every man who has followed the history of the past knows that it is because we have not enough industries here. Why have our friends in the maritime provinces lost so much of their population ? Because they have not enough industries there. Why are they asking parliament to-day to grant them bounties for their industries ? Because they know that without those favours their industries could not get on their feet. When some of their industries are protected, they say, we are against protection. What is true in the maritime provinces is true everywhere. It is a pity that men of ability and standing feel bound by past theories or ' past speeches. It seems to me they should take the example of such men as Mr. Chamberlain. He has been a partisan of free trade, but he has changed his mind, because he sees that England has been made a slaughter market by all the nations of the world. What is true of England is true of Canada. Our tariff, which is relatively low to-day, is no longer sufficient. Circumstances have changed. It does not do any harm to teach some little lessons to our friends in the maritime provinces. They want railways, they want millions in bounties, and when we ask them to take into consideration the fact that in the other provinces we can manufacture goods for them, they go for us, and in great style. I say that on this occasion the Minister of Finance is making a mistake. During the last five or six years we have tried the system of bounties; we have tried it on lead and on iron, and it has not worked. The Minister of Finance has been obliged to change it three times, and I make this prophesy, that the third change will not work much better than the two first did. If he had come out straight with a reasonable duty on binder twine, he would not be obliged to pay a large sum of money, the Canadian manufacturers would extend their works, the farmers would not have to pay more for their binder twine, and we would have an additional market for our farmers. I am spending the summer at a country place, Boucherville, and the farmers there realize that their best market is the city of Montreal. They sell all their products in that city. Let us create centres of industry in all parts of Canada-binder twine industries, agricultural implement industries, and other industries-in larger proportion. Let us manufacture everything we can.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We have heard that speech before, often and often.
Joseph Israël Tarte: Then, my hon. friend is assuredly deaf from a fiscal standpoint, otherwise he would have changed his mind after hearing such powerful and convincing arguments.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would not have said anything but for the hon. gentleman's reference to the maritime provinces. I am not going to discuss the question of protection and free trade with the hon. member; but I wish to point out that he has taken a position today in which he is opposed by all free traders and all protectionists. They all hold that there is no fairer way to assist industries than by bounties, because the general community pay them instead of the few who use the protected article. It will not do for the hon. gentleman to try and set the maritime provinces against the rest of this Dominion. We pay our fair share of a fairly large duty, averaging sixteen or seventeen per cent, on the goods we buy. We are manufacturers of iron, and if we get a bounty to help us a little in starting our industries, surely the hon. gentleman is not going to hold us up as wanting everything and giving nothing. I make the statement that any industry that cannot flourish on a protection of seventeen or eighteen per cent must have something wrong with it. With regard to binder twine, the cry of everybody in this House was : take the duty off binder twine in the interest of the farmer. We took off the duty and the farmers started a binder twine industry of their own; and, if I am correctly informed, that industry paid one hundred per cent on the capital invested, so that in one year they got their whole capital back. An industry that can do that ought to be able to stand a little competition from the United States. I do not know altogether the conditions in regard to the raw material for binder twine.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentlemen who say ' hear, hear,' are idiotic enough to think they do. I am honest enough to say I do not know all the conditions affecting the raw material; but I do know that when there is a difference in the cost of the raw material that enters into the manufacture of the article in the United States and in Canada, and the United States manufacturer has that advantage because of a law of the United States, it is only fair to the Canadian manufacturer that he should be put in the same position.


Haughton Lennox: What about the forty-five per cent duty ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the American manufacturers have a forty-five per cent duty, and they can sell the article in Canada cheaper than the men who made a hundred per cent on the money they invested in one year, I say let it come in the interest of the farmers. I am on the side of the farmer who purchases rather than the few manufacturers who manufacture. To hear hon. gentlemen opposite one would suppose that the manufacturer was everything. He is a good deal, I admit, but he only represents about twelve per cent of the population of Canada, and I think a few of us

should say something in the interest of the eighty-eight per cent of people who purchase. Hon. gentlemen opposite think that if we manufactured everything here and kept out foreign goods, that would be a good thing.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Where, then, would you get money to pay the cost of the railways 1


William Rees Brock: Where do the United States get their revenue ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The United States get it on the goods they import; but the man who uses the article which is made in the country pays a large duty on it, not to the government, but to the manufacturer who puts up the price as near as he can to the price of the article imported plus the duty. I am in favour of looking after all classes; but it makes a man tired) to be told constantly that there is only one class in the country to be looked after, namely, the manufacturers. How are you going to enrich the farmers who constitute sixty-five or seventy per cent of the people of Canada, by enabling them to feed the fifteen per cent who are engaged in manufacturing 1
Mr, CLANCY. Where does the hon. gentleman get his calculation ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the hon. gentleman looks at the census, he will find that my statement is correct.


James Clancy: I say it is not correct.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: My statement is correct. The large influx of population into this country at the present time is composed of farmers, and the millions of acres of land in the North-west are going to be occupied by men engaged in tilling the soil; so that instead of diminishing the number of farmers in Canada, we are increasing it. I think that the manufacturers are entitled to consideration, and when we give them an advantage of sixteen per cent, we give them a good start. The farmer who has to sell his products in the markets of the world has no such advantage; he has no bounty or duty or anything else to help him; and after being obliged to meet the competition of every other man in the markets of the world, he is to be taxed, not by the government or for the public requirements, but by the protectionists tax collector in order to build up his industry. I want the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to understand that the sentiment in the maritime provinces on this subject is just about the same as I find it to be in every other part of Canada, namely, that when the duties we have gave a reasonable chance to manufacture, we should not increase them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the duty on binder twine ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would not have a duty on binder twine. And the hon. gentleman 230J
(Mr. Sproule) or, if not he, a large number of hon. gentlemen of the same persuasion, kept this House hour after hour and day after day while they sought to make capital out of a proposal to take the duty off binder twine. It seemed to be a race between some hon. gentlemen on that side and some hon. gentlemen on this side as to who should speak most kindly of this proposal in the effort to relieve the farmers of their sufferings caused by the duty that then existed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon, gentleman (Mr. Fraser) does not mean to say that I advocated the removal of the duty on binder twine ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I venture to say the hon. gentleman did not say a word in favour of keeping it on when hon. gentlemen on his own side advocated its removal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Time and time again I did. I never yet advocated taking the duty off. But I have often advocated keeping it on.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The difficulty I am in is that the hon. gentleman speaks so often that it would be a weary hunt for me to go through ' Hansard ' to find out what he said on any particular question. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he was in favour of the duty, and that whenever an hon gentleman on his own side declared in favour of taking it off, he rose and contended ardently to have it left on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is entirely a misrepresentation of what I said.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then, the hon. gentleman did not oppose those on his own side who advocated the removal of the duty ? That is what I said-that when his own side advocated taking it off, he did not advocate keeping it on-and the hon. gentleman agrees with me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is not at all correct.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I considered then as I do now that it was a little race between hon. gentlemen opposite and hon. gentlemen on this side for popularity with the farmers. All agreed in saying that if the duty were taken off the farmers would get their binder twine for less.


James Clancy: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Air. Fraser) is not now insisting that there ever was a movement on this side, or ever a speech made on this side, in favour of taking the duty off.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Alost decidedly. The late Air. Davin, then member for West Assin-iboia, was the chosen champion, the very apostle of the removal of this duty.


James Clancy: No, no.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman (Air. Clancy) was not here at the time. If he

refers to * Hansard ' he will find that the removal of duties on coal oil and binder twine were the main planks in the platform of the late Mr. Davin, and that these changes were advocated by him in this House with all his customary eloquence. And I think I should be able to find, if I searched 'Hansard,' that he even moved resolutions in that direction.


Mr. HENDERSON.: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I think that the hon. gentleman who says ' No ' does not recollect the facts


Mr. BENNETT.: Obstruction.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: We shall be here until the snow flies.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Hon. gentlemen opposite speak for hour after hour, but if a word is said to expose their errors, they raise a cry of ' obstruction.' They must have all the time of the House to themselves, and no man must speak against them under penalty of being called an obstructionist. Now, I do not often trouble the House. But when the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) would give the committee the impression that we in the maritime provinces are against what is right and are clamouring for iron duties, I wish to tell him that he is mistaken. Whatever was done for the iron business was done on what I regard as the only proper principle -that of giving a bounty. There is not a political economist of standing, whether he takes the free trade or the protectionist side, but admits that, if anything is to be done in favour of a particular manufacture, the right way is to do it by means of a bounty. The hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte). says that that is all wrong, that it should be done by protective duty. I am very glad to know that a political economist in the House disagreed with him, because he knows that a bounty is the best way


William Findlay Maclean: I did not deny the other. We may have the two together.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) said that the protective tariff is not good. It would be a strange thing in the way of protection that he would not advocate. But he did dispute the statement made by the hon. member for St. Mary's division on the bounty question. That is what was done for the industry in the maritime provinces, and the people there do not ask for higher duty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I alluded to the maritime provinces, it is only because I was interrupted by some of my friends from that part of the country. In answer to them, I gave what I thought a pretty good argument. I simply told them that when the iron industries were involved they


Duncan Cameron Fraser: were very glad to have recourse to what they call now the best form of protection. Nobody agreed more cheerfully to help the iron industry than I did. But I believe we did not do in 1897 what we are called upon to do now. When we were arranging duties on iron and steel in the revision of 1897, the country was not equipped as it is now. And I claim that, instead of giving bounties to-day, the country, being better equipped, having more iron and steel plants, the time has come for the imposition of duties. I believe that is the genuine position to take.


Mr. WADE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) a question ? Does this argument of his apply to the maritime provinces only ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly not.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Then why does he single them out?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I stated the reason. I was interrupted by two or three of my friends from the maritime provinces, and I answered them. Now I expect my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to take part in this debate. I am going to call him to my help and rescue. I need some help just now. I will tell him why I invite him to take part in this debate. He knows better than I do the facts concerning the binder twine industry in Brantford, his own town. I was a minister of the Crown with the hon. gentleman when the farmers' binder twine mills made money. I was a minister of the Crown with him when the same men came to us and told us that they could not go on with their operations. And they have closed their mill. Many of the binder twine mills have been closed or are working only partially. The Minister of Customs knows the case better than I do, but I know something about it, and I will tell what I know for the information of my hon. friends. The reason these people made money during a year or two-during one year especi-ally_iS that when the Philippines trouble came on they had a very large quantity of raw manilla on hand. The American factories, being unable to get supplies, our people made money


William Rees Brock: Out of the raw material ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes. These people came to the government and presented a memorandum which is before my former colleagues. But, while these people made money for one year, it is a well known fact that during the last three or four years, since we made the mistake of making worse the policy that the late Finance Minister had adopted, since we wiped out the duty on binder twine, the mills have closed down their operations. And why ? Because they were unable to compete with the American trust, which is protected with

a duty of 45 per cent. I have the statement in my hand about those big industries.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They put no money in it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What is the use of saying they put no money in it ? There has been a large amount of Canadian money invested in these industries.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They got it all back.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot undertake to convice my hon. friend. He has stated that these people were earning 100 per cent.
It is true they made no money for one year, for a special reason. Their mills have been closed since. We are importing 75 per cent of all the binder twine we are consuming. Our mills are Idle most of the time. Why ? Because the American trust have come to this country and have given the Canadian manufacturers to understand that if they dare to manufacture more than 25 per cent they would slaughter them. I make this statement on my responsibility, and if the government institute an inquiry they will find that to be the ease. Why should we allow that ? Why is that state of affairs going on ? Because there is no protection against the foi'eign manufacturer. Now is it desirable that we should go on in that way ? Sir, no childish arguments can be advanced against that clear fact. We have imported 75 per cent of an article that we can produce ourselves, for which we have the plant, but our plant has been kept idle by the American trust. I am speaking in the presence or the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and I make the statement again, it is true and can be proved in twenty-four hours. Now, is it desirable that we should continue in that way. Are convinced free traders going to get up in this parliament and say that it is a satisfactory condition of affairs that an American trust should be given permission to come into this country and say to our Canadian manufacturers :	You are
not protected ; we are protected by a 45 per cent duty ; you cannot compete against us, and we can slaughter you because we have no protection. Both parties in this country are responsible for that state of affairs. The late Minister of Finance, influenced by the same considerations that we hear to-day, lowered the duty to 124 per cent. He made a mistake, and we have made another mistake by wiping out the duty. We had to lose something in order to save more. I felt obliged to consent to this, because I thought it was necessary to make some sacrifice in order to save something more important. But now by-gones are by-gones. The Minister of Finance and his colleagues understand so well that the binder twine industry cannot go on under the present conditions, that they are asking us to
give a bounty. Now, I say that bounties are not the best way to deal with this matter. I say that instead of asking us to take the money out of the pockets of the Canadian tax-payers, we should prevent the American trust from invading our market. We should use our own plant, we should use Canadian labour. We would not pay a cent higher for the twine. Why should we pay for it higher when it was manufactufed by Canadian hands ? Sir, no answer, no argument, can be advanced to prove that because binder twine is manufactured on Canadian soil it would be dearer. There is no sense in the argument, there is no truth in the assertion. But what is true of binder twine is true of everything else. It is a fact that by imposing duties on foreign articles we are raising the prices in proportion to the extent of the duty, then we lire taxing our people very heavily indeed. Still, if you compare prices of the most highly protected articles in this country with those of other countries, you will find that you are not paying dearer here than they are paying elsewhere. Compare the prices that are paid in England, in free trade England, for agricultural implements, with the prices paid for the same implements on the other side of the line, or in Germany, and you will find that they are dearer in England than anywhere seise, perhaps. I say without any hesitation that a good many of our hon. friends who are talking about the lower tariff or free trade, fire talking by an old book, an old theory. Certainly I do not question their good faith. We are not accusing each other of bad faith, we are discussing a question of business, of national affairs.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Can the hon. gentleman give us any figures ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I have given the figures in the House already, and they have not been answered ; I have given them on two former occasions, comparing the prices of things in the United States and in England, and no one has answered those figures. Perhaps my voice was not worth answering, but there was a time when it was considered worth answering. I invite the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are in favour of a low tariff, to study those figures, and I invite them to answer those figures. Now, how is it that the most enlightened nations in the world, that the best equipped nations in the world, such as Germany, such as the United States, such as Russia


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Oh, oh.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That the House go into committee on Bill No. 104 to incorporate the BrockviLle and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment. ,


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, before you put that motion I would like to say that when this matter was up on Wednesday night the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) who is interested in this Bill, was addressing the House and when the hour closed he had not concluded his speech. He received a telegram to-day and had to leave on important business and he requested me to ask, if the matter came up, to have it allowed to stand until next Wednesday night. I told him I would make the suggestion and I hope it will meet with the approval of the mover of the Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I see that the order is not properly drafted on the Order paper. It says : House in committee on Bill (No. 104) &c.,' whereas it should be : ' House again in committee on Bill (No. 104).' So I suppose, the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) will withdraw his motion and the House will go into committee.
House went into committee on the Bill.


