1903-06-09

Mr.  H. J.@: LOGAN (Cumberland) moved that the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company be permitted to lay before the House their petition for the passing of an Act to authorize them to issue bonds, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for the presenting of petitions for Private Bills.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Explain.


Mr. LOGAN.: The Bill is to get leave to issue guaranteed bonds for the purpose of liquidating the obligations of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company. The reason it was not presented before is because the company were not in a position to liquidate with their creditors, many of whom are workingmen and contractors, when the time for presenting petitions in the regular way had expired. They are now in this position. The company are assuming certain liabilities of the contractors for debts due to workingmen and for material furnished, but as the bonding power of the company is exhausted, it is necessary to get permission to issue new bonds.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
134}

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 197) respecting the Rocky Mountains Railway and Coal Company.-Hon. Mr. Costigan.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House go into committtee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Court Acts, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts, and to provide as follows :-
1.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court in Canada, resigns his office, His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life, provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge, and as stipendiary magistrate ot the North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; or (b) attained the age of seventy years and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.
2.	Every County Court judge who has attained the age of seventy-five years shall be compulsorily retired ; and His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity, if he has continued in office as such judge for twenty-five years or upwards, equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period, equal to two-thirds of such salary ; the said annuity to commence immediately after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
The PRIME MINISTER.: His Excellency the Governor General has taken cognizance of this resolution and recommends it to our approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I move that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Thursday next, the 11th instant, on the following resolution, which His Excellency has considered and recommends to the consideration of the House
Resolved, that it be expedient to provide as follows : -
1. The Governor in Council may from time to time advance and pay to the corporation of the
[Stage Direction]
Harbour Commissioners of Montreal (hereinafter called 'the corporation'), in addition to the moneys authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and by chapter 47 of the statutes of 1898, and by chapter 9 of the Statutes of 1901, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of three million dollars, as are required to enable the corporation to construct such further terminal facilities as are necessary property to equip the port of Montreal.
2.	No such advances shall be made unless the plans, specifications and estimates for the works to be performed by the corporation, and on which the money so to be advanced is to be expended, have first been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council.
3.	The corporation shall, upon any advance being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General debentures of the corporation equal to par vaiue to the advance so made (which debentures the corporation are hereby authorized to issue), and such debentures so issued shall be of such amounts as the Minister of Finance and Receiver General determines, and shall bear date on the day when such advance is made, and shall be repayable within twenty-five years from the date of their issue, and in the meantime shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, such interest to be payable half yearly on the first day of July and the first day of January in each year.
4.	The principal and interest of the sums advanced under the authority of this Act to the corporation shall be paid by the corporatico out of its revenue mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and shall be a charge upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sums so advanced had been borrowied by the corporation under the said chapter 10.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: I would like to inquire from the right hon. the leader of the House when it would be convenient for him that I should take up the motion of which I gave notice some time ago. Of course, I quite understand that the motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should take precedence, but after that motion has been disposed of, I would like very much that the right hon. gentleman would inform the House when it would be convenient for him to take up mine.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If convenient to my hon. friend, we will be ready to take up his motion on Thursday next.



SUPPLY-IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['The Railway Bill will be taken up in the afternoon, and supply later.']
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Some days ago, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice to the House that when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would again move the House into Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
Committee of Supply I would move an amendment, the terms of which I then stated. As some observations have been made in the public press with regard to the time at which that motion was introduced, I would like to say, in the first place, that it was introduced in pursuance of a policy decided on several weeks ago, and so decided upon, not with respect to a single resolution, but with respect to several resolutions which was proposed on this side to 'bring to the attention of the House and the country. There is no - doubt whatever, I think, that the iron industry is a very important one to any country which possesses the proper resources and material for developing it. Every one of the foremost countries in the civilized world possessing resources for the manufacture of iron and iron products has, either first or last, given that industry such protection as has resulted in its development. It is quite true that, so far as the mother country is concerned, the policy of free trade has prevailed there since 1S47 in relation to the iron industry. But we must remember that that industry had obtained a very firm footing in Great Britain under a protective tariff long before the era of free trade in that country.
The iron industry is important because it affords the materials useful and necessary to the development of every country in the* world. It is an important industry also on account of the large number of men it employs, and because it lays the foundation for many other industries. For these reasons, therefore, Canada, it seems to me, possessing the resources and the raw material necessary for the development of this industry, ought to give it such protection as will enable us to utilize to the fullest possible extent those raw materials, those resources, with which Providence has blessed us and which it is our duty, as inheritors of this country to utilize. It may not be out of place to remind the House that Canada possesses, not in one place, but in many places, all the materials which are necessary for the manufacture of iron and steel. We possess the means of economically assembling these materials at the seaboard in the province of Nova Scotia, and also we possess the means of so assembling them on the shores of our great inland waters. And, although the iron industry in Canada has not always in times past been the success that we could desire it to have been, it seems to me, that there is no reason why it could' not be made a success. And in that view, I think, I am supported by the language, to which I will call attention in a few minutes, of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) both in 1807 and in 1899, when certain legislation was enacted with regard to this industry.
A writer who paid great attention to this question, and who was interested in

the iron trade to some considerable extent in days gone by in Canada, has spoken of the resources of this country and of the possibility of building up our great iron industry. I will refer to the work of Mr. J. H. Bartlett, published in 1885, after a pretty thorough investigation by him of the practicability of carrying on the manufacture of iron successfully in this country. He says
Again, as respects the second of the Baconian conditions to national prosperity, the possession of ' busy workshops,' Canada, more especially since the development of the national policy, has, in a general sense, made great advances. There is, though, one special branch of industry, wherein she has, to a degree almost painfully surprising, failed to attain any appreciable rank among the nations, and wherein she has indeed Icing lagged, and still lags, far behind in the march of material progress. We refer, of course, to that great industry, so valued by other nations when endowed by nature with the means of cultivating it, the manufacture of iron. If, under the dispensation of Providence, the successful and profitable manufacture of iron in Canada -was an impossibility or even a dangerous or difficult venture, we would be compelled philosophically ,to accept the position. Just as we all of us, with repining, submit to the veto of nature against the cultivation, on our lands, of sago, tea or oranges. Nature, however, most assuredly, has not placed any such veto oh the manufacture of iron in our Dominion, hut, on the contrary, has, in certain portions of our domain, most bountifully endowed us with all the essentials to the successful operation of this great industry. It is we ourselves who, through our apathy, want of knowledge, or through defective legislation, have so long failed, and are still failing, to duly recognize the immense possibilities which lie within our easy reach, but which, in our blindness, we fail to grasp and 'develop as we should do.
The relation of the various attempts to make iron in this country presents a sad record of loss and disappointment, of blasted hopes and shattered fortunes. These enterprises appear generally to have been undertaken by men of energy and ability,