George Taylor: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived.


George Taylor: Then I have some amendments to propose to the Bill and I want the promoter of the Bill to be present before I proceed. I do not think a Bill can be proceeded with according to the rules of the House in the absence of the promoter.


William Alfred Galliher: I am in charge of this Bill.


George Taylor: The gentleman in charge of this Bill, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment), is not present and I do not think it is proper to proceed with the Bill in his absence as it is contrary to the rule.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Once a Bill is before the House it is the property of the House. Any member present by courtesy is allowed to move it; in fact any hon. gentleman can move it.


George Taylor: I think the rule is against the hon. Postmaster General. I am informed by the clerk of the House that the rule is as I have stated it.
Mi-. GALLIHER. I am in charge of the Bill.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is that when a Bill is introduced and receives its first reading any hon. gentleman can, in the absence of the mover, become the promoter of the Bill.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the number of the rule ?


George Taylor: That may be so by courtesy of the House but not if any member takes objection. Then, the rule of the House is that the Bill cannot be proceeded with.


William Alfred Galliher: Mr. .Chairman, I do not know whether you heard me or not, but I am in charge of this Bill and have been in charge of it during all the discussions that have taken place since it has been before the House.


Peter Macdonald: When I gave my ruling it was with the understanding that the party who moved it did so with the consent of the absent member. I take it for granted that no hon. member would move a Bill unless he bad the consent of the absent member.


George Taylor: The rule does not say that the consent of the absent member is necessary. The rule says that the absent member must be present.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: As I understand it, a Bill is not in charge of a member after its introduction. It then becomes the property of the House. Otherwise a member might retire from an important Bill and the House could not deal with it. Just as soon as a Bill is proposed to the House the House will deal with it and will say whether it will pass it or not irrespective of whether the memberl wishes it or not.


George Taylor: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to read the rule that applies to the case, and if I am wrong, I will submit.


Mr. INGRAM.: A few years ago the late Hon. David Mills, who was well up on the rules of the House, objected, while a member of the House, to a Bill being proceeded with for the reason that the mover of the Bill was not present, and it was decided on that occasion that the House could not proceed with the Bill, and, therefore, it was not proceeded with.


Peter Macdonald: Any Bill or proposal that is made, after it passes into the possession of the House, can be dealt with by the House, whether the promoter is here or not if, in the opinion of the House, it is deemed advisable to prosecute further the proposal of the mover. But, of course, if a member ceases to be a member of the House then it is a different thing. Then it has to be taken up de novo. That has been the practice during this session and during all other sessions.
Mr. TAYLoR. I understood that the rule was going to be quoted.


Peter Macdonald: We will look it up.


George Taylor: I shall have to appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and ask

the Speaker to decide because I know I aui right.


Peter Macdonald: Very well.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think we may get some light upon this subject by reference to Bourinot, p. 372 :
If a member refuses to proceed with a motion, the House cannot force him to do so, but he has a right to drop it. A member who has given notice of a series of resolutions may withdraw some of tihem and go on with the others. A member may not propose a motion in the absence of another who has placed it on the notice paper, except with the general consent of the House.
Of course, that consent can be obtained.


James Clancy: That must be the unanimous consent of the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It does not say that. It says general consent.'


George Taylor: If any one objects it is not the general consent of the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) if he is in charge of the Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: I have been in charge of it constantly since it was introduced.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Again I find in Bourinot that one member may take charge of a public Bill in the absence, but with the permission of another member.


John Graham Haggart: This is a private Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is a public Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: Apart from that there is no motion being made. This Order is on the paper and the Bill is in the committee of the House. We are now entering upon a discussion of the preamble. I stand here as the member in charge of the Bill, and I have been in charge of this Bill. This Bill was brought up on the last night when we considered private Bills, the hon. member whose name appears as promoter of the Bill was not here and the question was not then raised.


George Taylor: I raise the question now because courtesy would not be extended to the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) who is unavoidably absent, to conclude his remarks.


William Alfred Galliher: I have consented twice owing to the absence of the hon. member for Cornwall to have the Bill stand over. That hon. gentleman ini speaking on it the last night the Bill came up for discussion, n(ade a remark tantamount to saying that by the time it was needed a certain document would be in his possession; in other words, meaning that he proposed to talk the Bill out. I must object now, having charge of this Bill, to its being postponed. There
is no reason why it should be kept over until next Wednesday simply because the hon. member for Cornwall has to go away and attend to other business. We are here and we want this Bill disposed of and I do not want Monday to pass over, because it is a day that can be devoted entirely to private Bills, if necessary.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Bill, having been reported by-the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lanes, is no longer under the control of a member. It seems to me that when there is a report of a committee to this House reporting the Bill the House must deal with the Bill whether the gentleman in charge is present or not.


John Graham Haggart: The objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is that no private Bill can take any stage in the absence of the gentleman whose name it appears in, if objection is taken.


Mr. C. MARCIL.: We are now in committee, and this Bill has been referred to the committee by the House, so that any objection of this kind should be taken when the Speaker was in the Chair.


George Taylor: I did raise the objection then.
The committee rose, and the Speaker took the Chair.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER reported :
Mr. McDonald, from the Committee of the Whole ion Bill (No. 104) reports that during the discussion on the Bill, Mr. Taylor appealed from the ruling of the Chair :	that Bill (No. 104)
could be proceeded with in the absence of the member in charge of the Bill.
And Mr. SPEAKER, having read the report from the committee of the whole, he put the question :
That the decision of the chairman of committees be sustained.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon, Sir, we are asking for your ruling. We have not appealed from the Speaker to the House. When we get the decision of the Speaker, then, if necessary, we will appeal to the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member is mistaken in that respect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The appeal is not to the Speaker, but to the House, and the Speaker puts the motion whether the decision of the chairman shall be sustained.


George Taylor: The paper which I put in the hands of the Chairman of Committees goes on to say that it is an appeal to the Speaker for his ruling, and that was not reported to the Speaker.


Peter Macdonald: There is a reference which can be made to the Speaker for the purpose of deciding a question, but there is an appeal which can be made from the Chairman to the House, and Mr. Speaker has put the question according to the rule : That the decision of the chairman be maintained. If the House answers ' yes ' it is sustained, land then the Speaker announces the decision of the House.


John Graham Haggart: The practice has always been that if there is an appeal from the Chairman of Committees the Speaker gives his decision, and then the Speaker's decision may be appealed from to the House. Otherwise, there could be no appeal from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When the House is in committee an appeal may be made from the decision of the chairman to the House. That is the rule. I remember that some years ago the chairman, having given a ruling, a reference was made from the committee to the Speaker asking his decision upon a point of order, but then it was only a reference to the Speaker in order to have his opinion, and it was not directly an appeal from the decision of the Chairman of Committees. In the present case the report is that an appeal has been made from the decision of the Chairman of Committees, and in that case the motion put before the House is simply : That the decision of the Chairman of Committees be sustained. In accordance with that procedure I put the motion : That the decision of the Chairman of Committees be sustained.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say, Mr. Speaker-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Those in favour of the motion will please say ' aye.'
And a number of hon. members having answered ' aye,'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Those not in favour of the motion will please say ' nay.'
And a number of hon. members having answered 'nay,'


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the motion carried.


Andrew B. Ingram: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your ruling-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is nothing before the Chair now, the House goes back into committee.
And the House having resumed in committee,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When Mr. Speaker was putting the question to the House I endeavoured to point out that Bourinot lays down the following rule in his ' Procedure and Practice,' page 483 :


George Taylor: 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 bake 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.


William Alfred Galliher: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman voted ' nay ' on the motion, and having recorded his vote, he is too late now to make any comment on the motion.


Peter Macdonald: I do not know what the hon. member is going to say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is just a question whether the hon. gentleman desires the House to be right or not:. If he desires the House to be right, surely he can have no objection to my statement. I wanted to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker, if I had the opportunity of doing so, to the irregularity with which it was reported from the committee that we desired to have the advice of Mr. Speaker on a point of order that has been raised before the chairman. If this authority is worth anything, I was entirely right.


Peter Macdonald: What is your point of order ?


George Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report to the Speaker that we cannot proceed with this Bill on account of the absence of the promoter of the Bill. That is in accordance with the rule which the hon. member for East Grey has just read. We want it decided by the Speaker whether we can proceed with this Bill in the absence of the member whose name is attached to it as the promoter.


Peter Macdonald: Let me explain this matter. When a point is raised in the committee upon which the committee wish to obtain the decision of the Speaker, a motion may be made for the committee to rise and report progress, and place the point in dispute before the Speaker, who will then, in his place, submit the matter to the House for its consideration, and afterwards give his decision upon the point raised. When there is an appeal made from the decision of the chairman, the mode of procedure is somewhat different. The Speaker simply takes the Chair and the chairman steps out without any motion at all. Then the Speaker puts the question to the House, shall the decision of the Chairman be sustained ? And if the decision is sustained, the Speaker steps out and the chairman steps into his place. Now, let me quote the rule from Bourinot. The rule is first given, and then the methods which

were employed iu 1885, when there were several appeals to the Speaker j
In such a case it is for the chairman of the committee to report in writing the point of order wihieh 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 he confirmed. The committee may then resume if the business be not concluded.
That was actually the procedure which was adopted here. As it has been decided that my decision was in order, a reference can be made to the Speaker on the same point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are not appealing to the House, but we are appealing to the Speaker for instructions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will you permit me to suggest that the decision of the chairman has been sustained, so that that matter has been disposed of. But I think that my hon. friend from Leeds is now in order in making a motion to refer a point to the Speaker. That is a motion which requires the consent of the House. If the House wishes to make a reference to the Speaker, it can do so ; but unless that motion is carried, there can be no reference to the Speaker.


John Graham Haggart: Surely it does not require the consent of the House to have a reference to the Speaker.


David Henderson: It would be a remarkable proceeding if the House should refuse to members the privilege of consulting the Speaker. We should surely be able to approach the Speaker of the House at all times on a question of order or of right, even if it referred only to five members. I, therefore, think the majority should not refuse to hon. members on this side of the House the right to consult the Speaker on an important point of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: Five or six years ago in this House, when the practice of members whose names were attached to private Bills, being absent when the House went into committee to consider them grew to be an abuse, the Hon. Mr. Mills raised the objection to the Bills being proceeded with in the absence of the members promoting them ; and it was ruled at that time that the Bills could not be proceeded with because the members promoting them were not in the House. It seems a most remarkable thing that when we ask for a similar ruling, we cannot get it.


Peter Macdonald: We can get it, but I want to point out how to proceed :
If it he 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.
If the hon. member for Leeds wishes to move for a reference of that kind, he must put his motion in writing.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The rule may be stated by the hon. Minister of Finance ; but before we go any further, I want to call the attention of the House to this that if you now refer the matter to the Speaker, you will have the strange anomaly of referring the matter to the decision of the Speaker, after the House itself has pronounced finally upon it. If I understand anything of the rules of this House, it seems to me that an appeal to the House is the final appeal. It might be that the ruling which the Speaker would give would be contrary to the decision already arrived at by the House, and you would then have the Speaker and the House in conflict with each other. The hon. member for Leeds, could have taken one of two alternatives. He had his choice between asking for a reference of the question to the Speaker and appealing to the House. Having appealed to the House, he has exhausted his right, and the question cannot now be referred to the Speaker for a ruling; for, after all, the House is supreme, and its decision is surely higher than that of the Speaker or the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely a majority vote of this House will not set aside the standing rules which govern the proceedings of the House ? What we ask is an appeal to the Speaker as to whether the chairmau has given a proper ruling or not.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That question is no longer debatable, for if the decision given by the House has the effect of setting aside the rule, the rule is set aside.


Andrew B. Ingram: It must be unanimous.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The point I make is this ; The question is now at an end. The hon. gentleman had his choice of asking for a reference to the Speaker for his ruling, or an appeal directly to the House. He chose to appeal directly to the House. The House has pronounced on the question. The Speaker will either rule against or in favour of the ruling given by the House. If he rules against the decision of the House, you will have a conflict between the House and the Speaker, which, to say the least, would be most inconvenient. It would be almost scandalous.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does my hon. friend mean to say that it would not be a scandalous proceeding to set aside the rule without the unanimous consent of the House ? I am sure that if we have an opportunity of appealing to the Speaker, he will give a ruling that will be satisfactory to the whole House.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not set myself up against the Speaker. I only call attention to an anomalous situation. It seems to me that we are proceeding on wrong lines. The House has pronounced on the question, and I should think that the decision of the House on a matter of this kind would be final.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Eraser) a question ? Have we or have we not the right to refer a question to the Speaker for information.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Decidedly. But we have done so ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Evidently the hon. gentleman entirely misunderstands the question. The hon. member for Leeds desired to report to the Speaker and get his ruling. In attempting to do so, we proceeded in an irregular way. It was not an appeal from the ruling of the Chair, but a desire to get instructions from the Speaker as to the point of order. The appeal was irregular, and therefore it can have no force or effect. When we desire to get information from the Speaker, whom we have a right to look to at any time, and we are going about the proceeding in a regular way, surely the hon. member for Ottawa has no right to object to it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Will my hon. friend answer this question 1 Is it or is not a fact that the majority of this House has pronounced on the question ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. The question was not


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Let us understand where we are. The Speaker decided that we could proceed with this Bill without the member whose name appears as the promoter being present.
Mx-. MACLEAN. The House decided that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Excuse me. The Speaker decided that-


George Taylor: The Speaker will not subscribe to that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It was on that decision of the Speaker that we proceeded with the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member for Peel


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker has given no ruling.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: But the chairman has, and the. appeal has been on that ruling. And now it is proposed that we shall ask Mr. Speaker what his opinion is upon a decision given by the Chairman which was sustained by the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Does not the hon. gentleman see how ridiculous that is V We are going to ask His Honour the Speaker to decide a question as Speaker that the chairman decided, which decision on the appeal being taken to the House was upheld. It is absolutely the same thing in another form.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, if we have


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman will pardon me. He rose to ask me a question. I answer that question in the aflirmative. But the hon. gentleman who took the appeal took it in another way, having appealed to the decision of the majority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at ail.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Let us go back and see where we stand. The question was raised before the chairman whether we could proceed with this Bill in the absence of the member whose name is on the Biii The chairman decided that we could. Now, that is not final, because the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said : I appeal from that, and I ask that the Speaker be called in to decide that question. The hon. member may not have adopted the method which he now thinks would have been best. But Mr. Speaker did the only thing that he was permitted to do under the laws of the House. And the House having decided that the chairman's decision was correct, we are now asked by another means to get the Speaker to decide the question chat has already been decided by a vote of the House. It is a well known rule that you cannot have two appeals in the same case. You might as well say you could have an appeal from one decision to two courts. The decision is given and it is final.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) permit me to ask him a question ? Would the hon. gentleman hold that the decision of this House by a majority of votes is final to suspend a rule that according to the rules can only be suspended by unanimous consent ?
Mr. FRASER, Decidedly not. But that is not the case. The decision of the Speaker was not upon a rule of the House. It was upon a question that arose outside of the rule. If it had been a rule, it would have been entirely different. The chairman said it was not a rule of the House and that he so decided. And the question was taken to the House and the House said by its vote that the chairman was right. But we can well understand this second effort to get it before the Speaker; the object is to gain time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding).: We are all interested equally

in having the rules of the House observed because they are as much for the protection of members on one side as for the protection of members on the other side. Permit me to occupy a moment in stating the ease as I understand it. There are two methods of procedure. One is by way of reference, where the committee regards the matter as in doubt and desires information from the Speaker. Upon that question, you may have the resolution as my hon. friend is proposing it. But a motion of that kind has no effect in itself, but is made effective by being adopted by the House by decision of the majority. The other way is to proceed by way of appeal. That does not depend upon the action of the majority. Any hon. member may appeal from the decision of the Chair. Even if the majority is against him he has a right to have his appeal. An hon. member has the choice of either of these methods. The hon. gentleman appealed from the decision of the Chair. The procedure was that the Speaker should be called in, the report made, the decision announced and the question put to the House. That has been done. The result was that the ruling was sustained. Now, I claim that my hon. friend's (Mr. Taylor's) motion is in order; he has the right to make it. But it would be a most unseemly thing to pass it, and ask the opinion of the Speaker in a matter in which the whole House has pronounced.