but, unable to make headway against the competition of older countries, they had, one after another, to succumb.
Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in speaking in 1897 upon the changes which were then made in the tariff, used the following language as appears in ' Hansard ' of that year, page 1,130
How far it was a wise policy to undertake the development of the iron industry in Canada in the way the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Topper) attempted, in the face of many difficulties, and in the light of our experience how far that was a wise policy may well admit of argument. But, it is not worth our while to argue it to-day. We know that large sums have been invested in this industry. We know that large iron industries exist in the country, and while we may not approve of the policy under which they are established, we have no desire to see them snuffed out now. As in dealing with all other countries, we have shown a very large measure of consideration, so we desire to show fair consideration to the iron industry. Therefore, we say, if it is in the
interests of the people of Canada that there shall be a reduction in the duty on iron we are ^ prepared to accept the responsibility of advising that the bounties on iron should be increased for a term of years in order that this industry may 'have a fair chance for existence	 Now we are willing to pay a bounty on iron 'manufactured in Canada for consumption in Canada, but we have no idea of paying the manufacturers of pig iron or other iron a bounty to enable them to supply the world with cheap iron. Therefore, we say that the bounty shall be applied to iron produced in 'Canada for consumption In the Dominion, and if this iron is shipped beyond the Dominion we have the right to impose an export duty upon .it equal to the bounty paid by the government of Canada.
I may say in passing, that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance withdrew that portion of his resolution before it was adopted, so that, in the end, it passed this House as a bounty on iron, with no exclusion of iron which should be exported after having received the encouragement of that bounty. Now, as further indicating the importance of the industry in the eyes of the Finance Minister, let me quote the very apt language which he used with regard to It when he introduced the system of bounties in 1899. I lay stress upon this because it indicates that the government as well as the opposition are alive to the necessity of maintaining and continuously developing in Canada an industry possessing so great importance ns that to which this motion of mine is directed. Speaking on the 13th .tune, 1899, the hon. Minister of Finance said, as' reported in ' Hansard,' page 4,973
Cape Breton possesses advantages of a very marked character for the iron and steel business. The great things required in this business -are large bodies of ore, large bodies of coal, large bodies of limestone and large capital. It is only by having these in combination that you can make a successful iron industry. There is a very large deposit of iron In Cape Breton, hut, apart from that, this gentleman has obtained an option upon and is now virtually in control of a very valuable iron property In the sister colony of Newfoundland, the ore from which is found ito blend very well with the native ore, while the Nova Scotia coal is admirably adapted for the work of smelting. Consequently, with the iron ore of Cape Breton available and the ore of Newfoundland so near that it can be brought to the coal at a very small cost, with large capital and with limestone in profusion, all the elements required for the successful carrying on of the iron industry are combined in that locality, and I have no doubt that if that gentleman and his associates take hold of the matter, they will carry on the business on a large scale. Nor does it end there ; for we all know that the establishment of a successful iron business means the establishment of other businesses that grow out of it.
And In dealing with that question, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, after referring to the great shipbuilding industry which years ago was developed in the province of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces, went on to say :

Not having an iron industry, the business of shipbuilding has passed away from us with the passing of the wooden ship.
Then further on he remarks :
With the improvements that are going on. the deepening of our canals, the opening of the Rainy River railway, and other things that are being done to improve the transportation of the products of Canada, there will be a large development of the iron industry on the great lakes and also upon the coast ; and out of this,
I strongly hope we shall see a revival of that shipbuilding industry which was so important in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in by-gone years, the revival of which would have such great effect in promoting the prosperity of our country. This has been happily described in Canada's growing time. Such, I believe, it will prove to be with regard to this industry.	*
And again :
I believe that the time is more auspicious for the development of an iron and steel industry than for years past, and I hope that with the announcement of this policy-a policy of certainty, because we give certain encouragements for a few years to come-we shall see a large expansion of this important iron and steel industry and that through it much will he done for the advancement of the welfare of the people of Canada.
Such, Mr. Speaker, was the attitude of this government with regard to this industry in the year 1897, and again in 1899. I am quoting from the financial exponent of the government's policy for the purpose of showing that the government, then at least, was alive to the necessity of giving adequate protection to this important industry, and was also fully seized of the fact that Canada, for an industry of this kind, possessed advantages and resources such as are possessed by few other countries in the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine for a moment the progress of the iron and steel industry in other countries during the past few years. It is an industry, as I have already said, which was protected in Great Britain for a large number of years, and I want to point out to the House the growth of that industry in Great Britain as compared with its growth in Germany and the United States, both of which latter countries have protected it by a heavy tariff. I want to compare the growth of these three countries during the past twenty years, to show what has been done by those two latter countries under a protective tariff, to develop and increase an industry which is of such vital importance to every country in the world possessing the raw material and resources thereof :



[Stage Direction]
1883.	1901.
Pig iron, tons	
8,493,287	*7,761,830Steel, tons	
2,158,880	15,000,000Decrease.	flncrease over 100 per cent.
Robert Laird Borden: 


GERMANY AND LUXEMBURG.
[Stage Direction]
1883.	1901.
Pig iron, tons	
3,397,588	*7,860,893Steel, tons	
1,066,920	f6,645,869
Increase more than 100 per cent.
flncrease more than 500 per cent.
The United States, however, shows the most marvellous development of all. I believe it is stated in text books of acknowledged authority that previously to 1861 the United States imported practically all the iron and steel that was used in that great country :

[Stage Direction]
1883.	1901.
Pig iron, tons	
4,595,510	*15,878,354Steel, tons	
1,673,534	f13,473,595
Increase about 275 per cent.
flncrease over 700 per cent.
That has been done under a protective tariff, and that has been done in face of the iron and steel industry of Great Britain, which in 1883 led the world, and in which the British economists of that day thought Great Britain would still continue to lead the world for all time to come.
Now, I submit these figures, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of showing two things : in the first place, that you cannot find, so far as I am aware, anjT country in the world where the iron and steel industry has not required protection of some sort in the first instance to give it a firm ground and to show in the next place, by the example of the United States and of Germany, that if you have a country which does possess the raw material and resources which are required for building up an industry of this kind, you can, by giving the proper protection to that industry, develop it to an extent that would hardly be dreamed of unless you had the actual results before you which I have presented to the House.
Now in Canada at the present time, we possess, as I have said, every material in abundance that is required for the purpose of developing this industry. We use in Canada a very considerable amount of iron, and we shall use in Canada for years to come a great deal more, as our system of railways develops, and as our industrial development increases. We know that for the purpose of railways, iron and steel are used very largely, we know that for the purpose of building, for the purpose of manufacture, for the purpose of warehouses in cities, for all the purposes that are necessary in connection with the industrial life of our country, iron and steel are very important factors indeed, and we may well assume that the consumption of iron and steel in this country will increase more rapidly in the future," much more rapidly than our population itself is likely to increase.
Coming back for a moment to the United States of America, and referring to the