George Taylor: I would ask if we have the ruling on a point of order on the law covering the case ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman did not want the opinion of the Speaker but the opinion of the House.


George Taylor: No, I wanted the opinion of the Speaker. That is the resolution placed in the Speaker's hands.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was an appeal to the Speaker.


George Taylor: For a certain purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Tayior) desired to get the ruling of the Speaker, but was forced to take the other course against his will, and the course taken was an appeal rather than a reference to get the opinion of the Speaker as he desired. He stated specifically that he wished to get the Speaker's ruling.


George Taylor: My motion is as follows :
Mr. Taylor appeals ora the ruling of the Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: Wait now.
-that Bill (No. 104) can he proceeded with in the absence of the member in charge of the Bill, and appeals to the Speaker for his ruling.
The chairman never read that to the Speaker.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: There can be no appeal to the Speaker against the ruling of the Chair; the appeal must be to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He can apply for the information.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is another question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman had struck out the word ' appeal ' and substituted ' refer '-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But he did not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But suppose he had ?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I appeal to hon. members in all seriousness. Is it not establishing a dangerous precedent to say that the minority is to be prevented from obtaining a ruling of the Speaker on a matter affecting a grave question of order V If I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, you can correct me, and I am sure you will. These standing rules are for the protection of both sides of the House, the minority as well as the majority, as the hon. Minister of Finance said ; and they cannot be set aside without unanimous consent. It will be a grave matter indeed if we are to set aside the standing rules by a vote of the majority of the members present. That will be a very dangerous precedent.	*


Peter Macdonald: Previous to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) making his motion, I stood here and told the committee deliberately that there were two methods of procedure, one to appeal from the chairman's decision in reference to the question, and the other a decision on the part of the committee to obtain information from the Speaker, the question being one in which there was a doubt. After I made this statement, the hon. member for Leeds wrote out his appeal. I stepped out of the Chair and Mr. Speaker stepped in and we proceeded exactly according to the rules laid down. Now the last motion made by the hon. gentleman is in order. He wishes to appeal-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: He wants to refer.


Peter Macdonald: I beg pardon. He wants to refer to the same tribunal that lias already decided.


George Taylor: He has never decided yet.


Peter Macdonald: In other words the referefice is made to the Speaker. Now, I put the motion-


Edward Frederick Clarke: May we not discuss it, Mr. Chairman ?


Peter Macdonald: Yes, you may discuss it.


George Taylor: I want to put myself right. When eight o'clock arrived and the Speaker was in the Chair when the clerk read the order I rose and addressed the Speaker, stating that the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) had requested me, owing to his having been called away, to ask that this Bill be allowed to remain over for another evening, so that the other Bills on the paper might be proceeded with. I simply put the request and was going on to say-some request having been made that X should state my objection to proceed-that I had amendments to propose, when the Speaker said there had been a mistake in the Order Paper, and that It should have read ' House again in committee,' and walked out of the Chair. I intended with him in the Chair to raise these objections-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You could not do it that way.


George Taylor: The Speaker was in the Chair. ' Hansard ' will prove that I had so far proceeded with my speech when he said that the Order Paper was wrongly printed and should have read ' House again in committee ' and walked out of the Chair. Now, that is just as the circumstance happened. I simply made a request on behalf of a member of this House who had not concluded his speech when the hour closed the other night, and I think the House in justice should have acceded to this request. I am sure there is not a member on this side of the House who would have objected under similar circumstances to a similar request made from the other side.


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Taylor moves that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-day, for the purpose of ascertaining the decision of the Speaker upon the question which was recently before us.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: As this question affects the rights of the minority I do not think it should be treated lightly nor decided hastily. As the hour for the discussion of private Bills is very nearly up, I think it would be well to permit this matter to drop, as it is obvious that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) does not wish this Bill to be proceeded with on account of the absence of an hon. member, and of the promoter of the Bill. I cannot understand why the government should allow the time of this House to be wasted for an hour, as it is being wasted by refusing to act in a spirit of fairness towards the opposition. I cannot understand why this desultory discussion went on for an hour when almost every member in the House was at loggerheads as to the correct proceeding, and the chairman himself is undecided what course to pursue. I think in a case of that kind there should be enough dignity on the government side of the House to deal with the matter in a sensible way, and not delay any further the precious time of this House.


Peter Macdonald: Hon. Mr. HAGGAKi. The minority in this House should have some rights. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has made a motion for a reference, and under that reference the Speaker decided it was an appeal to the House. The hon. member for Leeds surely has a right to correct his motion if he makes a wrong motion, and any other gentleman has a right to make a motion to get the opinion of the Speaker on the question. Look at the position the House will be in if we are to be guided by the rules laid dowu by the Finance Minister, that the committee has to give its consent to its rising1 for the purpose of getting the opinion of the Speaker. In no case then can the minority get the opinion of the Speaker upon any question raised before the Chair. Fortunately for us, the rules of the House do not require it. It is sufficient that the hon. member makes his motion for the committee to rise so that the opinion of the Speaker may be obtained. It is not submitted to the committee at all, there is no vote upon the question. The Finance Minister cannot show any authority in that direction. Any member of the committee, any member of a minority, has a right to get a decision of the Speaker. The chairman of the committee has no right to put the motion to the committee. It is sufficient that the motion be made to appeal to the Speaker, and he leaves the question to the Speaker to decide. Otherwise there would be no protection for the minority, because the majority can vote at any time that the committee should not rise in order to get the opinion of the Speaker. How are we to get the opinion of the Speaker otherwise ? Would the Finance Minister or any other member opposite suggest any method ? The member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) says that because the member for Leeds made a mistake in putting his motion, that should debar him from getting the opinion of the Speaker on the question. Surely if the member for Leeds has not a right to make another motion, some other member can make it for him. My contention is-and I would ask your ruling upon the question- that any member of the committee can ask the chairman to rise and request the opinion of the Speaker as to the interpretation of a rule of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sorry that I have to differ with my hon. friend the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who is a much older parliamentarian than I am. He asked me to give him some authority to sustain the position that this motion must be voted upon. Can the bon. gentleman give me any authority, or show any way of getting a motion adopted except by voting upon it? The rule says that a member may move. Does it not naturally follow that you must have a vote ? A motion that the committee rise and report progress, is surely a motion upon which we must vote.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nine o'clock.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hour for Private Bills has expired.



BOUNTY ON BINDER TWINE.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in committee the resolution concerning a bounty on binder twine.
Joseph Israël Tarte: At six o'clock when the committee rose, I was saying that all the enlightened nations in the world were engaged in the battle of industrial life. I mentioned some nations, and included the name Russia. There was a clamour of scornful disdain at the mention of that country. I have no objection to withdraw the name of Russia in discussing a question of this kind. I think it is useless, it is unfair, to look at straws, let us look at square facts. A little flaw in a big piece of steel does not make much difference. However. Russia is not such a small nation that we must ignore it. Russia is euteriug into the field of industrial activity with a surprising strength. It is one of the great coming nations of the world industrially, and agriculturally it is to-day; one of the great nations of the world. Canada has no more dangerous rival for wheat than Siberia. However, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is asking us to-day to deal with a special case, with the binder twine industry. He is giving to that industry a stone when he has been asked to give bread. He was not asked to give bounties. My hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Macpherson), who I do not see in the House at this moment. defended bounties. When his friends in British Columbia approached parliament about lead, they did not ask for a bounty, they asked for protective duties. Let me say that the iron and steel capitalists of Sydney have not asked for a bounty either, they ask for a straight protective duty. But they must submit to the inevitable, and they have informed the government that the inevitable to which they submit will not lead them to final success. That is the reason why, in my humble opinion, the government is not following the course that they should follow. They recognize the fact that the industries to' which they are giving bounties cannot live without something more.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has made the statement that the lead people who came here did not ask for a bounty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, they asked for duties.


Robert George Macpherson: I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that they did ask for one of the two things. It was immaterial to them which, and quite a number of them favoured the bounty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let my hon. friend (Mr. Macpherson) give me that assurance and I will give him the paper which I have in my hands, the memorandum presented to myself and my former colleagues by these very same men. I have the memorandum and I will pledge myself to bring it and lay it on the Table of the House.


Robert George Macpherson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman to the contrary notwithstanding, I attended the first meeting that was held by the silver lead men of British Columbia, in the city of Vancouver, when they talked it over, and talked it over very strongly, and I can assure the hon. gentleman and the committee that the question of bounties was talked of as much as the question of duties-every bit as much. I cannot help what he may have in his hands. I know that the silver lead men were very well pleased to get a bounty, that they were glad to get it and that that was part of their suggestion.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman is in a very peculiar position indeed. Two years ago a bounty was given. The system of bounty which was then adopted did not produce anything. He knows that. His friends in the west could not take advantage of it. The lead industry could not take advantage of the system of bounty that was then adopted. How then can he say that it was a good system ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was not high enough.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It was not sufficient then. The system of bounty then adopted, for which, I admit, I was responsible, did not work. Of course, the lead people are obliged to accept what they are given, because the government stated at the beginning of the session through the hon. Minister of Finance that they would not give any duties. They are bound to accept what they are given. But the lead people, not only to-day, but for years, have been asking for duties. The iron people have been asking for duties, the people interested in the binder twine industry have been asking also for duties and not for bounties. These are the facts of the case. So, I say that we are face to face with the fact that the government have fully made up their mind that they will not adopt the policy of protecting the national industries of the country. It is debatable. I frankly admit that there are two sides to this question. I do not claim to be infallible. Those who hold the view that a low system of tariff is the best, have the full right to their views, but let the country know where we stand. The government should tell us where they stand to-day. Am I mistaken in saying'that in the not very far past, even during this session, members of the government have been giving hints-very strong hints-pledges, I may say, to the manu-

facturers, that in the near future the tariff will be revised on the protectionist system and that these hints have been given by ministers of the Crown, by responsible men? Yet, to-day we hear prominent supporters of the government denouncing protection in all sorts of forms. Well what I ask, for one, is that we may know exactly where we stand. The system of bounties is protection in a certain form. There is no doubt whatever that industries that are given bounties will benefit by them. If you give to a certain manufacturer $5 a ton or five cents a pound, that is so much that the manufacturer will put in his pocket. There is no doubt about that. But that is not the policy of protection that I for one believe this country should adopt. I have no more to say except that in my opinion the government are making a mistake in this case, not only from the industrial standpoint, not only from the financial standpoint, but from the standpoint of the farmers. A large quantity of Canadian flax is used in the manufacture of twine and small cordage. The Canadian farmers, if we had a protective policy, would be protected then. The' more people we employ in this country the more goods we manufacture here, the bigger we make the market for the Canadian farmer. We imported during the last two or three years 75 per cent of the twine and cordage that we are using. If we had manufactured that twine and cordage we would have employed some Canadian labour, we would have bought some Canadian wheat, we would have kept in the country hundreds of thousands of dollars that we sent abroad. These facts cannot be disputed. Every half million dollars or million dollars of money that are kept in circulation in this country to buy Canadian goods, to buy flour, to buy timber, to buy iron, to buy meat is money that is better employed than if it is sent abroad to feed foreign labourers, to buy foreign timber and to buy foreign products of other kinds. It seems to me that the argument is unanswerable. I fully grant that no country in the world can produce everything that it needs, but if a country can manufacture an article advantageously, I do not see any reason why it should be manufactured outside of its limits. Now, I have been interrupted several times by the words 'look at England.' I have already, on a former occasion, answered that argument, but I believe the best answer for that argument is being given day after day through the despatches that are coming from the mother land. Let us not forget that England has not always been a free trade country-very far from it.


William Ross: Since 1842.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend from 'Victoria (Mr. Ross) says that England has been a free trade country since 1842. He is mistaken.	'	I


William Ross: I am always mistaken.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, the hon. gentleman is not always mistaken, but this time he is mistaken as to that, and if he will kindly follow me for one minute I will prove that he is mistaken in his statement. No doubt the first step towards the principle of free trade was taken in 1842, but the last duties were removed only in 1860, when there remained only 24 articles on the dutiable list. What happened then ? There was a war between Austria and Germany, there was a war between France and Prussia, and there was the great civil war in the United States. In other words, the nations of the world which have come to the front since as industrial nations were not equipped practically then, and these nations have been equipped only since 1875, after the Franco-Prussian war. Well now, England had been for many years before a violently protective country. England has been losing ground rapidly. The balance of trade has been year after year against England. I gave the figures the other day, and nobody has answered them, and they cannot be answered, because they are true. The agriculture of England has been destroyed year after year ; the acreage under cultivation has diminished to a lamentable extent. These facts cannot be disputed. Now the foremost men of England, the far sighted men of England realize that England is losing ground all over the world, and there is a strong movement towards the adoption of a protective tariff, because they feel the time has come, the conditions being changed in regard to the nations of the world, when England must not be any longer the dumping ground of the universe. At the same time Canada is face to face with a unique occasion. The policy of Mr. Chamberlain has the right ring about it-the right imperial ring and the right colonial ring. We can get a preference from England provided we make up our minds that we are going to be a protectionist country. If we open our markets to all nations of the earth and say they shall have equal rights, then we cannot get a preference from England. We must raise our tariff against the nations of the world if we are to trade with the motherland. This is not a question of theory. For the last fifty years our tariff has been about half the tariff of our American friends. The United States has developed year after year, until now they have a population of 80,000,000. We have a little less than 6,000,000 ; we have not progressed so fast ; their tariff is twice as high as ours. The lesson that the United States has taught us should not be lost sight of. We cannot help ourselves. Those of us who hold views contrary to the views of the present government are in the minority, apparently at any rate. I doubt very much if we are in the minority in this country ; I believe we are


Joseph Israël Tarte: in the majority at this very moment. In the Liberal party itself we are not in the minority, but I know what party ties are and I know what party discipline is. There are members of parliament sitting on this side of the House who share the views I have expressed. There are on the ministerial benches ministers of the Crown who share my views. It is an old story for me ; I know all about it. There are in all the provinces Liberals of strong views-I have their letters in my hand-there are strong Liberals who do not hesitate to write me day by day that the government is wrong. I do not say that they will vote against the government, because they still have hopes. That is the trouble, if I may call it a trouble. I say now, in all candour, that I would rather stand by the word ' hope.' The ministers are giving the hope to their friends who are protectionists that they will revise the tariff, but there are still some of their supporters who say that a low tariff is a good tariff. That is not a right stand, in my humble opinion. It may not be the last time that we shall call the attention of the country to the opinions we hold. The fiscal policy of a country should be above petty party division, and should be considered a question apart from politics. In conclusion, Sir, I wish to say that I accept the bounty, because I cannot get duties.