development of the industry there, let us bear in mind there are to-day employed in the iron and steel industry of that country more men than in any other single industry in the United States of America, that $122,710,193 was paid out in wages in this industry alone ; that the total value of the production in 1900 was $835,759,034 ; and that over one-third of this production was consumed in the construction of rails, cars, locomotives, bridges, buildings and electrical machinery.
I have prepared a table showing the imports into Canada of iron and steel for the year ending 30th June, 1902, and although I know it is a little wearisome to give these figures to the House, still, I will ask the House to bear with me while I give them, and after I have given them I will state the total result of the figures contained in the official returns. For the year ending the 30th June, 1902, Canada imported in tons of 2,000 pounds, the following:
Canada's imports of iron and steel (direct products of blast furnaces and rolling mills) for year ending 30th June, 1902 :
Tons of Value in 2,000 lbs. Dollars.
Pig iron	40,014	585,803Scrap east	3,048	39,958Scrap (wrought) billets and blooms	55,761	938,941Bails	130,602	2,953,230Wire rods and their products	92,919	3,593,851Sheets of all kinds, tin plate, &e	3,385,208Bars, round, flat and small sections, &c	62,441	2,549,669Plates	30,301	905,183Plates universal	3,593	101,682Plates agricultural	2,336	178,704Pipes, boiler tubes, &c., but not pipe 2J in. dia., and over for mining	12,071	841,670Structural shapes, &c	28,011	789,644Hoops, &c	2,080	96,728Ship's plates, angles, &c.. ..	1,786 16,195	70,707Skelp	496,130Totals	
544,548 $17,527,108
Note.-Total importation Iron and steel and manufactures thereof during the years ending respectively on
June 30, 1902	$33,681,625
"	1896	 10,203,052
Increase	$23,478,573
So that the total importation of these articles into Canada during the year ending 30th June. 1902. was 544,548 tons, valued at $17,527,108, and I believe that the total consumption in Canada of the articles I have mentioned is in the vicinity* of 800,000 tons, so that you will see that the total importation by Canada of these articles was during the year ending June 30th, 1902, about two thirds of the total amount consumed. Comparing for a moment the total importation of iron and steel and the manufactures of iron and steel in 1896 and 1902. we find that, whereas, we imported in 1896, $10,-
203.052 worth, we imported, in 1902, no less than $33,681,625 worth, or an increase in that period of six years in the importation of these articles of no less a sum than $23,478,573.
Now, Mr. Speaker, considering that we have the resources in Canada that I have mentioned, considering that we have some measure of protection in Canada and considering that the government provided a system of bounties in 1899, why is it that we find at the present time that the iron and steel industry of Canada is not in a very flourishing condition. I am not going into the history of any individual industry, nor do I propose to make any references thereto beyond this, that, looking around us at the condition of Canada we will all agree that the iron industry is not in that flourishing condition in which hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, having at heart the best interests of this country, would desire to see it. What is the reason for this ? Well, the reason I think, in the first place, is the fact that we are side by side with a country like the United States of America, which jealously protects its home markets, which has magnificent resources for the protection of iron and steel and which has utilized these resources to the utmost, which now leads the world in iron and steel production and which controls the price of iron and steel throughout the world, because. I am told on what I regard as very good authority. that the output of iron in Germany today is controlled not in Germany, but in the United States of America. Well, under these conditions, what have we been doing for the iron industry of Canada ? In the first place, let me make a comparison : let me compare the protection which we accord to the iron industry in Canada with the protection which is accorded to the iron industry in the United States, and in the second place, let me compare the protection which is accorded to the iron industry in Canada to-day with the protection which was accorded to it under the Conservative tariff of 1894. You have the enormous country, the United States, to the south of us with all these resources I have referred to. you have that country with a home market of 75.000.009 or 80.000.000 of people and you have in that country the iron and steel industry protected by customs duties which are absurdly higher, I was going to say. than those with which we seek to protect the iron industry in Canada to-dav. Let us have no misunderstanding on this point. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) claims to be a free trader and is glad, having begun his life as a protectionist, that he is now a free trader. I am not finding fault with that. The right hon. gentleman is. of course, at liberty to select his own policy but let us have an understanding upon this point. Are we to have a policy to protect and develop the iron industry or not ? Now. that is the question, which presents itself ' to this government and in proposing the
[Stage Direction]
resolution which I shall submit to.the House in a moment, I am not going to propose a resolution which the government need necessarily take as a motion of want of confidence. X have carefully abstained from putting in the resolution one single word of censure or reflection upon the government, and in any comparisons I make in regard to duties, I want it to be distinctly understood that my sole object is to get protection for the iron industry of Canada, because I believe that protection is necessary in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole to-day.
In the first place, I want to make a comparison between the duties which are levied in the United States upon iron and steel products coming into that country and the duties which are levied upon similar products coming into this country and see how the comparison stands. Remember that the iron and steel industries of the United States have for their support a home market of 75,000,000 or 80,000,000 of people with greater industrial development than we can hope to have for years to come, and one would suppose if the iron and steel industry is to flourish at all in Canada that we must have protection approaching in some measure at least to that which has been found necessary in the United States for the purpose of building up that industry in that country. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) said years ago that if the iron industry could not succeed with the protection it had. it would be better to give up paying any attention to either iron or coal and devote our time to digging potatoes and other agricultural pursuits, but I do not think my hon. friend is of that opinion to-day. I have done him the credit of quoting his remarks in 1S97 and in 1899, which are in somewhat marked contrast, with the utterance to which I have just referred and which was made by him in the year 1887. and I trust that the Finance Minister has not departed from the view which he took in 1899 as well as in 1897 of the importance of the iron industry in Canada. And having that in mind ; and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister having that in mind-because the Minister of Finance spoke for the government with regard to this subject-let us see what measure of protection we have in this country as compared with that which has developed to so enormous an extent these great industries in the United States.
The United States' tariff, particularly the iron tariff is very complex, and is a very carefully thought out production, and it has not been easy in all cases to make an exact comparison between the Canadian tariff and the United States' tariff, but in some instances at least that comparison is possible, and I will point out to the House what the difference 1 si between the duties which are thought necessary even to-day in the ITnited States, and those which we grant as a mea- | Mr. BORDER (Halifax),
sure of protection to this great Canadian industry.