Thomas Walter Scott: This subject has been pretty well threshed out this afternoon, and I rise simply because of some references that have been made by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte). In two particulars the hon. gentleman has done a valuable public service. In the first place, he took his stand upon what I consider to be sound economic doctrine ; and in the second place, he succeeded in showing the falsity of one of the cries which our hon. friends of the opposition-notwithstanding that they were his chief applaud-ers here this afternoon-have for many months been holding forth to the people of Canada. I refer to the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite that it was the action of the government in 1897, in removing the duty from binder twine, which caused the considerable increase in its price. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has pointed to us the binder twine factory in Brantford, which in two years yielded a dividend to the proprietors exceeding 100 per cent, and he told us that the reason why they could make such enormous profit was on account of the Spanish-American war, which caused the increase in the value of the raw material, a stock of which these gentlemen, to their own great profit, happened to have on hand. It would appear then that in the opinion of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) the Spanish-American war had something to do with the increase in the price of binder twine, and that it was not the action of the government in removing the duty which was the cause of that increase. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) also stated that he was opposed to this bounty, because it meant taking the money out of the pockets of some people in the country and putting it into the pockets of other people. And when I asked if the same principle should not be applied to duties, he said it should ; but he contended that the duty did not increase the price. His statement meant that if it could be shown to him that a duty upon an article increased the price he would oppose that duty, because it would be improperly taking money out of the pockets of some people of the country and putting it by law into the pockets of other people. He argued, however, that the placing of a duty on binder twine would not increase its price. I believe, Sir, in considering any one of these articles upon its merits in connection with the imposition of a duty, and it may very well be that the placing of a duty on some articles would not lead to an increase in their price. However, as regards twine, I think the opposite, and a very large number of the farmers of this country think the opposite. But I say that it may be possible, notwithstanding my own opinion and the opinion of others, that the placing of a duty on binder twine would not increase the price of the article, and therefore, so far as binder twine is concerned, if the hon. gentleman be correct in his theory, his position is perfectly sound. But in taking the position that the placing of a duty on articles in general does not enhance the price, my hon. friend is flying in the teeth of every economic authority in this country or in any other country. I could point him to the utterance of the Hon. George E. Foster, who said on one occasion that if the putting of the duty on an article did not have the effect of enhancing its price, then it would be entirely useless to impose a duty. My hon. friend must be aware that when he declares that the putting of a duty on articles of general commerce does not enhance their price, he is announcing an opinion which is the very opposite of the opinion held by a very large number of people in Canada. Why do the consumers object to any proposition to increase the tariff ? They may be mistaken, and their opinion may not be worth as much as the opinion of the hon. member for St. Mary's, but they certainly do think that an increase in the duty would mean an increase in the price. And when the hon. gentleman speaks of the large body of opinion in this country in favour of the doctrine which he has been promulgating for some months, he must forget that we had farmers' associations throughout the province of Ontario meeting week after week, and at every meeting placing themselves on record as being opposed to any general increase in the tariff. He must also forget that the Trades and Labour Council of Canada, at its last annual meeting, placed on record a most emphatic protest against any general increase in the tariff.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him if he believes that the Trades and Labour Council represent the labour element of this country on that point ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I should hope so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend hopes in vain.


Thomas Walter Scott: My opinion upon that point may not be worth a great deal, but, at all events, this body represents a section of labouring people from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and their view is entitled to some respect.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly it is.


Thomas Walter Scott: And when my hon. friend was contending that no duty meant an increase in price, I remembered a statement which X saw in a reputable newspaper some weeks ago with regard to the prices of wire. It will be remembered that when changes were made in the tariff some years ago, barb wire for fencing and certain other qualities of wire, technically designated by numbers, were placed upon the free list. There are certain other qualities of wire which still bear a duty. I saw the statement made in the ' Farmers' Sun ' of Toronto, and I have never seen it denied, that the difference in the price of the wire which is free of duty in Canada, as compared with the United States, is 25 cents per 100 pounds, and on these qualities of wire which still bear a duty in Canada, there is a difference in price of $1.60 per 100 pounds as against 25 cents per 100 pounds on the wire that is free of duty.


James Clancy: What is the difference on that class of wire to which the hon. gentleman refers ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Barbed wire and certain other brands are free, and certain other qualities remain dutiable.


James Clancy: What is the duty on that ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I imagine it is twenty or twenty-five per cent.


James Clancy: Would that make $1.60 per cwt V


Thomas Walter Scott: I presume so. I was led to believe so by the statements of the * Farmers' Sun.'


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: Would the hon. gentleman tell me what it is worth per hundred.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am not an expert in wire. I am simply presenting the statement as I have obtained it. I have never heard a denial of the statement. If any hon. gentleman is prepared to deny it, the House will no doubt be very glad to have the information. The statement was that on one class of wire which is free there is only a differ-erenee of 25 cents per cwt., which is only Mr. SCOTT.
the difference of the transportation charges, while the wire which is dutiable shows a difference in price between the United States and Canada of $1.60 per cwt., which is the difference in the cost of transportation and the duty added, showing conclusively that the farmers have to pay a higher price for those articles on which duties are levied. If the placing of a duty on an article does not mean any increase in price, what is the meaning of the appeal which hon. gentlemen opposite are from time to time making in this House for increased duties for the benefit of the farmers ? How are the farmers going to be benefited if the increased duties are not going to increase the prices of the products they raise ? As I said before, there may be certain articles on which the placing of a duty would not increase the price ; but there are other articles on which the duty increases the price almost to the level of the duty. For what other purpose is it proposed to place a duty on steel rails ? Will any hon. gentleman say that that is not intended to give the manufacturers an enhanced price on that article ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that steel rails are free. He knows that if a duty of $7 a ton were put on steel rails, we would have the Canadian market for steel rails, and it does not necessarily follow that there would be any advance in price.


Thomas Walter Scott: When Mr. Clergue last fall ajjpealed for a duty on steel rails, what was the reason underlying his appeal ? It was that Mackenzie & Mann were buying steel rails in Germany at a price which he could not hope to compete with, and he wanted a duty so as to compel Mackenzie & Mann and other railway builders in this country to pay a higher price. He said that if that were not done, he could not manufacture steel rails in this country. With regard to the resolution before the House, while I am not at all enthfisiastic in its support or in support of any proposition increasing the taxation of the people of this country, whether by this method or by the method of a customs duty, still, speaking for myself, I very much prefer this method of assisting the binder twine industry to the method of placing a duty on the article. I think this is the much more definite and satisfactory method. If it is in the general interest of the country that any manufacturer should be given direct assistance. I think that the whole country, which it is presumed will receive the benefit, should assist in bearing the burden, instead of the whole burden being placed upon a limited number of consumers who use the article.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House what benefit the country will derive from this bounty of three-eighths of a cent a pound on manilla fibre ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I would prefer that my hon. friend should ask the binder twine manufac-

turers that question. I have no distinct knowledge on the matter. But, I presume that the binder twine manufacturers are willing to accept this measure, otherwise I do not suppose that the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches would be forcing such a measure upon them.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They will be able to sell their binder twine that much cheaper to the consumers.
Hon. Mr. TARTE, In other words, they will be able to compete with the Americans who have closed them up, until to-day seventy-five per cent of the binder twine used in the country is imported. That bounty, I hope, will enable our manufacturers to compete and to keep their establishments open ; so that, instead of importing seventy-five per cent of our binder twine from the United States, we will manufacture it ourselves.


Mr. McCREARY.: Has the hon. member for St. Mary's any evidence that the binder twine factories have been closed on account of the competition *f the United States ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes.


William Forsythe McCreary: Is there not evidence to show that the binder twine factories have had all the work they could do for the last three years V


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


James Clancy: What have they to come here for, then ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Like other manufacturers, I suppose, to get all they can out of the people of Canada. I suppose the hon. gentleman would say that the manufacturers of threshing machines and binders should come here for more protection, though we know as a matter of fact, that all the manufacturers of binders in Canada were not able to supply the demand of file west last year. If it had not been for the binders that were imported from the United States, half the crop of last year would have remained on the ground unthreshed.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to this bounty ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am asking for information. I think that this government, before they increase the duties or the bounties should be in possession of undoubted facts, and not simply take the statements of the manufacturers themselves. I believe that all these binder twine factories, except two are in the hands of the combine in the United States. I believe that that combine owns these factories, and it is merely to increase their profits that this combine is asking for this bounty.


Richard Blain: If this bounty passes, does the hon. gentleman think it will increase the price of binder twine to the farmers ?



REVISED

William Forsythe McCreary: I do not think it will.


Richard Blain: Then, in his opinion, protection does not increase the price to the consumer V


William Forsythe McCreary: That is a different thing. I believe, from what I could learn from the binder twine manufacturers of the United States, that, as a matter of fact, they never got the rebate to which they were entitled, on account of the peculiar agreement made with the Philippine Islands. So that I do not think the Canadian binder twine manufacturers to-day are suffering at all. I think they are merely trying to get more profit from the sale of their goods.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the hon. gentleman any positive information as to the statement he has just made, that nearly all the manufacturers of binder twiiie in Canada are in the hands of the American trusts? If my hon. friend is right, the bounty policy is a very bad one indeed, because we are simply taking money from the pockets of the Canadian people and giving it to the American trusts. That would be an abominable policy, against which the country should revolt. But I believe my hon. friend is wrong. I have positive information that most of the hinder twine industries in Canada are in the hands of Canadians. I have personal information as to that. So that the most of our money will not go to the American trusts. But it shows, if my hon. friend will allow me to say so with all respect and deference, to what extremes our free trade friends will go.


William Forsythe McCreary: I merely asked the hon. member for St. Mary's for information. He makes a statement of fact on which he has no more reliable information than I have for the statement I made. He has only the rumours circulated through the press and otherwise, and that is the only basis I have for my statement.	.


Mr. McEWEN.: I would ask the hon. member for St. Mary's how many of these factories are shut down at the present time ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: There are a couple closed down at Brantford.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They are not closed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend will not play on words. They are not closed, but they have not been working on full time nor making money. In Montreal our manufacturers of binder twine have been closed for most of the time.


Mr. CALVERT.: How many ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: We have two. One of them is a very large industry. In Brantford there is a large factory established by farmers. I believe a couple of thousand farmers have invested money in it. They have come to us repeatedly and told us they



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
are losing money. And I have received letters from them since. They have had their factory going for only a part of the time. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows that as well as I do.
Charles Bernhard Heyd: The Chatham factory is closed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, and most of the factories have been working very little. Let me repeat the statement I made, evidence of which can be had in twenty-four hours if an investigation is held. We imported last year 75 per cent of the binder twine we used. And the American manufacturers came here with threats in their mouths telling our people they must agree to manufacture so much and do no more, or they would slaughter the market. I make this statement deliberately, and am prepared to give the evidence to support it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I never heard it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) will induce his friends on the treasury benches to grant an investigation, I will produce the proof of it under oath. It is a fact well known in commercial circles.


George McEwen: I would ask whether any of these factories which are shut down receive pay for shutting down ? The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is in with these people, and I would be glad if he would tell us.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am not interested in any of these binder twine factories. But I know that the statements I have made are true. The Canadian manufacturers came to us when I was a member of the government asking for protection for their industry. There is no secret about it. They told us they could not compete against the Americans, because the Americans were protected by a duty of 45 per cent, and they were slaughtering this market. The best evidence of all this is that the Finance Minister and the government are asking parliament to vote bounties to these people. Will my hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) vote against these bounties 1 Does he believe that the decision of the government is wrong ? If he thinks this industry is all right, he should vote against this bounty. If these lion, gentlemen are advocating the necessity of additional bounties, how can they say that there is nothing the matter with this industry ? Their position is most illogical. The proposition that the government has laid before us proves that the statements I am making are true and that this industry needs help. I contend that, instead of giving bounties we should put on duties. But I say again that I am very glad that my friends on the treasury benches are not allowing more industries to be closed, but are going to help the Canadian labour to do better than it has done during the past two or three years.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I am sure the government deserves the sympathy in the pitiable position in which they find themselves in regard to this industry. Previous to 1894, there was a sufficient duty on binder twine to enable the manufacturers in Canada to secure nearly all our home market. In 1894, the duty was reduced in deference to clamour raised by people in different parts' of the country for political purposes. With a duty reduced to 124 per cent, the amount of binder twine imported from the United States increased and the amount manufactured in this country decreased. In 1897, the duty was taken off. This was not done because the farmers asked for it. The farmers were not paupers ; they do not ask to be placed in a different posit ion from other people in this country. They know that our revenue is raised by tariff duties, and no person could contend that 121 per cent was an oppressive duty. It is not more than a revenue duty, even according to the views of the members of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has said again and again that the present revenue is a tariff for revenue only, and it is a great deal higher than 124 per cent. So, this duty was not removed because it was a protective duty ; its removal was simply designed as a vote-catcher. The leader of the Liberal party thought the farmers of this country were easily caught, and to catch them they made a few clap-trap changes in the tariff.


William Samuel Calvert: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) permit me to ask him a question? If the removal of the duty in 1897 was intended as a vote-catcher, what was the object in 1894, in reducing it from 25 per cent to 124 per cent ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: No doubt, it was removed in deference to a political agitation carried on by men who wished to catch votes. All the hou. gentlemen opposite were engaged in it, as well as some on this side. Under the 124 per cent duty we imported only 2.000,000 pounds of binder twine. But when the duty was taken off. the amount increased to 10,000,000 pounds the year before last, and to 15,000,000 pounds last year. Instead of manufacturing 75 per cent of the binder twine we use, we only manufacture 25 per cent, the remainder being imported from the United States where tile manufacture of it gives employment to American workmen. And the farmers are not benefited by it. Even if they were- which I dispute-it would be a benefit which they have never asked for. for they know that every man should contribute his share to the revenue, and 124 per cent is not excessive. Our factories are closed, and the American trust controls our market. If the American trust saw fit. thev could crush our factories out at once. Why ? Because they carry on business in a much larger way and are able to manufacture cheaper

than can the factories in this country. Today, they are placed in a very much superior position because of the f cent per pound that they get. So, the government come to the rescue of this industry. Why do they not do the same by scores of other industries that are in the same position ? Why, because there is not enough money in the treasury to pay bounties on all these industries ? If this system was adopted in its entirety the government would not have one-tenth of the money they would require. Consequently it is adopted piecemeal-a sop thrown here or there wherever there is a strong kick coming. If my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) comes with a big boot and threatens a strong kick, there is some help given to an industry in his constituency. And an industry in Sydney is treated in me same way and for similar reasons. But the general industries of the country are sacrificed-not all of them, lie-cause the duties were not removed from all of them, were not even lowered on all of them. If to-day we are prosperous these industries are able to survive. But we know what the position of this country was from 1873 to 1879. We had a low tariff, and the hard times in the United States forced the manufacturers there to look for an outside market. They found it in Canada, slaughtering the industries of this country right and left. In 1879 a tariff was put on which enabled our own industries to exist. But the same conditions will arise again unless the government is prepared to keep our market for our own manufacturers.
I think we should adopt a strong tariff in this country for other reasons The Hon. Joseph Chamberlain to-day, in the old country. is holding out his hands to us and making us an offer that will be worth countless millions to this country if we can take advantage of it. But we are not in a position to take advantage of it, we have not anything to offer. Let us raise our tariff, not. as some lion, gentlemen opposite have said, we desire to do, up to that of the United States. No one on this side of the House ever expressed a wish for a tariff the same as they have in the United States. What we want is a tariff averaging that of the United States, a much higher tariff than we have at the present time. Let us place ourselves in that strong position that we will have something to offer, and what will be the consequence ? If we are able to effect with England a preferential arrangement that will enable our products to be placed in her markets at an advantage over those of all other countries, the consequence to this country will be that every acre of land that is capable of producing wheat will be worth at least 820 an acre more. If the farmer only gets five cents a bushel more for his wheat, that will mean $1 on twenty bushels which would be the interest on 820, and the result will be that every acre of land in this country that pro-2314
duces wheat will be advanced in value by 820. But England will not give us this advantage, we cannot expect England to admit our products into her markets on more favourable terms than those of other countries, unless we have something to give in exchange, and we are not in a position today to give anything in exchange. In order that we may have something to give, let us raise our tariff and put ourselves in such a position that we can say to England: we will take down this wall, we will admit your products on extremely favourable terms if you will give us this advantage. Why. Sir, it would be the greatest boon that ever befel this country, and it seems to me this government ought to take some steps in that direction. Now is the time for this government to act, when this agitation is going on in England, when people there are making up their minds. Now is the time when we should advance every argument possible to strengthen the hands of our friends in the old country who are willing to give us preferential treatment,
| treatment that will make this country advance in prosperity far more rapidly than I it is doing now, beyond even the brightest I dreams of our most enthusiastic statesmen. If we could get this preferential treatment people would come to this country from other lands in far greater numbers than they do now. They are to-day coming into the United States at the rate of from 500,000 to SOO.OOO a year. We want to draw the tide of immigration to our own country.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Not all of them.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Not some of them, I agree, because 00 per cent of those people we do not want. But there is a large stream of desirable immigrants coming to America that would form a very desirable addition to our population. The way to induce a greater stream of immigration is to make it more profitable for the farmer to grow agricultural products in this country, and it will be more profitable for him if we can get this advantage in the British market. But we must have something to offer in return-not a mere sop in the way of bounties, such as the government are throwing out to the binder twine industry, which is indeed a very picayune advantage. It is only enabling these manufacturers to hold their heads above water. It does not enable that industry to thrive as it ought. With even the small duty that existed before. instead of our binder twine factories existing by sufferance of the American trust, they would to-day be manufacturing all the twine used in this country. Why should we not make twine in this country sufficient to supply our own wants ? Why do we not make it ? Simply because the binder twine industry is chiefly in the hands of an American trust. It has been alleged here to-day that they made 100 per cent profit. That is true ns concerns the Brant-

ford factory, but how did they do it ? They did it by accumulating the raw material when it was cheap, and selling it when it was dear. That was one reason, but the chief reason was that they took advantage of the enormous rise in price that was caused by the American trust getting control of our markets. They put the price up, and the Brantford company were not foolish enough to throwT away the opportunity, and they sold their twine at the higher price.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that company has never paid less than 10 per cent.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: If they are paying 10 per cent to-day, I do not know what they are coming to the government for.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Are you opposed to it ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I believe they should have a higher protection, that would be more valuable to them, and to every other twine industry that saw lit to start business in this country. Gentlemen who argue against the protective tariff lose sight of the fact that it secures a home market to the manufacturers. One of the greatest advantages any industry can have is a market, that is the main thing. Let any company get possession of a market, and it requires a desperate fight on the part of any other company to get that marker away from them. Let them treat their customers fairly, and no new company will be able to undersell them. In 1896 the Canadian manufacturers had possession of a considerable portion of our market, but the American manufacturers have got possession of it, and they will retain possession until our manufacturers are placed in a superior position which will enable them to undersell their American competitors. I am glad indeed that the government has seen fit to offer this little assistance, small as it is. I am glad to know that the light has broken in upon them to this small extent, and I hope they will go further and give these industries, a protective tariff.


Robert Johnston: I am pleased to know that the government has, even at this late hour, taken some means to help the binder twine factories of Canada out of the hole they have got into for the want of some protection. We are told by the Finance Minister that nearly a year a go the Americans imposed a duty on the raw material. I think it was then the duty of this government, in view of that fact, at the earliest date, at least on the 13tli of March, to introduce this bounty resolution, and to give the binder twine factories a chance to live. But the government have waited until the 24th of July when the market is crowded with American twine. You cannot drive through any town in this country without seeing the shops filled with American binder twine, and that, too, at a time when the Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
harvest is almost ready to cut. Not until now lias this government given the binder twine people any idea that they were going to be assisted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hou. gentleman has forgotten the statement made in the Budget Speech that this bounty would be paid.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman did not indicate what the nature of the assistance would be.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The binder twine men understood it.


Robert Johnston: I am glad the government has now come to the relief of the binder twine men, and is going to give them something for what they manufactured last year, because they had no assurance at all that they would even get this bounty. We have heard many things pr mised in the speech from the Throne that were never performed. .


James Clancy: This is the language used by the Finance Minister :
The government will introduce, before the close of the session, some legislation whereby the binder twine manufacturers in Canada will be compensated for the disadvantages under which they labour.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman, even as he reads that language, vindicates my statement. But if he will read the preceding remarks, he will see that I described the condition of affairs in the Philippine Islands, and stated that the compensation was to be made equal to the disadvantage.	*


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman did not say why or how.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The binder twine people were not concerned in the how or the why. I am dealing with the remark of the hon. member for Cardwell (Mr. Johnston) who said the binder twine people had no intimation. He is mistaken.


Richard Blain: Would the Finance Minister tell us whether, in his opinion, this bounty will increase the cost of twine to the farmers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has worked that old gag often enough.
I do not pretend that the bounty increases the price of anything, and nobody else pretends it would. While a bounty would, of course, not increase the price to the consumer, the imposition of a customs duty might, and in most cases would, increase the price.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman will permit me to say that I did not expect a gentleman occupying the position of Finance Minister would stoop to that low manner of addressing this committee, and using language of that kind. I do not wonder for one moment that the dignity of this House is going dowTn under such leadership. Would

the hon. gentleman be good enough to answer my question that he is so clever about ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Richard Blain: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, he did not answer my question. What I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this : Will the hon. minister tell this committee, whether, when this bounty is placed on binder twine, it will increase the cost of binder twine to the farmer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I believe that in fact it will reduce the cost of binder twine to the farmer, but the question as to what is the effect of a bounty and the question as to what is the effect of a duty are vastly different things.


Richard Blain: I did not ask that question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know the hon. gentleman did not ask it, but I took pains that he was not permitted to put a catch question without getting a fair answer.


Richard Blain: I have no disposition to put a catch question. That is not my aim. 1 thought the hon. Minister of Finance, as he had introduced this motion, was the proper person to ask that question. I thought the committee had the right to the information that the hon. gentleman has tendered, and I am glad to see the hon. gentleman stand up and say that protection does not increase the price to the consumer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman has proved that he did intend to ask a catch question.


Robert Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, even at this late hour, to hear the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) state that it is not the intention to raise the price of binder twine to the farmers. The government have found out that the binder twine manufacturers cannot live without this bounty and they are going to give them a present of it. It will be stated throughout this country that this is designed to decrease the price of binder twine to the consumer, but the hon. Minister of Finance has proved to me that while this may be a benefit to the manufacturers, nobody else is going to get any benefit from it, because the government are not prepared to grant sufficient protection on binder twine to enable the manufacturers of binder twine to manufacture that article in Canada. While I am going to support this bounty, I do not believe that it is a proper way to put taxation upon the people. First you levy taxation upon the Canadian people to pay that bounty and then you leave an open door to the Americans to come in and slaughter their goods on the Canadian market. The argument has been presented that if we impose a duty upon American binder
twine the Americans may refuse to give us any manilla. Would the Americans give us any manilla now if they required it all themselves ? Everybody knows they would not. They have simply put that export duty on to help the Americans knowing that this government are pledged to meet their tariff on certain things.	[DOT]


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is it not a fact that the export duty on manilla affects the American people just as much as it does the Canadians ?


Robert Johnston: How does the export duty affect the American manufacturer ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It affects the manilla going into the United States as well as to manilla coming into Canada.


John Graham Haggart: There is no bounty in the United States.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: There is a rebate.


Robert Johnston: As 1 understand the hon. Finance Minister they give a rebate on all that is manufactured in their own country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: On all that is exported.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Both lion, gentlemen are right. The duty is first imposed in the Philippine Islands and they get a rebate on all that is manufactured in the United States.


Robert Johnston: So that the American trade are assured of their raw material and this government has not backbone enough to stand up and put a tariff on binder twine sufficient to protect the Canadian manufacturers, but they give the Americans access to our markets to enable them to slaughter their goods and to crush the Canadian manufacturers. To illustrate my point let us suppose that I have ten head of 'cattle in a field and that my neighbour has twenty-five. Will I throw down the fence and allow my neighbour to pasture his twenty-five head of cattle in my field because I have only ten heads ? That is on the same principle exactly. We are levying a tax on the Canadian people to pay to the manufacturers of binder twine and then we are allowing the Americans to come in on the same ground and get the benefit of what they are doing. Why not impose a tax on the American producer for the benefit of the Canadian manufacturer ? I think I have used as much binder twine around sheaves as any hon. member of this House and I can tell the committee that when the tariff was taken off binder twine we paid more for it. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) has pointed out that the Americans have control now of our factories, so that the Americans can actually get this very bounty that we are giving to-day if they buy up the Canadian product. To-day I the market is full of American manilla on

which this bounty is given. The binder twine industry, if it so desired, might go on and manufacture binder twine in advance of the requirements of the trade and collect this bounty and they could sell out to the Americans and the Americans would get the advantage of the bounty.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Chairman, as I represent an agricultural county, perhaps it would not be amiss to say a few words on this subject. I am sure the farmers of my county will beg to be delivered from such friends as the hon. gentleman from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte). He tells us that their interests will be best conserved by a protective tariff. I think he would have to hunt a long time in my constituency before he could find one farmer who would take any stock in that. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) made two rather surprising statements, as coming from an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. One was that the government had cut down the tariff on a great number of articles. We have heard from these hon. gentlemen that the government had not affected the old national policy in the slightest. The statement of the hon. gentleman seems to me somewhat surprising. He made also another startling suggestion in the interest of the farmers, and that was that the Canadian manufacturers should be given control of the Canadian market. Let me illustrate what that means. I will take one class of manufacturers and I will Show how they deal with the country. I have under my hand some papers. I will take hardware for instance: cut nails, wire nails, tarred paper, pressed spikes, tacks, lanterns, rope, lead-pipe, shot, bolts and nuts, tire bolts, screws, carriage bolts, sleigh shoe bolts, machine bolts, blank bolts, bolt ends, varnishes, shovels, coach screws, wire of all sorts, nuts, axes, wooden-ware, haying tools, handles of all sorts, tinware, galvanized ware, wire doors, wire screens, coal hods, stove-pipes, elbows, locks and knobs, scales, papers, white lead, burst, putty. There is an association of these gentlemen, and I mean to say to this House that no wholesale dealer in Canada can buy a dollar's worth of these articles from any one of the members of this association until he enters into a binding agreement that he will not purchase from any other parties outside the association, that he will not sell for a less price than that dictated and then they will not really sell him the goods, but they will allow him a return commission for selling them. They dictate the price at which he shall sell them, and compel him to buy from them and after that they require him at stated periods, each year, or each six months, or each month, to make a statutory declaration that he has performed all these conditions. Let me read to the House from one of the letters I have, an extract from a contract that they require the dealer to Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).
enter into. This is the statement of the shot men, and I will refer hon. gentlemen to the well known firm in Toronto of Jenkins & Hardy, who are the agents for a number of these concerns.
SHOT. *
January 8, 1903.
Dear Sirs,-We beg to advise you that subject ito the following conditions, you may be entitled to a premium of 2i per cent upon the net, amount of your purchases of shot (commencing to-day) in each six months ending June 30th, and December 31st, same to be payable within thirty days after the expiration of each six months upon which premium applies.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am in the hardware business.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What manufactury are you connected with ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am a dealer in hardware, and in that statement you have read they stipulated nothing about the price that the shot shall be sold for.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I have yet that to read, and if my hon. friend is a retailer I may say that this does not apply to him at all. It refers to the wholesale man who stands between him and the manufacturer, and the wholesale man has to run the risk of his Insolvency. That is what 1 am getting at: Here are the conditions :
Conditions.-That we receive from you after the end of each six months period, ending June 30th, or December 31st, declaration which satisfies us that in the six months upon which you are applying for premium, you have not imported or purchased shot from any manufacturer other than those whose names appear below. and that you have not directly or indirectly offered or sold shot at less than the established prices of the Shot Association of Canada to the retail trade, or upon more favourable terms to your customer than the established terms of the said association to the retail trade.
We reserve the right to revoke and cancel all or any part of this proposition at any time on notice to you by registered letter of our desire and intention to do so, but not thereby to relieve ourselves from any obligations which may have accrued on your above described purchases of shot up to date of said revocation.
Those are the conditions which are imposed and if the hon. gentleman doubts m.v word he can go to the well-known firm of Jenkins & Hardy and he will find that such Is the case. I have the form of declaration which is required from these wholesale firms every six months or a year as the case may be, and if they do not make it they cannot purchase that class of goods from the parties who are in the association, and as far as I know and as far as I am informed and believe it is the case with every one of these manufacturers forms part of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I will state further that I have been informed and believe that the prices which are fixed by the Canadian manufacturers to-day throughout Canada for all hardware, are prices which are agreed upon by them in conjunction with the American