[Stage Direction]
(Direct Product op Blast Furnaces and Rolling Mills.)
-	Canadian.	American.Pig iron and scrap cast	§2.50 per ton..	§3.75 per ton.Billets and blooms....	82.00 „ ..	$6.00Scrap (wrought)	81.00 „ ..	$3.57Rails (tramway, &c.),.	30 p.c. = $7.50	$7.00Rails 	per ton. Free	$7.00Barbed wire	ii 	higher, ljc. per lb. and higher.Wire, spring	„	l|c. MWire fencing.	15 p.c. =810.30	l|c. per lb. =per ton.	§25 per ton.45 p.c. l:£c. per lb. =Wire; N.O.P	20 p.c. =$10.80	Wire for ships	Free	§25 per ton. it nCanada plate, Russia	5 p. c. =$2.03	§18 per ton andiron, galv. sheets, &c. Sheets, 17 gauge and	per ton.	higher.5 p. c. =$2.55	$14 „thinner.	per ton.	Sheets, corrugated	30 [). c.=S8.46	$14 „Tin plates (sheets).... Billets and flat spring.	per ton.	§30 „ii 	§6&§10per tonSpiral spring	
Steel for wind mills,&c.	it 	and higher. §10 per ton and higher. §10 .. „§12 „Steel bars	$7 per ton ....	$12 per ton.Steel shafting and	30 p.c	Shafting, 45 p.forging.	c. ; forgings,Steel fish and tie plates	$8 per ton ...	35 p.c. §8 per ton.Steel angles less than	$7 it ....	$10 „35 lbs. per yard.	§7 „	
ii not less than Jin.	10 p.c. =$2.93	higher. §10 „
thick.	per ton.	
n universal or roll-	10 p.c. =$2.83	810 „
ed edges.	per ton.	
H agricultural	5 p. c. =$3.80	$10 „Skelp for pipe	per ton. 5 p. c.=§1.50	$10 „Tubing for boilers....	per ton. 5 p. c. =$3.75	$40 „T ubing un der 2 in. d iam	per ton. 35 p.c. = §22.75	$40 „Tubing, N.O.P.. ,.	per ton. 30 p. c	35 p.c.Tubing (item 617)	Free	§40 per ton.Tubing over 2 in. diam.	15 p.c. = $9.60	340 „Angles, tees, beams, &c., weighing over	per ton. 10 p.c. = §2.85	310 „per ton.	35 lbs. per lin. yard.	Hoops, 18 gauge and	5 p. c. = 32.30	§12 per ton andthinner.	per ton.	higher.
The House will see from this table, that in almost every item of the United States' tariff, certainly in every important item, the steel industry in the United States of America receives a measure of protection which is much larger than we give to that industry in Canada.
Now, I am aware that this government iu the year 1899 brought down certain resolutions for the purpose of giving support to the iron industry and causing it to be developed in this country, and I have already referred to the language of the Minister of Finance on that occasion when he dwelt upon the importance of this industry. Encouragement by way of bounty was given to the production of certain forms of iron in Canada for the reason that the tariff had been materially reduced in 1897, and it was announced upon that occasion by the Minister of Finance that the reason for extending the time for- the bounties was that it was desirable to give the iron industry a fair chance in Canada, and it could only receive that fair chance by obtaining some compensation for the reduction in duties which had been made in the tariff of 1897 as compared with that of 1894. But, I do not know Whether the House is really impressed with the very great reduction which was made in the tariff of 1897, and therefore I shall take the liberty of reading to the House some items in that tariff which show the serious reduction in the protection of this industry which was then effected.
And I may say in passing, that while the system of bounties may for the time being
give support to the iron and steel industry in this country or any other country ; I, for my own part, do not believe that the iron and steel industry in Canada can ever be put upon a solid basis, upon a permanent footing, unless we have something more than these bounties can give; unless we have actual protection in Canada such as will secure for our own producers our own market.
Some hon. MEMBERS: provided by my hon. friend, which will come to an end in the year 1905, have afforded the same measure of encouragement as that which was afforded by the tariff of 1894; and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in announcing, as he did in the county of Yarmouth, N.S., during the past year, that the system of bounties would not be continued after the year 1905, gave to this industry a very severe blow indeed; because the bounties coming to an end in 1905, and the protection to the industry having been decreased by the very large reductions which I have mentioned, and being now very slight as compared with that afforded in the great country to the south of us, it is not much matter of wonder that the iron industry of Canada is not at the present moment in'a very flourishing condition. Let us look once more at some of the items which we imported last year free of duty :
	Quantity.	Value.
Wire rods	55,182 tons.	$1,523,792Barbed wire	16,469 "	826,846Galvanized wire	14,854	548,185Tin plates	27,207 "	1,528,655Billets and flat springs.	3,681 "	119,309Steel for windmills, &c..	3,305 "	153,114
Is there any reason why we should not give in Canada adequate protection to the iron and steel industry ? If we give to it the protection which it should have, having regard to our raw materials, and the resources of our country, will it follow that there will be any permanent increase in prices in this country ? Well, Sir, let us look at the lessons of the past with regard to that. We have taken the duty from binder twine; we have to some extent taken the duty from coal oil; we have taken the duty altogether from barbed wire; and yet, every one of these articles commands a higher price in Canada to-day than it did at the time the Conservative tariff was in force. Let us look at the history of the United States. Thirty years ago in that country steel rails were quoted at 8112 a ton ; in 1902 they were quoted at $28; No. 1 foundry pig iron was quoted at $48 a ton, now it is quoted at $22.19 ; bar iron, rolled, was $97.63 per ton, now it is $47.79; cut nails have come down in price from $4.92 to $2.29; and so on, through the whole list of products of iron and steel in the United States. Can we not trust, Mr. Speaker, to the competition, the enterprise and the ability of our own business men to keep prices down in Canada ? Let us look around Canada to-day and see the industries which have flourished. Can any hon. gentleman on either side of the House tell me that, in respect of those industries which have had a fair and adequate measure of protection in Canada, any undue price has been exacted from the consumer ? I have paid some attention to this question; I have looked around for evidence upon it, and I do not Mr. BORDER (Halifax),
know of one single instance in Canada in which an industry has been developed by protection and the price to the consumer is not a fair price, brought down to a fair basis by the very competition which exists in the country among our own people. So I say I do not think we have anything to fear in Canada from giving an adequate measure of relief to this industry.
1 see no reason therefore why the government should not restore to that iron and steel industry the protection at least which it formerly enjoyed, and I should be inclined to think that in giving that question all the consideration and the attention it deserves, they might well take into consideration whether or not the protection wthich existed under the Conservative tariff of 1894 should not, so far as some of the articles are concerned, at least, be very materially increased, with every advantage to the true interests of the people of Canada as a whole. In giving the Canadian duties upon certain articles on which the duties are low' or which are free, I should have said that the duties I have mentioned are in some cases those imposed upon articles imported into Canada for the purposes of manufacturing. That is the case with regard to two or three of the articles I have mentioned, and I state this in order that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance or my right hon. friend who leads the House may not suppose that I am under any misapprehension with regard to the actual condition of the duties on the articles I have named.
I believe that it is the duty of this government to take this matter into consideration at once, if they, have not already done so. I would have been glad, had the government so desired, to let this motion stand over until a later day for that purpose but as no request of that kind was made me, I feel it my duty to proceed with my amendment. It is not made with any idea of staying the hand of the government or hampering the government, but with the profound conviction that it is necessary, in the interests of Canada to-day, in the interests of the iron industry, upon which the homes and fortunes of so many of our people depend, that we should have some greater measure of protection to that industry. I recognize the fact that in dealing with the duties upon iron and steel, the government would be obliged to give consideration to other industries in this country, and probably to revise our tariff in respect of many articles into the manufacture of which iron and steel enter. So far as we on this side are concerned, we are not afraid of that position. We believe that there should be a revision of the tariff generally, and if the government, in deciding to give some measure of Increased protection to the iron and steel industry, finds it necessary to make some revision of the tariff in connection with articles into the manufacture of which iron and