Manufacturers' Association. Not very long ago I chanced to hear a conversation which was taking place between a strong supporter of the Conservative party, a wholesale merchant, and another gentleman, aud he made this statement :	It is no use for us
to talk about it ; we in the wholesale trade are absolutely at the mercy of the manufacturers of Canada and they are in affiliation with the manufacturers of the United States.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: If the Canadian manufacturers are in combiue with the American manufacturers and if the combination spreads over this continent, what difference would it make whether the duty was 25 per cent or 50 per cent, if the prices are regulated by the combine ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will tell my hon. friend that I believe that these manufacturers and these associations have ways and means of accomplishing their purpose that he does not know of and that I do not know of. I am prepared to accept the statement of the hardware merchant made in my hearing, and I know he is a man who knows what he is talking about, and he certainly is not a supporter of the present government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman drawn the attention of the Minister of Justice to that, and asked him to prosecute under section 520 of the Criminal Code V I did


Fletcher Bath Wade: If the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) is responsible for bringing that to the notice of the Minister of Justice, and thereby causing the section in the code referred to, then I say he has accomplished a great good to the country, because it should be a crime that these men may combine to absolutely control the wholesale business of this country, and to say to the wholesale merchants : You shall not buy merchandise any longer except from us ; we alone will supply you, and we will compel you to sell them at a certain price, and we will not permit you to sell at a lesser price, and we will dictate to you what the price shall be. The hon. gentleman has accomplished a great good if he suggested that to the minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Finance sometime ago with reference to the leather trade which is exactly on the same lines.
member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) would say to us that we should deliver the whole of the markets of the Dominion of Canada into the hands of such men. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to consider this matter. In my judgment the Canadian Manufacturers' Association have gone as far as they should, and they are trenching upon dangerous ground when they try to press on a bit further. I have only referred to the case of the hardware manufacturers, but I am informed that other manufacturers have been imposing the same conditions. Why, I went into an old established hardware concern not long ago and they told me that the Manufacturers' Association had actually sent a man to them demanding that they should have inspection of their books, because they had heard that the firm had purchased goods from concerns other than those in the association. I have a long string of names here, I do not w'ish to give them, but I thought it well to bring this matter to the attention of the committee.


Frank Oliver: In view of the long discussion of the subject aud the nature of that discussion, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Finance that he withdraw the resolution. It appears that this resolution which is intended to give certain relief to the binder twine manufacturing industry is not satisfactory to the friends of that industry who have taken a great deal of trouble to show that it is not sufficiently far-reaching and would not do any appreciable amount of good. That being the case, then speaking on behalf of those who use binder twine I can say that they are not asking for any such resolution, and I think the minister would please everybody by withdrawing the resolution and leaving the binder twine manufacturers just where they are now. I think, however, the discussion has done good in this way : that our friends opposite have taken a very definite stand upon the subject not only of the duties on binder twine, but on duties generally, and when the next election rolls around we in the North-west Territories will not be in the jjosition of being attacked because the government is too protective. We are at least saved from that hereafter because of the attitude taken by the opposition now and on previous occasions calling the government to account because they are not sufficiently protective. I am no sympathizer with the idea which has been put forward


Fletcher Bath Wade: All the credit to the hon. gentleman if he did that. It was time that some one should do it. And now we find that one of the leading gentlemen who has been asking us to care for and caudle the manufacturers in every possible way. has deemed it necessary in the interest of the public to cause an amendment to the Criminal Code of such a nature as declares their practices to be a crime. That is the position they are in, and yet the hon.
repeatedly by the opposition, that the remedy for all possible industrial and commercial evils is the raising of the tariff. It does not make any difference what the industry is ; it does not make any difference what tiie condition is. the remedy proposed in all cases by hon. members opposite is to raise the tariff. They speak for the people who are interested in raising the tariff and it is not at all wonderful that they should advocate that as a cure-all. I

speak for the people who are interested iu keeping the tariff low, and for my part let me say, that this idea that every inuns-try can be protected is a fallacy. If it is possible to protect every industry and if every industry is protected, it all comes around that no industry is protected and we are all on the same level. If there is to be protection some body must have the advantage and some body must be at a disadvantage or there is no protection. Protection means unfairness ; it means a special advantage to some, and unliss there is that special advantage there is no protection. In regard to this binder twine industry it has not received protection at the hands of this government. I take for granted that the government in framing the tariff came to the conclusion that somebody had to be sacrificed, that somebody had to get along with lower duties than other people had to. They figured no doubt that the great necessities of the country should come in under a low tariff or come in free, while the luxuries should pay the greater part of the revenue. On that principle, and considering that binder twine is a vital necessity to the greatest producing industry of the whole country; is an ever-recurring necessity and had been up to that time under the operation of a notorious combine ; the government placed binder twine on the free list. Taking into consideration the fact that the material entering into the manufacture of binder twine was entirely imported ; taking Into consideration the fact that there was a minimum amount of labour and capital entering into the manufacture of binder twine and a maximum amount of imported material, it seemed reasonable that that industry which had been the subject of the profitable operations of the combines for so many years, should be brought down to the level of no duty. There is no great capital invested in the manufacture of binder twine ; there is no large amount of labour engaged in its manufacture, at any rate, in proportion to the raw material used. The reduction in price of binder twine by reason of the abolition of the duty was a material advantage to the farmers of the country, and I am surprised that the opposition and some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House should take a stand in favour of the reimposition of a duty which, from the standpoint of the farmers at any rate, is an unjustifiable tax on his industry, a tax which is not supported by any of the reasons which can be advanced on behalf of some other industries. As my hon. friend from Wentworth said, the farmer is no pauper ; he is prepared to pay his share of the taxation of the country ; and give our hon. friends of the opposition any fair chance, and they will see to it that he pays, not only his fair share, but a great deal more. There are many articles of consumption required by the farmers on which the duty is higher than a revenue basis.


Frank Oliver: Probably the duty should be kept moderately high in the interest of industries in which there is a large investment of capital and a large employment of labour, In which native material and native labour enter largely or in which native capital, native labour and native material are the whole consideration. These industries certainly are entitled to all the benefit which a revenue tariff can give them. The farmers who are willing to submit to duties of this character, under these circumstances, are entitled to compensation of some sort ; and it was thought well by the government, in framing their tariff, to give them in the west compensation iu free binder twine, free barbed wire, free cream separators, and, in this eastern country, in free corn. The farmers have been given these advantages, which have been valuable, and I am glad, from a political standpoint, to see that our friends on the other side of the House have taken so long a time to-day, and have been so determined in their efforts, to establish themselves in the position of demanding that these advantages should be taken from the farmers.
As to the charge that the reduction of the duty has increased the price of binder twine, I do not suppose that anybody holds that seriously. Although It was proclaimed on every platform occupied by Conservative orators throughout the North-west at the general elections, we have had it on authority to-day that the reason of the increased price of binder twine was the war in the Philippines, which enabled the binder twine factories to pay a dividend in one year of 100 per cent, in another year of 40 per cent, and I am told in two other years 20 per cent ; and the lowest they have paid since 1896 has been 10 per cent. I would like to know what these binder twine companies want. They have made more profits, from one reason or another, in spite of, if not because of, the removal of the duty than possibly any other manufacturing industry in this country. Surely this is an industry which, in the first place, it is an advantage to the farmer should not be protected ; and, in the next place, it surely is an industry which could and should live without protection.
There are certain disadvantages under which the binder twine companies in Canada labour, as compared with their competitors in the United States, in connection with this export duty on manilla. For one, I am prepared to say that if the bounty proposed to be given to these industries is not satisfactory to them, if it is not enough to relieve them from the control of the United States combine, of which complaint has been made here to-day ; if it is not enough to put them on their feet and enable them to pay 100 per cent dividend every year, then I think the government would be justified in withdrawing the resolution and leaving them exactly where they stood before. Rut if the

question is raised as to the principle or the theoretical right of imposing this duty, I think that question is very easily answered. There are certain conditions existing beyond the authority of this country which produce a certain set of conditions in this country ; and it is no contravention of free trade, or of any other reasonable doctrine of government, that action may fairly and properly be taken in this country by any means possible to meet those conditions.


James Clancy: Another apology.


Frank Oliver: No apology whatever ; a complete justification. It is the business of this government, or of any government, to see that the various industries of the country are not placed at an undue disadvantage because of the action of other countries. In this case they have seen fit to take special means to do it. But, for my part, I say that if they did not see fit to do so, and if, because of that, the binder twine industry went to pieces altogether, it would still be better for this country at large that we should be able to import our binder twine free of duty than that this country should be taxed, on one hand to pay the rebate, or, on the other hand, to provide a duty that would enable the price of binder twine to be raised to the consumer in this country for the profit either of the United States combine or the Canadian combine.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman the courage to move a resolution carrying out the views he has just expressed ?


Frank Oliver: It is hardly necessary for the hon. gentleman to ask that.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Where does the hon. gentleman get his authority for speaking of a Canadian combine ?


Frank Oliver: I am given to understand that the great reason for the demand for the reduction of the duty in 1891 was that it was understood that a Canadian combine existed. My own experience does not go back to that time ; but that I am given to understand, and I believe it is true.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Does the hon. member believe there is one yet ?


Frank Oliver: From what the hon. member for St. Slary's said to-day, that the American combine came into this country and dictated terms to our manufacturers, under which terms our manufacturers restricted their output, and I believe paid their shareholders dividends ranging from 10 per cent to 100 per cent, we are entitled to say that the binder twine industry is a combine which is a part of the American combine : and I do not see how that condition would be improved to the consumer by the imposition of a duty, which would simply enable the members of the Canadian combine to take that much more out of the Canadian consumer.
We have heard a great deal with reference to the manufacturers and the industrial classes of this country. Surely the real industrial class, which produces the great wealth of this country, is entitled to some consideration at the hands of this House. The hon. member for St. Mary's drew attention to the exodus of Canadians to the United States and demanded that there should be an imposition of duties to prevent that exodus. Another hon. member drew attention to the necessity of imposing duties to prevent the recurrence of hard times in Canada. When did Canadians go to the United States most rapidly, and when were times hardest in Canada ? When the duties were highest, and under that government whose policy was called national, which was to put the duties just as high as the manufacturers asked.


George Taylor: The statistics do not prove that. They prove the contrary.


Frank Oliver: Well, I am sorry for the statistics, that is all. Does the hon. member deny that the exodus of Canadians to the United States from 1878 to 1896 was greater than ever it was before or since ?


George Taylor: Yes.
Mr.. OLIVER. He denies that. Then the United States statistics do not bear him out. Does he deny that times were harder in Canada during the regime of the Conservative ministry than they were before or since ?


George Taylor: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Everybody denies it.
Mr. OLIVER, Then my hon. friends are very good deniers.


George Taylor: From 1874 to 1878 we had the worst times we ever had.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member (Mr. Oliver) would not get credit for sanity to talk in the country in that way.
Mi-. OLIVER. I have heard a great deal about those hard times from 1874 to 1878. It is not within my memory that they were anything like what hon. gentlemen opposite asserted.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: Is it not within the knowledge of the hon. member that during the Mackenzie regime the government appointed a commission to inquire into the causes of the prevalent depression at that time ?


Frank Oliver: Possibly they did. But what I wanted to ask these hon. members was this : Do they admit that times were hard in 1S96, or were times prosperous then? Silence gives consent. Times were hard in 1S96. The so-called national policy was in force and the Conservative government was in office. It was within their power, if they had the will, to place duties on any

article at any rate they pleased. If they did not exercise that power and improve the times, it could only be because they did not believe what they say now, or else that what they say now is not true. There is no getting away from that proposition.
Mr* CLANCY. The only way to get away is that these are fairy tales.


Frank Oliver: There is no fairy tale about the fact that trade in Canada has more than doubled since the lower tariff came in force ; there is no fairy tale about the fact that the population of Canada has greatly increased since that time ; there is no fairy tale about the fact that while Canada was manufacturing millionaires from 1878 to 1896 and the bulk of the people were poor, to-day the bulk of the people are growing wealthier, and for the last seven years we have not heard so much about millionaires being turned out.


William Humphrey Bennett: They have gone broke on stocks lately.


Frank Oliver: There is no use in lion, members telling this House or the country that a mere increase of duties is going to increase prosperity. Our memories are short, but they are not so short as that. If an increase of duties generally will, produce general prosperity, I am for increase of duties. But the experience of eighteen years proves that high duties cannot produce prosperity. It is only a waste of words to tell us that a repetition of these duties will make the country generally prosperous.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? How is it that the city of Toronto, which certainly has more manufacturing concerns than all the rest of the province of Ontario, has increased within the last ten years upwards of 100,000 in population, while the whole province has increased only 50,000, and nearly two-thirds of the counties of Ontario have decreased in population in the last ten years 5


Frank Oliver: I really do not know. If the people are not there, they must be some place else.


An hon. MEMBER.: They are going to the United States.


Mr. BUREAU.: They have gone to Manitoba and the North-west.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the movement of population, I want to say to hon. mem-' bers in all earnestness that during the years of the so-called national policy, during the years of unreasonably high duties, which laid burdens upon the farmers for which they received no compensation, there was a movement of our population from eastern Canada to the North-western states to such an extent that to-day the state of North Dakota is practically Canadian, the state of Minnesota the Red River valley is large-


Frank Oliver: ly Canadian, the state of South Dakota is largely Canadian, and the states of Washington and Oregon have large numbers of Canadians among their population. You say : These people went from a country of low protection to a country of high protection. That is true. But had it not been for the protection that prevailed in Canada, including the North-west, which placed our North-west at a disadvantage, all things considered, as compared with these Northwestern states, our people would have gone to the North-west and Canada would not have lost that population.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: They went from a high protection country to a country of higher protection. How does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) explain that consistently with his theory ?


Frank Oliver: It was because of the greater proximity of the western states and easier means of reaching them, coupled with maladministration in the Canadian North-west which made the North-western states seem desirable by comparison.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is not an answer to my question.


Frank Oliver: Well, I am doing the best 1 can for the hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: Speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite such as the hon. gentleman is now making drive them over to the United States.


Frank Oliver: No danger of that. Let me tell the hon.. members that the truth underlying this demand for increased duty on binder twine is practically this-that the farmers are prosperous and can stand it. That is really the argument underlying this demand. But the farmers could not stand it from 187S to 1896, and they cannot stand to have a similar condition of affairs introduced again. The question is not whether they are willing to stand it or not. The fact is they cannot stand it. When you put ia great industry-the industry upon which the whole prosperity of the country depends-at a disadvantage, you necessarily injure the minor industries, including that of manufacturing.


James Clancy: I do not mean to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I would like to ask a question in all earnestness. Does he say that in the thriving west peopled with probably the most enterprising farmers in Canada, ruin would follow the imposition of a duty of 12} per cent on binder twine ?


Frank Oliver: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) understand me to say so ?


James Clancy: Quite so.


Frank Oliver: I fear the hon. gentleman's hearing cannot be good. I certainly did not say so.


James Clancy: What is the hon. gentleman's argument then ?


Frank Oliver: My argument is that if hon. gentlemen opposite were allowed to bring in their policy of laying the burden upon the farmers for every line of industry and consumption, they could not stand it. They could not stand it before, and they cannot stand it now.


James Clancy: The reason I asked the question is this-the only relief the hon. gentleman can point to as having been afforded the farmers of the North-west with respect to duties is the abolition of this twelve and one-half per cent on binder twine. If the prosperity of the North-west is due to a change of tariff, and the only change affecting the North-west is this twelve and one-half per cent on binder twine, then, according to the hon. gentleman this change has brought about that result.


Frank Oliver: The hon. members opposite are the authority on the subject of tariff changes. I am not presuming


James Clancy: Let the hon. gentleman answer that.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) say that the abolition of the duty, twelve and one-half per cent on binder twine is the only change in the tariff V


James Clancy: The only substantial change affecting the North-west.


Frank Oliver: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman, and, as we do not agree upon our facts, we can hardly reach an agreement in our conclusions. If there has been no substantial change in the tariff except this twelve and one-half per cent on binder twine, what are the hon. gentlemen talking about ? If we have the same tariff as they had. why should they complain V Will they come forward as one hon. member did on their side and say-while another repudiated his statement-that we must have tariff for tariff with the United States ? Will they say that we must have not a protective tariff, but a prohibitive tariff ?


James Clancy: What is your position ?


Frank Oliver: I believe in a low tariff. If hon. members insist that there has been no substantial reduction in the tariff, they can mean nothing by their proposals of change except to have prohibition instead of protection. I shall be glad if they take that stand and stick to it. We would like to go before the country with them on that question.


William Humphrey Bennett: I wish to make representation to the minister with respect to the material entering into the manufacture of binder twine-if we may return to the que-s-^on of binder twine for a moment. As 1
understand it, the bounty is to be paid on binder twine a large factor in the manufacture of which is manilla. I am informed by a constituent of mine, who has invested his money in this industry, that he is able to produce a fibre from another material that will be a substitute for manilia. I would ask that, if this can be made a success, the bounty be applied to binder twine made of this new fibre. The hon. gentlemen have appointed Mr. Joseph Haycock as inspector of binder twine. I am sure that Mr. Haycock, who has a great knowledge of the trade and of the requirements of the farmers, would be able to say whether the article produced by this fibre was as good as that into the composition of which the manilla has entered. May I ask the minister's consideration of that point, and that the bounty may be made applicable to the product I refer to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can promise consideration of that for the future, but we could not bring it into operation immediately.
Mr. TAYLOR, I want to ask the minister, in view of the statement made by several hon. gentlemen opposite that they believed this bounty would reduce the price of twine to the farmers, why it is that he has made this measure retroactive, and gives a bounty on binder twine produced since the first of September last ? He must know that the manufacture for the present year is now over, and every pound of twine that is being manufactured in Canada has been sold to the retail men, who have probably sold the greater portion of it to the farmer. How is the farmer going to get any benefit, unless he amends his resolution so that the manufacturer who is to get the bounty reduces the price of that he has already sold to the retailer, and the retailer remits the amount of the bounty to the farmer ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The farmer gets the benefit in the reduced price that the American is able to sell his twine for. and our people have to come down to that. It is to enable our people to come down to the American price that this bounty is given.


George Taylor: That is in prospective, but the last year's output is sold on the market and there is not a merchant in Canada today who has a stock in store. Half the crop in the western country has been harvested with the binder twine, and how are the farmers going to get this rebate ? It is simply a bonus taken out of the labouring men and given to the binder twine manufacturers ?
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 233) respecting the manufacture of binder twine in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
' Mr. CLANCY. I would like to ask the lion, gentleman how he proposes to deal with the twine that has been sold and passed out of the hands of the manufacturers V
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In every matter of this kind there are some possible difficulties. We shall have to deal with it by the general power of making regulations applied to all other bounties. I have no doubt the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has charge of that branch of business, will be able to devise means. That is the only answer I can give my hon. friend.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ;vill admit that in asking the assent of the House to the Bill he ought to be able to give his reasons now. This is a very difficult question to deal with. The whole outi>ut of twine since September, 1902, nearly a year ago, has passed entirely out of the hands of the manufacturers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is to be paid to the manufacturers of binder twine. I think I am correct in stating that although sales of binder twine have been made of late, probably there had been few if any sales made prior to the date of the announcement made in this House. There is no doubt that the transactions that have taken place during the current season have been based upon the expectation that this bounty will be paid. The manufacturers understood they would receive it, and whatever effect that has upon prices lias gone into operation.
Mr. CLANCY'. Does the hon. gentleman say that he has given the manufacturers an intimation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I did not say that. I gave the manufacturers no intimation except that which was conveyed to the public on the floor of this House.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The contracts for twine were made chiefly long before the budget was brought down. I think the most difficult proposition is to find, out how much was manufactured, because it has passed out of the hands of the manufacturers. How are you going to arrive at the amount of money you require to give as a rebate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do uot think it is important whether it has passed out of their hands or uot, for the purposes of this Act. They are entitled to a bounty by way of compensation for the duty which they have paid, and every pound of twine manufactured for the present season, as we are advised, that which has been manufactured from manilla, has paid the export duty, and that is the basis upon which we


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: propose to make the compensation. As to ascertaining the exact amount, that is a matter which will probably have to be based upon the returns made by the manufacturers, returns that they will make in good faith and upon affidavits. The importation to deal with the quantity of manilla which has been imported for all purposes, and some factories use manilla not merely for binder twine but also for cordage. It may be difficult to distinguish. I confess I do not see anything we can do but to accept the affidavit of a reputable manufacturer. We have to do that in customs duties every day, and I suppose we shall have to do it in this case.


George Taylor: The manufacturer fixed his price last March, and most of his orders were taken from the retail merchants for the quantity they required in March. The sale was based on the cost of the product, the export duty that he had to pay, the labour and everything else. He sold it then, not expecting any rebate from the government. He has got his money for it, and now the government are making him a present. I do not see how the farmer is going to get any benefit from it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This may help the manufacturer of twine, but it will not help 1 he man who bought the twine. I am told that a great deal of the twine manufactured in Canada this year has been bought up by American firms and is distributed through their own channels. Take, for instance, the McCormick Manufacturing Company. They bought up large quantities of Canadian twine so as to control the market, and they distributed it to their own customers. Certainly it could not be expected that we would have any very great sympathy with the American who bought that twine, but he sold out to the retail dealers, and the retail dealers, upon the basis of that price, sold to the farmer. The farmers will get no advantage this year from this bounty, whether they do next year or not. There will be some twine manufactured yet, because they keep manufacturing until towards the end of the harvest. Small orders are coming in at the present time. When I was home a week ago some men had not enough twine to keep them running more than two or three wreeks, and they could not get any until the manufacturer had provided more twine. Others got twine from the McCormick Company, who have collected it in Canada and distributed it both from Chicago and from points in Canada. This is going to help the manufacturer, but for the present it will not help the farmer. I want to say one word in regard to what the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said that if this is undesirable why not withdraw it. We do not say that it is undesirable; at least I do not. I say it is good as far as it goes, but in my judgment it does not go far enough, because we want a duty im-

posed as well. As far as it puts our manufacturers in tire same position as the American manufacturers as to raw material, I think it is right, but I think the government ought to invoke the criminal code to break up what is in reality some kind of an understanding between the manufacturers of binder twine in this country and the American handlers of that article, and to break up some of the combines in the handling of iron and steel.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The explanation of the proposal is this :	The
American manufacturer, when he was manufacturing binder twine without the added cost of the export duty, might manufacture it cheaper than if he had to pay the export duty. The export duty was put on, he had to pay it, but he got a rebate. Having obtained that rebate his twine would cost so much less under that condition of things. He then would fix his price taking all these matters into consideration. Having fixed his price and coming into competition with our manufacturers, our manufacturers, of course, would have to regulate their price in Canada with his price ; so that, they would be at about f of a cent per pound disadvantage and the farmer would get the benefit of that.


James Clancy: How V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The American manufacturer could sell his binder twine cheaper because he had got this rebate. The Canadian manufacturer, not having obtained that rebate, would nevertheless have to sell his twine at a price to meet the the price of the American manufacturer, and this bounty is to compensate the Canadian manufacturer for the loss he would be at as against his comjoetitor In the United States. The farmer got the benefit of the lower price that had been fixed in the United States by virtue of the rebate that the American manufacturer had got. That is where the farmer gets his benefit. The farmer was buying his twine under absolutely free conditions and one of these conditions was that the men in the United States who sold it to him had 1 of a cent per pound rebate, so that they would be able without any sacrifice to give the advantage to the farmer because the Canadian price had to be fixed in competition with the price of the American manufacturer, and it is to compensate the Canadian manufacturer that the resolution has been introduced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Although the American manufacturer gets his manilla free, and although he is manufacturing under these conditions he is fixing the price of binder twine in our country to-day. How is the Canadian farmer going to get any reduction in price on account of this bounty, when the price is fixed by the American manufacturers '!


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the American manufacturer did not get a rebate-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are giving it to the Canadian manufacturer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman asked me a question and I am answering it. If the American manufacturer did not get a rebate of the export duty his binder twine would cost him g of a cent per pound more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who are you giving this rebate to V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: To the manufacturer of binder twine in the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are giving it to the manufacturer in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are not giving it ; the American government are giving it to the man who manufactures binder twine in the United States. He has paid the duty and he gets a rebate. If he did not get that rebate his binder twine would cost him 9 of a cent per pound mare, but as he gets that rebate he can sell his binder twine at 9 of a cent per pound less. The Canadian farmer in importing this binder twine is able to import it from the United States at 9 of a cent per pound cheaper that he otherwise would he able to do. The Canadian manufacturer who has to sell in competition with the American manufacturer must sell, having regard to the import price, and must pay 9 of a cent per pound in addition to his cost and we are giving him back that 9 of a cent per pound by way of a bounty.


James Clancy: I had expected a better course of reasoning from the lion. Minister of Customs than that. I am not going into an intricate debate of the question, but. I am going to ask the hon. gentleman if the American gets a rebate on 15,000,000 pounds of twine that comes into Canada, how is the Canadian consumer interested in any sense in this bounty that we are giving ? He will get his twine at the reduced price that the American sells it at, by reason of his getting the rebate. I am prepared, even to take a wrong course to help the manufacturers out of the deal that was put upon him by hon. gentlemen opposite, but I deny that the consumer benefits to the extent of one farthing.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Not by this.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is not intended for him, this is for the manufacturer.


James Clancy: I admit the manufacturer will benefit by it because he is obliged to pay the fine in consequence of the action of hon. gentlemen opposite that the Americans have imposed upon him. The hon. gentlemen give the Americans free entry into our market. But the Americans were not satisfied with that. They fine any man in Canada who wanted to manufacture

binder twine in his own country, 3 of one cent on each pound that he brings in, and that is the result of the action of lion, gentlemen opposite. They are now' imposing a tax upon every man, woman and child in Canada to the extent of the. bounty on binder twine to help our manufacturers out. but the consumer in no sense gets one farthing in benefit. Yet that was the argument that the hon. gentleman made just a moment ago.
An lion. MEMBER. No, no.


James Clancy: The lion. Minister of Customs says that the farmer will get his binder twine that much cheaper. The farmer gets it that much cheaper because he is not depending upon the Canadian manufacturer for a pound of his twine. He will get every pound of it under conditions tnat lion, gentlemen opposite opened up to him by means of giving the Americans complete control of our own market and if the American manufacturer gets a rebate in his own country because he sends his twine to this country, then, our farmers are in no sense concerned in this bounty. They are only concerned inasmuch as they must put their hands in their pockets and pay for it. As a usual thing, a duty has to be paid by the consumer. There are cases where the consumer pays the duty, and there are cases where he dees not. There are cases where the party pays it, and where he partly pays it, and where the exporter from a foreign country partly pays it but in this case it is unerring. It comes out of the pocke'ts of tlie people, whether they use binder twine or not. The hon. gentleman will ask me what my position is. 1 take the position that on general principles bounties are wrong. There are some eases where they would be justified. They are only justified where the conditions are such that reasonably, protective and defensive duties are inadequate to give our own people a fair field in their own country, but whenever you withdraw duties, or a defensive tariff, from a certain industry in Canada and give a substitution by compelling our own people, consumers or not, to pay tribute in that way, I think you adopt the most mistaken policy that could be pursued in any country. The hon. gentleman knows that this is a compensation for his own blunder. He knows perfectly well that if the government had retained or advanced the duty he would not be coming down now and ask big the people to put their hands in their pockets to pay bounties. I am not going to object. He has made the most of it, and I am willing as a tax-payer in a small way to contribute my share to help the manufacturers out until such times as we have a government that will relieve them of this burden that has been placed upon them.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that we are not depending, under the conditions created entirely by himself, upon the Canadian manufacturer for one pound of twine. I repeat that I am astounded beyond measure that the Minister of Customs should present the argument that the farmer gets no benefit from that. The farmer is not obliged to buy one pound from the Canadian manufacturer. Whether they put two cents a pound upon the raw material that comes into Canada, and whether or not we can get it elsewhere, the farmer has not a particle of concern so long as the Americans can come into this country and sell all the twine.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Suppose we took the hon. gentleman's plan of putting three-eighths of a cent on binder twine, who would pay that ? That is the point.


James Clancy: I will give my hon. friend a candid answer. The American manufacturer would not want that three-eighths of a cent put on, because it would place him at a disadvantage. The American is opposed to it for some reason, and the reason is that it would probably cost him that three-eighths of a cent to get in to this market. I will say that there might be a slight advance, but I do not admit it


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Take one position or the other. Would the farmer pay anything of that or would he not V


James Clancy: The foreign producer of hinder twine is opposed to our raising the duty, and if we pay the duty he need have no concern. Will the Minister of Customs say that if we put a duty of three-eighths of a cent a pound the Canadian farmer would pay it all ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have asked you a question, and what is your answer ?