steel enter, we on this side will be glad to lend them a helping band and support them in that measure of protection to those' industries which we think the true interests of this country demand. So that considering the Importance of this industry, even if it should prolong this session to a greater extent than anticipated, even if it should involve a more complete revision of the tariff than might occur to one at first blush, I say that, having a regard to the condition of affairs in this* country at present, the parliament of Canada could do no better work than give attention to that revision at once. The homes of ten thousand or fifteen thousand people may depend on the action which the government will take. A very important industry in the province of Nova Scotia may come to a standstill, a very important industry in the west may have to cease operations. I question if hon. gentlemen in this House adequately realize what a blow it would be to the future of Canada, not only to the iron and steel industry, but to Canada as a whole, if these industries, in which so many millions of dollars have been invested in the past few years, should come to a standstill. No one can overestimate what it would mean to this country should that come to pass. No one can exaggerate what effect it might have upon general financial conditions, and I therefore say that if this amendment of mine, calling for increased protection to the iron and steel industry, should involve a somewhat general revision of the tariff, the parliament of Canada could not do better work this summer than devote its attention to that subject. I do not know that there is one hon. gentleman in this House who is not so seriously impressed with the present condition of affairs that he would be unwilling to sacrifice some of his time and comfort for the purpose of remaining here even longer than we anticipated, in order that a measure of protection, adequate to the needs of this industry and to the condition of the country, might be given. Therefore, not to detain the House at greater length, but in the sincere hope that the government may see fit to extend some measure of protection to this industry, and in the sincere hope that the government may be willing to accept this resolution as one urged from this side is in the best interests of the country, I beg to move :
That all the words alter the word " That " in the proposed motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
This House is of opinion that the tariff of customs duties should give such protection to iron and steel industries as will not only secure to our own producers and manufacturers the Canadian market in articles now produced or manufactured in this country, but will also develop and sustain the manufacture in Canada of other iron and steel products which at present are imported in large quantities from other countries.
And that the present tariff of customs duties should be now readjusted on ^his principle.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. TV. S. Fielding).: If I were disposed. Mr. Speaker, to enter into any protracted discussion with my hon. friend on this subject, I should perhaps be obliged to take exception to some of the statements and conclusions which he has advanced. Not, however, to all. There was much in the hon. gentleman's speech to command my respect and admiration, and in that class I would include the excellent quotations he gave us from the speech of the Minister of Finance. There is also another point made by my hon. friend which demands my recognition. my appreciation, and, shall I say, my thanks. When I remember that for seven years hon. gentlemen opposite, in this House and out of this House, have used the argument that the policy of the government to-day is the old national policy, when I remember that they have gone from ocean to ocean to proclaim that no material reductions have been made in this tariff, when I remember that for seven years that has been the declaration and the attitude of the hon. gentlemen, I note it with satisfaction when the hon. gentleman comes down now and, for fifteen minutes reads a long statistical statement to show that, in the great iron business of this country, the foundation of so many other industries, not only have we reduced the tariff, but we have made enormous reductions. I regard that, Sir, as of great importance; I regard that statement from my hon. friend as ample apology-if I may call it so-for the time he has occupied in what was otherwise, in my judgment, an inopportune speech. But in the presence of that speech, that recantation if not apology for seven years of misunderstanding-to use a mild word-I want to thank my hon. friend for having, at last, put the matter right.


Robert Laird Borden: I challenge the hon. gentleman to point to a single word of mine inconsistent with what I have just said.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is in a better position than any other member of this House to raise a question as to consistency. However, I said that if I were disposed to enter upon a protracted discussion of this subject I should be obliged to take exception to some of the statements, opinions and conclusions of my hon. friend. But I do not propose to enter upon such a discussion, because I think it would be inopportune, and I am persuaded that no good purpose would be served by having that discussion at the present time. The hon. gentleman seems to have expected that we would ask him to withdraw the resolution. We have no desire that he should withdraw it. He has brought it forward and he accepts" the responsibility of it. Whether it is timely or untimely is for him to decide. In our judgment it is not timely.

Among the many sins laid at the door of this government, I for the first time now hear the charge that we have been lacking in generosity and liberality to the iron industry. I have heard it said from time to time that we have dealt too liberally with that industry; 1 have heard comparisons to the effect: You have done thus for the iron industry, but you will not do it for some other. It is a new charge that we have been dealing ungenerously with the iron industry. When the matter came up a few days ago I reminded my hon. friend that the resolution brought forward on the subject of the tariff were still before the House, the final stages not having been taken. I suggested that when these resolutions came up that would be the most opportune time for the discussion of tariff questions. My hon. friend has preferred to take a different course. He has preferred not to bring this question up in the ordinary way of tariff discussion, but to bring it forward as an amendment to Supply. He has preferred to bring it up in that form which is always taken in the moving of a vote of want of confidence. I am satisfied that no one truly interested in the iron industry, or with a sincere desire to promote the interests of the country irrespective of party politics, can support the hon. gentleman in precipitating this discussion to-day. But since the hon. gentleman has taken the responsibility of bringing the matter forward in this way, since he has preferred not to take the usual method and discuss tariff questions at the proper time, I recognize his right-I do not question that-but as he has brought this forward at what we regard as an inopportune time, and has brought it forward in the way in which one must vote either for or against the motion, I have to ask the House to treat this as a vote of want of confidence and reject the motion.


Mr. A. O. BELL (Pictou).: portant it is to the people of the maritime provinces. He knows how important it is to the people of the Sydneys. He knows how the hopes of the people of Sydney and Halifax, which, I am sure is very near and dear to him, are built up, not only upon seeing the iron industry of Nova Scotia continue, but on seeing it attain to an enormous development. What are the plans and hopes for the establishment of iron ship building works in the lower provinces ? Where is that vista of development towards which the eyes of our people have been turned for years past with the utmost hope and longing ? And yet the Finance Minister tells the people of the maritime provinces to-day that he deliberately refuses to consider a matter that is of such deep importance to them. And why ? Because-if we are to believe the argument which the hon. gentleman has advanced in the House, and he has advanced only one- because his opponent who leads the opposition has chosen an inopportune time in which to bring this question to the notice of parliament. I do not Imagine for a moment that the Minister of Finance will find it easy, by his argument of opportunism, to satisfy the people of the lower provinces who are anxious to see development and anxious to invest their labour and capital in these great enterprises. I do not think the people of the maritime provinces will listen with a great deal of patience to this excellent argument advanced to the House -excellent so far as it is addressed to the supporters of the hon. gentleman, but disappointing to the great majority of the people of Canada. The Finance Minister will find it exceedingly difficult to prove that this amendment is inopportune. The Finance Minister having, in his budget speech, exposed to the country and to the House of Commons the opinion of the government in reference to its policy on that tariff, every moment after that is an opportune time for members on this side of the House to specify wherein the policy of the government is not sound, and to endeavour to change the conclusion of the government on that policy, if they can change it. It is the privilege and the duty of members on this side of the House to endeavour on every occasion to induce the government to depart from a policy which they think is a bad policy for the country, and to enter upon a policy which they consider to be sound. There is little in the argument of the Finance Minister that the time is inopportune. There may be reasons known to the hon. gentleman of a semi-diplomatic or confidential character ; there may toe relations between that hon. gentleman and other members of the government which render it inopportune ; there may be negotiations in other directions, but the House of Commons is not made acquainted with these transactions, and it is not to be assumed that the opposition should take cognizance of them and seek Mr. BELL.
I
some moment for an amendment of this kind which the financial spokesman of the government may deem opportune. Are we to have such a discussion as this cut off simply because it suits the convenience of the Finance Minister or his leader, to state that the consideration of a matter of such supreme importance is inopportune ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: We on this side of the House hope that there are gentlemen sitting on the government benches who may have some convictions upon which to base their objection to the course that is marked out by the leader of the opposition ; not matters of opportunism, but matters of conviction. There used to be gentlemen in the Liberal ranks who loudly proclaimed that they were free traders, but I never see them fail to vote for this government, which is not a very free trade government. It may be that there are those in the House to-day who are prepared to brush aside as unworthy of notice the facts'which the leader of the opposition has cited as to the enormous progress made by Great Britain, by Germany, by Belgium, by the United States, in wrestling one from the other the pride of being the leading nation of the world in iron manufacture. There may be gentlemen willing to brush aside as absolutely irrelevant arguments advanced to show that the United States, instead of throwing open their markets to us, are excluding us, and are pursuing that course of high, adequate, efficient and sufficient protection, which is the only thing that in the past has given commercial supremacy to any of the countries which to day occupy the front rank in manufactures and commerce.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: I congratulate the leader of the opposition on the moderate way in which he has placed this very important matter before the House, but still I consider that his motion is inopportune. I have been in a position to learn what is going on, not for the last few days, but for the last few weeks. I know that this question is of vital importance to the iron industry, and I know that the interests of this business to-day are in such a state that certainly further consideration will be required. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has referred to the building up of the iron industry in the United States from almost nothing to its present gigantic proportions. He told us that it was only when the United States adopted a very high tariff that the iron trade was developed. I admit that, but I also wish him to admit that the iron industries when first established were established by the Atlantic seaboard under unnatural conditions, the high tariff did not save them, and there is nothing left to-day to mark the sites of these establishments but a few spots

of rust. It was only when the Iron industry of the United States moved west, where iron and coal and limestone were in close proximity, that this industry commenced to prosper, and Pittsburg and Alabama became the great centres of the United States iron industry of which such boast is made. This phase of the subject has not been considered by hon. gentleman in treating of this matter. The hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell) also told us that it was under protection that the iron industry of Great Britain developed. I must contradict that. Last year when I had the honour to speak in the budget debate I quoted from a number of authorities to show that that 'business did not develop under protection ; that in fact the direst distress in the history of the British workman existed for several decades under the highest protection, and that it was not until the raw material of her trade, which does not consist alone in iron, lime and coal, but which consists largely of food and other raw materials ; it was not until these were made free and until the shipping of Great Britain was made free, that the great iron trade of that country developed.
Let me deal for a few moments with the iron development in Canada. I think hon. gentlemen, irrespective of politics, will agree with me that the growth of the Canadian iron industry has been slow and unsatisfactory, and has not yielded the results that were anticipated by the protection afforded in former years. Let me point out to hon. gentlemen that so unpopular was the history of the iron industry in Canada that in 1899, when the Minister of Finance brought down his bounty measure, the Hon. George E. Foster, whom we all know, was opposed to that measure, rose from his seat and walked out of the House.


Mr. CLANCY.: Does not the hon. gentleman know perfectly well that the Hon. Mr. Foster supported these resolutions in 1897 ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If the hon. gentleman is correct, I will retract; but I wish to tell him that it was generally understood, in the House and out of it, that the Hon. Mr. Foster was opposed to that measure, and I myself sat in the gallery when the Finance Minister brought his measure down, and saw Mr. Foster leave his seat and go out of the House, and he did not vote on the resolution.


James Clancy: He supported the resolution ; there was no vote on it.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Let me point out to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) the condition of the iron business in bis own county.


Adam Carr Bell: Does the hon. gentleman -say that there was a division on the resolutions moved by the Finance Minister ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I understood that there was ; that is my impression. Now, will the hon. member for Pictou admit that under 135
a high protective tariff in Canada, before the present Finance Minister reduced the duties, the iron business in the county of Pictou was established on a satisfactory basis ? Will he for a moment assert that the condition of that business was satisfactory ? Does he not know that in a report brought down by the managers of that business it was shown that the wages paid to the men engaged in it ranged from 80 cents to $1 a day for the great bulk of the employees ? Does he not know that that industry, I will not say almost ruined a bank, but for a happy accident would have crippled a bank ?


Adam Carr Bell: What industry does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The Nova Scotia Steel Company.


Adam Carr Bell: I think that is a very prosperous industry.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Was it at that time ?


Adam Carr Bell: What is it now ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I will come to that a little later. For a number of years the company paid no dividend.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For several years before the advent of the present government the iron industry in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bell) town was unable 'toi pay its dividends.


Adam Carr Bell: Might I ask the hon. Finance Minister if that was his reason for reducing the duties in favour of that industry ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend admits the fact, the hon. members can all draw, their own inferences as to the fate of the iron industry under the Liberal policy and the Conservative policy respectively.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I do not wish the hon. gentleman to misunderstand me, nor do I wish to cast any reproaches upon the management of that business. The Nova Scotia steel business was taken up by good practical men, who worked first in a small way, and developed their business; and all credit is due to them for the development which has taken place, not only tin their own business, but in the business of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. It was their knowledge, acquired under these adverse conditions, which made those men trusted by the investors in the iron business of this country.
Now, I think I have made my point. There are one or two other iron businesses in Canada, one in Quebec and one in Ontario, neither of which was at all prosperous under the high tariff of hon. gentlemen opposite. But my point is this : The development of the iron business in every country where it has been developed has been slow. Every iron business is a matter of slow growth,



and you cannot at all times ascribe the fact that an Iron business does not succeed to any relationships of tariff to that business. We have seen iron businesses developed under a low tariff; we have seeu iron businesses fail under a high tariff. In 1897, the gentlemen who established the Nova Scotia steel business, after having for several years tested in their own furnaces at New Glasgow, the possibility of manufacturing iron from Newfoundland ore and Cape Breton coal and limestone, came to the town of Sydney, and made a proposition to the town to grant them certain concessions. They came to the Nova Scotia legislature iu the winter of 1898, and obtained a charter. They came to the Dominion House later in the same year, and asked for the imposition of iron bounties. It was inopportune at that time for the ministry of the day to comply with their request; but in the following year my hon. friend the Minister of Finance brought down his scheme for encouraging the business by a system of bounties.
Now, I want to point out this to the House, that the gentlemen who promoted that industry, and who, we may suppose, looked deeply and broadly into the matter, and also looked ahead, ought to have known, when they asked for those bounties, that they would be effective to place that iron business on a sound footing.
It is one of the misfortunes of the case that evidently the bounties, did not entirely meet the requirements; but I wish' also to point out that when in 1897 the present tariff was 'brought down and the old tariff was revised, provision was made to assist or protect to some extent the established iron business of the country. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company, which is to-day the leading iron industry looking for assistance, was at that time unthought of. Protection was granted to the products of the Nova Scotia Steel Company; but provision was not made for such products as might be made by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Of course, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company might make the same products as those now made by the Nova Scotia Steel Company; but the market in Canada to-day is only large enough to absorb such lines as the Nova Scotia Steel Company Is now' producing; and if the Dominion Iron and Steel Company undertook to produce similar articles, there is no doubt that the two industries would be crowding each other, and perhaps pressing each other to the wall. Long before the hon. leader of the opposition spoke, or some days before, representations had been made by my hon. colleague and myself, with several others from Nova Scotia, to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the lion. Minister of Finance;' and let me say that I have such confidence in these hon. gentlemen and in the soundness of the case which we presented, that I believe that at the right time