James Clancy: I have told the hon. gentleman that the chances are to a large measure that that three-eighths of a cent would be paid by the foreign producer who wished to get in to our market. Now let me ask if the Minister of Customs will say that the American producer would pay none of that duty, and that the Canadian consumer would pay it all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We all know very well as to the question of who pays the duty ; that circumstances govern. Let me ask the hon. gentleman this : Canada is short 13,000,000 pounds of binder twine, and that has to be got somewhere, and that being the case, let me ask the hon. gentleman if under these conditions the Canadian farmer would not of necessity largely, if not wholly, pay the duty ?


James Clancy: That is a very fair question. If we are 15,000,000 pounds short by reason of the policy of the government which has closed up our binder twine factories, I am prepared to admit frankly that the farmer would pay it because the government has cut off the source of supply in *Canada.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We have more manufacturers of binder twine now than we had at the time the hon. gentleman is speaking of. '


George Taylor: Where is the output ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Coming from the factory.
Mi-. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman well knows that the inci'ease in our production of binder twine has not kept pace with the increasing demands of the country. 1 admit that under the conditions which the government has created our farmers might have to pay the duty, but if we produce our own binder twine there would be no such condition as the Minister of Customs pictures.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs has said that there are more binder twine factories in Canada now than bef re the duty was taken off. Let me tell him that the output of the Canadian factories to-day is less than half what it was a few years ago.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Nonsense.


George Taylor: Y'es it is. Your factory and one or two others are making a little, but where are the factories at Toronto, at Cobourg, at Pert Hope and at Montreal and at the Kingston penitentiary ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Busy.
Mi'. TAYLOR. Y'es, but they are making rope and not binder twine. When the Minister of Customs announced that binder twine would be on the free list he said that the American manufacturers could come into our country and sell their twine, and that the Canadian manufacturers could go to the United States and sell Canadian twine. But the Minister of Finance admitted to-night that we imported over $1,000,000 worth of twine from the United States and our Canadian manufacturers had not been able to sell a pound over there. When the minister brought down his tariff resolution, why did he not provide that American twine could come into Canada only when our twine could go into the United States 1 That might have been a sensible thing to do. A few years ago they called these manufacturers bloated monopolists, but to-night they are giving them a bonus which will go to the manufacturers and which will not go to the consumers. They endeavour to compensate the manufacturer for the loss he has sustained, because the American government give a bonus on what is exported out of the country equal to the duty they pay on the man-ilia coming from the Philippine Islands. There is the position the Minister of Customs has got the manufacturers of Canada into. When he brought down the tariff he said to the Yankees :	you can make tw'ine
over there and sell it in Canada and we will have the right to make twine in Canada and sell it to the United States, but when we went to sell our twine there they would not let us in. Every farmer in this country knows that ever since this government came in the price of binder twine has been increasing. At first they blamed it on the war, but last year they had not that excuse, and from the accounts of the Kingston penitentiary, which show what they paid for their raw' material last year, we know that the farmers of Canada paid 12 and 13 cents a pound for their binder twdne, when it only cost one cent a pound to manufacture it. We know' that the Canadian industry is in the hands of the United States combine and that they dictate to our manufacturers the price they' shall charge and the quantity they shall turn out, or else the Americans will lower the price and crush every Canadian factory, there being no duty to protect them. We know that every Canadian dealer had to place his order and did place his order w'ith the McCormicks, and other American firms, who sent an agent over here, and they . placed their orders in March last for the

quantity of twine they would require. Therefore nobody will get the benefit of this bounty except those bloated manufacturers that the Minister of Customs a few years ago used to be blowing about. Now he is giving them a bonus out of the treas-uary of this country as he admits. Why should he ask the workingmen of this country to pay a bonus on binder twine that is used only by the farmers. The farmers do not want the poor workingmen to contribute to the price of their binder twine, and it is unfair for this government or any other government to tax the workingmen to lower the price of binder twine for the farmer, and that is what it amounts to.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is a pity that in discussing a matter of this kind we do not get to the exact facts. My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) conveys the impression that our binder twine factories are entirely closed up, and apparently doing nothing. We are not in a position to say exactly how much binder twine is made by the Canadian factories, but one way of getting at it is to ascertain the amount of raw material that is imported into this country out of which this twine is made. In 1898 we imported $572,000 worth ; in 1899, $941,000 worth ; in 1900, $944,000 worth ; in 1901, $076,000 worth ; and last year $1,290,000 worth, being the largest importation of the raw material out of which binder twine is made that we ever imported into this country.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Will the hon. gentleman give us the quantity in pounds ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I cannot tell you that.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The price has increased nearly double.


George Taylor: And this covers all the cordage besides ; it is not binder twine alone.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: So it does, but we have the right to assume that if in 1S98 we imported $572,000 worth of raw material, and last year $1,296,000 worth, there must necessarily have been more binder twine made last year than there was in 1898.


George Taylor: It is double the price it was then.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, it is not.


George Taylor: Pretty near it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There were a few statements made here to-night that ought to be referred to in the interest of the binder twine makers of this country. It has been represented that they are dictated to by the foreign manufacturers. The statement has been made by the hon. member for St. Mary's that they are only permitted to make a certain quantity and if they attempt to make more they are threatened with being wiped out. I have some knowledge of the binder twine business in this country ; I know the Mr. TAYLOR.
men who carry it on, and I do not believe that statement is true. I believe that the hon. member for St. Mary's has been so informed by parties who are desirous of having the duties restored; but I do not think the statement is correct, because I know that the binder twine companies to-day are trying to turn out all the binder twine they possibly can make. The great complaint of the manufacturers of binder twine is that the United States manufacturers, protected by a duty of 45 per cent upon all twine of which manilla is a component part, have absolutely the American market to themselves, and at their own convenience fix the prices at which binder twine is to be sold. Our people early in the season are not aware of the quantity that is likely to be imported into Canada, and they are afraid to manufacture largely because they do not know what the requirements of the United States will be. If there is a large harvest such as there was last year, a*d a large demand for binder twine in the United States, the surplus which the United States manufacturers will have to dispose of will be considerably diminished, with the result that the price will be kept up. But if, unfortunately, with the producing capacity of the American binder twine factories equal to or more than equal to the consumption, there should be a small crop in the United States, and a large output of binder twine, the American producer, who is not prevented from coming into Canada, will be forced to sell his binder twine here at reduction ou the American price probably of two cents, which would immediately take away all the profit and part of the principal of the Canadian manufacturer. Therefore, the Canadian manufacturer wants a duty to protect him from that competition. It is undoubtedly the fact that the American manufacturer has his own market to himself. It is unquestionably the fact that lie fixes the price for the Canadian consumer by dictating the price at which the twine shall be sold in this country. The American manufacturer supplies first Texas and then the other wheat regions of his own country, gradually coming north ; and if at the end of the season he finds that he has mors twine than he can sell in the United States, he can under present conditions invade the Canadian market, and by selling his twine at two cents a pound less' than ho does in the United States, he can undersell our producers, and thus, by making money on the American side and losing a little on our side, he ruins our industry.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. member be kind enough to tell us what amount of American twine was imported into Canada in 1896 and in the present year ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Last year there was imported $1,500,000. The American importations into Canada are growing larger every year.

lion. Mr. HAGGAIiT. In 1896 there were 4,000,000 pounds, if I recollect rightly, and this year 15,000,000 pounds.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The importations are undoubtedly increasing, and the position is this, that the United States manufacturers, beiug able to manufacture their binder twine at the very lowest cost, owing to the fact that they have the largest establishments for the production of the twine, are placed at a slight advantage over our people, which is compensated for by the fact that our people can hire their labour at a little less cost, and can distribute their twine through the agency of farmers' associations who are associated with them. That puts the two pretty nearly on a par ; and if our people had a protection of 12i per cent, they could prevent that slaughtering which may take place at any time whenever there is a surplus of twine in the United States. The fear of that surplus constantly presses on our manufacturers of binder twine. The result is that at those seasons of the year when they ought to be employed in producing for the Canadian consumer, they are afraid to produce, not knowing the amount of surplus that there will be in the United States. Therefore, they limit their production, and thus increase the manufacturing cost of the product. Of course, hon. gentlemen are aware that I am in favour of a duty on binder twine. Having two binder twine factories in the city of Brantford, I am naturally a little more interested than people from other localities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of it because he has a couple of factories in his constituency or because he believes it to be right ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Of course, I think that binder twine should not be singled out from the operation of a revenue tariff ; but having these factories there, I am a little more conversant with the conditions that exist in reference to binder twine, and I wish to say that all the statements that haave been made here with reference to a combine in Canada are incorrect. No such thing exists. The majority of these binder twine factories are owned by farmers. There are over thirty thousand farmer stockholders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say there was a combine. I said the price was regulated from the American side.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I applied to two dealers, one of them bought from McCormick, and the other from Deering, and I asked them if they could not get the twine cheaper from our own factories. They said they were informed by these factories that it was utterly impossible, because the American manufacturers struck the prices.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 

cost the country a great deal more money than the bounty will cost the farmers. At any rate, it shows the disposition of the government, that our manufacturers shall not be subjected to unfair competition, and I look forward with confidence to the time when a revision of the tariff shall take place under the auspices of the present Minister of Finance, and when, I believe, ultimate justice will be done to the manufacturers of binder twine in this country.


George Taylor: I made a statement awhile ago which some lion, members appeared to doubt. I have here the Trade and Navigation Returns for 1895. I find that in that year we imported from the United States 2,035,785 pounds of binder twine. Last year we imported about 15,000,000, or eight times the quantity imported in 1895. The value of our imports last year was given by the Finance Minister at a figure which shows a valuation of over 10 cents per pound. In 1895 the value of our imports was $123,315, or a fraction over 6 cents per pound. I said the price last year was nearly double that of 1895, and here is the proof of it. In 1895 Canadians were making their own binder twine, and selling it at about 6 cents per pound ; but this year we are getting our binder twine, or at least three-quarters of it, from the United States, and, as I stated, at nearly double the price.


James Clancy: When was the export duty placed by the United States on raw material for binder twine ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think in March of last year.


James Clancy: A great deal of the twine manufactured since September of 1902 is made of raw material that was imported before the imposition of this duty. How is the hon. minister going to arrange in his Bill or regulations to provide for that ? Will it apply only to raw material imported since the duty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


James Clancy: But the resolution does not provide for that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman will find that that is fully covered. It says :
Such bounty to be equal to the amount paid as export duty in the Philippine Islands on manilla fibre produced in such islands and used in the manufacture of binder twine in Canada.
Certainly, our intention is to do what the hon. gentleman suggests, and our regulations will be made so as to carry it out.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says that the Bill is the same as the resolutions, and he will see that the resolutions do not cover the point.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is mistaken.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But certainly that Is the intention, and I think he can rely on the regulations being made accordingly.


George Taylor: Why is it that the Canadian manufacturer is under some disability in not being able to sell his product in the United States as the American sells his product to Canada ? I understood that an arrangement was made under which binder twine was to pass across the boundary either way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not aware of any such arrangement.


George Taylor: That was the impression that was left.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: In view of the statement of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) that a combination exists and prices are fixed by the American interests, I would like to know if the Dominion government, who manufacture binder twine to a certain extent, were a party to that combination ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman will have to bring that forward when the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is in his place. He is in charge of the penitentiaries where the twine is manufactured, and he is the com-binester if there is one.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: When the hon. gentleman used the phrase ' prices are fixed,' what I meant was that they are fixed simply because the Plymouth Company and the Harvester Company sell in the United States and Canada at certain prices, and our people are compelled to sell at the same prices, or they cannot sell at all. There is no combination.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It would appear that the Canadian government has been a party to some combine or conspiracy to charge the farmers more for their binder twine than they ought to pay. The hon. member for South Brant has stated that the Farmers' Binder Twine Company made enormous profits, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 240 per cent, besides using large amounts of their earnings to add to their plant. So they must have made a profit of over 300 per cent. Yet farmers are not able to buy from the Dominion government for less than they could buy from Canadian or American companies. I find that according to the Auditor General's Report for 1902, volume 1, page M-47, that farmers were charged 104 cents for mixed manilla, which was sold by the government for five and one-tenth to the jobbers. In answer to a question asked him this session of parliament, the hon. Minister of Justice said that this twine was made for about six cents per pound. If this twine can be made for six cents per pound, why does the government charge

the Canadian farmer ten and a half cents per pound ? A margin of four and a half cents is more than a reasonable margin, and would go to show that there was a combination to which the Canadian government was a party.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I suspect that the government sold binder twine at the trade price. Had the prices gone down they would have had to face the loss, and as it went up, they did not find reason for departing from the trade price.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It would appear that there is a combination and that the government are a party to it. They do not sell to the farmer at a fair advance on the cost of production, but they sell at the same price as the others.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I hope so.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: This is an injustice to the farmer. The factory at Kingston was not established for this purpose. When the manufacture of binder twine in Kingston penitentiary was determined on, it was in order that twine might be sold to the farmers at reasonable prices. Yet, if the hon. minister's statement is correct, the object now is to sell at the same prices as are charged by other manufacturers. To charge the farmer 41 cents profit on binder twine made in the penitentiary, an unreasonable profit, and one that goes to show that the government are a party to the combination.


James Clancy: I would suggest that the words 'imported since March, 1902' be inserted after the words 'paid as export duty in the Philippine Islands on manilla fibre produced in such islands.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not like to make changes in this way. But I will give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman and will consult the Minister of Justice about it. If the section is not clear as it stands, I will make it clear either with the form of words the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) suggests or with some other.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called, House again in Committee of Supply.
John Graham Haggart: It it twelve o'clock, and surely the hon. minister-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do not expect to sit late. But we would like to make a reasonable degree of progress. The railway estimates are very much in arrears, and as those of last year are the only ones I am trying to deal with, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) as ex-Minister of Railways will understand the embarrass-2324
ment that will be involved by delay in getting them through.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think the hon. gentleman will have much trouble with his railway estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Surely we can sit for half an hour. I have had the deputy minister waiting here all day. Give us half an hour.


John Graham Haggart: He must give consideration to other gentlemen who are tired.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is not complaining. Give us half an hour.
. Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman has made good progress with his Bill, it has taken all the stages, with the consent of the House. I hardly think it is fair to ask us to sit any later.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 quite realize that at this hour of the night, if hon. gentlemen opposite press the matter, we cannot make any progress. At the same time, I wish to point out that the estimates which I desire to obtain are those for the past year which has already expired, for moneys that are due, and in some cases delay would be embarrassing. I hoped for that reason we might sit for half an hour and make some progress. But if, as the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says, he would prefer not to go on to-night, I will not press the matter.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are we to have on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Afterprivate Bills, we will take either resolutions or government Bills, and if we go into supply the railway estimates will be taken up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No Grand Trunk Railway Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but perhaps my hon. friend will, in the meantime, see some notice of motion which will give him a ray of hope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 27, 1903.