Arthur Samuel Kendall: and) in the right way the hon. Minister of Finance, who has always done the right thing in Nova Scotia, will do the right thing in this instance.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has been endeavouring to prove that they do not need any protection.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. From my point of view,
I do not object to the government raising the tariff on manufactured articles of iron- there is a very good reason, perhaps, why I should not; but I wish to point out to the House and the country that if the duty on iron is raised to any extent, for a number of years it will hardly be a protective duty, but largely a revenue duty; that is, if it is put on all around, because, as I have said, the development of the iron industry is always slow, and it will take many years before any industry that we are likely to establish in Canada can be built up to meet the requirements of the many details of the iron trade. I think myself it would be a better policy for the country to deal with this matter, not in a wholesale way, but) piecemeal. It is far better, when the country requires iron products, If they cannot be produced in the country, and w'hen our revenue is overflowing, to get them as cheaply as we can; but in the meantime, while we are establishing the industry, if any particular iron business undertakes to manufacture a number of the articles which we use, I for one, would think it good policy on the part of the government to assist them, particularly as some of the manufacturers in the United States have shown a strong disposition to slaughter their products as soon as a young industry in Canada ventures into new fields of manufacture. For those reasons I would not object to see the tariff raised. In fact I would urge on the government, in the case of several Items that have been placed before us-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: To raise the duties on certain articles, but not to do so, In a wholesale way, on the goods required by the people throughout the length and breadth of Canada until it can be shown that the manufacturers of Canada are prepared to furnish them. If duties should be put on all around, the effect would be, not that the increase would go into the hands c-f the manufacturers, but that a larger amount would go into the revenue than at present. I wish to point out to the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Pietou the particular reason why I, representing Cape Breton, can scarcely follow them. Let me remind them that at the time the hon Minister of Finance was laying the foundations of the present prosperity of that country, these hon. gentlemen were united with the Halifax ' Herald ' in endeavouring to convince the people of that

province in 1894 that the measure introduced by the Minister of Finance was fraught with dire consequences to the interests of the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: On what does the hon. gentleman base that statement with regard to myself ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: It is an assumption on my part, because I am not aware that the hon. gentleman took any active part on the hustings, but I take it for granted that in the election of 1894 he was in accord with the gentlemen in Halifax city who were then running their election mainly on a campaign against the Finance Minister, who, by his coal legislation and iron and steel legislation had done so much for the province.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember that that matter was at issue in the election of 1894.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: In at least one county it was the only issue, and the Halifax 'Herald' and the hon. leader of the opposition succeeded so well that down in that county, where the measure was of the greatest importance locally, the candidates of my hon. friend who, a few years before had been returned by a large majority, were defeated by a large majority. Having said what 1 have said and knowing what I know, it would be scarcely wise on my part to follow the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Pictou. I would rather follow the hon. gentleman of whose policy I have had some experience, who has done something for the province from which I come, who has made every man in that province better off, than follow the leader of the opposition whose party, no doubt with his approval, followed that suicidal course in 1894. Knowing what I know and with the experience I have, I think that I will be justified in voting against the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition and in following the lead of my hon. friend the Finance Minister, who has done everything for the province of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, rather than that of the leader of the opposition who will scarcely venture to assert that up to this time he has done very much, being assured, as I am, that when the right time comes the hon. Finance Minister will do again the right thing for the country which is proud to acknowledge its obligations to his genius.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: We are afforded to-day, Mr. Speaker, the pitiable spectacle of a weak man, or a stubborn man -for both are in certain circumstances very much alike-when brought face to face with a position which he desires to avoid. Both act, in such a case, very much alike. How they squirm, how they hedge this way and the other, how they take a zig-zag, course, like a dog beating through a field, and then how they resort to every shift in order to postpone the evil moment when they will 135J
have to face the inevitable and do what they have always declined to perform. We have that spectacle to-day of the weak and the stubborn man, who knows in his own mind that the moment is fast approaching when he can no longer refrain from doing that against which he has protested for years. We are to-day face to face with a g^eat question :	Is our policy to be free trade
or protection ? For my part I have no hesitation in saying on which side I am ranged, and which side I believe the country favours and on which its prosperity is to be found. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was summarily dismissed from the cabinet because he advocated protection ; but if the cable despatches of to-day are correct, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has just declared at a public meeting in England that the policy of Canada is moderate protection. Well, the last occasion, on Which I heard the hon. Minister of the Interior express his views, he was an out and out absolute free trader; and to my mind, the skip from absolute free trade to moderate protection is greater than the skip from moderate protection to adequate protection. If. therefore, the same measure of justice is to be dealt to the Minister of the Interior as was meted out to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), he should be summarily dismissed from the present cabinet. The bon. Minister of Finance says that this resolution is inopportune. But surely when this House opened, surely when the hon. gentleman delivered his budget speech, he should have declared what material alterations, if any, he proposed to make in the tariff customs of this country. He failed to do so, but apparently since then new light has dawned upon his mind: and if we are to judge by the statements of the hon. minister and those of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Kendall), there is a very strong possibility that the tariff on iron will be changed. If that be the case, then how is this amendment inopportune ? On this side we have for years contended that adequate protection was absolutely required for the successful carrying out of the Industries of this country. In that policy we have been opposed by the government, and it is only now. when disaster is apparently threatening some of the industries in the native province of the hon. Minister of Finance, that he finds himself compelled to give way to the irresistible logic of facts. Early In this year or at all events shortly after this House met, a wild speculation took place in the security of certain companies down in Nova Scotia. That speculation was based upon what the young men who went into it believed was absolutely reliable authority, that the members of the government bad promised the directors of those companies that they would largely increase the protection to the steel and iron industry.

I know not the truth of that; but I say that the members of the government ought not to be so uncertain as to their policy that they would allow speculators to bank upon the change of their policy. And, if that is their position, I say they are not looking after the interests of this country. Now, the fad of free trade is practically being thrown to one side. We hear very little about it. We hear it said even by free traders in England that the faddish free trade that is presented and upheld by the free trade school in England would not be acknowledged by Cobden and Bright if they were here to-day. It is the uncertainty of the government policy that is threatening us here with serious difficulties. My own belief is-strengthened by what I gather from the utterances of the hon. Finance Minister and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall)-that the government are still disputing and squabbling as to what their policy is to be. I do not believe that the government or the members of the government are united. I do not believe that they have made up their minds as to their policy. Had they done so, it would be their duty to announce it at once, not to lose a day or an hour. If they are going to alter the duties on iron and steel it is their duty to announce that policy at once. The alteration and readjustment of the duties on steel and iron, will, of necessity, mean the re-adjustment of the duties upon many, if not most, of the manufactured articles. And I was astonished beyond measure to hear the hon. gentleman who has just sat down proposing the theory that the tariff should be taken up and industries treated piecemeal. Could you imagine a more vicious state of affairs than the government taking one industry after another and saying : If you will support us at the polls we will deal with your industry and yours alone. No more vicious plan could be adopted. It would be absolutely impossible to have honest government if the fiscal policy of the government were carried on in that way, and I am astonished that any hon. member of this House should propose that any government should have power to deal with the tariff piecemeal.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) a question ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Will he say that his party, when in power, did not revise the tariff again and again piecemeal ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Now, I think I have made it plain often enough in this House that I am not going to father the sins of the old Conservative party. They were many. But, as I said before, they stand up white against the sins of the present government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is ghost-like.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the sins of the present government were ghosts, we could stand them. They are not ghosts, but living realities. The government must face the question, and face it very shortly, whether they are going to swallow their whole policy. I would advise them to swallow it at once, because if they do not, they will bring disaster upon themselves-(I would not regret that so much)-and upon the whole country. Now, to show that we are getting into a condition that should make us a little anxious, let me refer to some articles in the ' New York Evening Post,' which I think, has the reputation of being one of the fairest papers in the United States. I have read it for many years, and I think that reputation is well deserved. In last Saturday's edition are to be found articles on the iron trade. One leading iron man, in reviewing the situation expresses very great uncertainty as to the reason why there should be a steady and continued fall in iron. This is what he says :-
The iron market is strong statistically and weak sentimentally. Statistics show that consumption is at a high point, and yet demand from buyers is very light. Prices have declined because buyers thought they would get lower prices-and they have.. Whether prices will go still lower or not is a question difficult to answer. They have at least reached a point where foreign importation is shut out, a factor which should tend materially to lessen supplies.
And another article, closes with this quotation -
On the other hand, the possibilities of the steel and Iron export trade, in case of a further restriction in home demand or fall in prices, is the most interesting problem of our industrial future. In the ten months ending April 30. our export of such manufactures was $19,393.000 less than in h similar period ending with April, 1901. An iron manufacturer was asked not long ago how he could afford to export any of his goods with home demand what it was

Now, here Is the key of the whole situation-
We are clinging on to the foreign market like grim death ; it is the spar which will float us when the boom collapses.
The foreign trade which he refers to is the export of iron into Canada to an enormous extent. That iron manufacture represents the iron manufactures of the United States, and he does not at all attempt to deny that they are looking to holding our market as one of the things that is going to save the iron industry of the United States from disaster. I believe it is quite possible that the Finance Minister is either wrestling with his colleagues or is being wrestled with, and the result may be at any time that we shall have an increase in our iron duties. It will come with very ill grace and, I believe it will come very unwillingly from the Finance Minister, because I believe he has some sort of idea that there [DOT] was a principle in free trade which he thinks

he ought to stick to. I think he does not regard it as good business, but, X believe he is a stubborn man and insists upon going a round about way to swallow himself or his principles. I would make this suggestion-that if he makes too long a circle to arrive at the point, he may arrive at it too late. I do not think there is any doubt about it that we have passed the supreme point in the period of our prosperity. It is so in the United States; it is so here, except for that one great outlet we have, the Northwest. If we have good crops there, it will carry the country through another year or two of prosperity despite the substantial blunders of the present ministers. But, if by any chance, we should have a failure of crops there we are face to face with a disaster in Canada that will appall most of us; for the manufacturing industries of the United States have attained such proportion that, with a fall of prices in irou of ten, twenty, or it might under certain conditions, of even twenty-five per cent in three months, we shall have, before we can remedy it, a flood of manufactured articles thrown into Canada that will practically ruin every Canadian manufacturer who is not, backed by large reserves of capital. Our manufacturers, during the last three or four years of great prosperity, have, 1 think, been very conservative, but they have still to expand, and the profits they have made have in most instances had to go into extended premises and new and modern machinery. If they should have a set back, they will not have, in most instances, the accumulated profits of the last few years to go on with; instead of that, they will have on their hands enlarged buildings, and they will have no use for the increased machinery, which will lie idle.
Now, I was greatly impressed when on my holidays during the winter time, to find what a change had come over Italy. That country, that we look upon as old and effete, is now one of the most thriving and industrious on the face of the earth. In Rome they are manufacturing in the most extensive manner. Ten or twelve years ago when the Grand Hotel was built in Rome, all its furniture, carpets and so forth were imported; to-day Rome is manufacturing its furniture for Canada, and you can buy it at Kay's, Toronto. The same with silks, the result altogether of very high protection, not imposed by the government, but imposed by individual cities to protect their own manufactures. That is an object lesson that we should take strongly to heart. I believe sincerely that unless the government face this question at once, during this session of parliament, we are going to have disaster in Canada that it will take ten years or more to get over.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It was not my intention to say a word in this debate, and I would
not have risen but for some observations that have just fallen from the lips of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier). He desires to know what is the policy of the government upon this question and upon the tariff generally. I have to say to my hon. friend that his question is one which, at this time of day, it is rather late to ask, because the policy of the government was announced by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago, when he declared that our policy was the tariff of 1S97. That tariff is a moderate tariff, which carries with it a good deal of incidental protection. That it is a tariff made for all time, nobody ever imagined. The conditions of the country change and vary. What may have been suited to our conditions in 1897, may not be suited to our conditions in 1904.
I will not particularize, I will take only the question which has been brought up this afternoon, brought up, as I repeat with my hon. friend, at a very inopportune moment The history of the iron and steel industry in this country has been a very checkered one. The hon, gentleman opened his remarks by quoting an article written as far back as 1885, to the effect that Canada is admirably situated to have and to develop an iron and steel industry. Everybody agrees with that. I remember that this same article was quoted, if not verbatim, it was quoted in substance, by Sir Charles Tupper when he introduced the iron duties in 188G or in 188S. Everybody who was in the House at that time will remember a certain celebrated and famous speech which Sir Charles Tupper delivered when he introduced a new tariff policy with regard to the iron and steel duties. His policy provided for still greater protection than had been supposed possible up to that moment, lie built great expectations upon it, expectations which unfortunately have not been realized. He expected that under the tariff which he was then promulgating we would develop a very large industry in iron and steel. But everybody is aware that the expectations of Sir Charles Tupper fell to the ground, that though the consumers of iron in Canada were saddled with heavy duties, the industry which he expected did not rise from the ground, as he led us to suppose. The gentlemen engaged in this industry struggled on, the tariff was amended from time to time, 'until at last it was taken up by my hon. friend in 1897. . Then he reduced it considerably, and adopted a more moderate tariff. Now, I call upon the hon. gentleman who has introduced this resolution.
I call upon the hon. member for Pictou (Mr Bell) also, to admit that the iron business never prospered, never developed and increased so rapidly as it has under the present tariff. The building industries using iron and steel, at no previous period in the history of Canada, have advanced so rapidly as since the year 1897. It is true that at this moment one of the great companies, is in trouble. But while that is so, every-

body must admit on the other hand that most every other industry in Canada is today doing a satisfactory business. We do not hear any complaints from them, we do not hear any complaints except from that one industry. I appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to admit that not only in the province of Nova Scotia but throughout Quebec and Ontario, all the industries using iron and steel are today more prosperous than they have ever been before. I do not think my statement can be successfully challenged.
But, Sir, let us come at once to the question before the House. There has been a good deal of excitement about it during the last few days. A great company which had been started with a great flourish, and which was supposed to be doing a good business, has, I am sorry to say, been the object of a good deal of stock speculation, and that great company has practically admitted that it was not in good financial condition. And if the whole truth must be told-and this is the secret of the speech of my hon. friend from Cape Breton, a secret however which is well known-that company has come to us recently asking for an increase in the tariff. Well, Sir, whilst for my part I have never hesitated to say that I am a free trader by conviction, and whilst at the same time I have favoured a tariff policy such as we have at the present time, that is to say a tariff for revenue purposes, carrying with it a good deal of incidental protection, at the same time I am not dogmatic, I am not a doctrinaire, and the government is not a government of doctrinaires. We are always ready to listen to complaints when they are made to us. When an industry, no matter what it may be, comes to us to make representations, we are bound to listen to them; we are bound to hear their complaints, we are bound to give a sympathetic ear to all who come to us with grievances, If grievances they are. But when a company comes to us in this way we have a right to expect that it will show a statement of its affairs, and not only so, but to show wherein the conditions under which they are working are unfavourable, to show why it is that they have come to grief, and why the expectations they entertained have not been realized.
When this industry was before parliament in 1899, and when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) introduced the bounty system which was accepted on both sides of the House unanimously as far as voting went, and with very little exception as far as speaking went, it was expected that that industry would be able to produce iron at $6 a ton. Instead of producing iron at $6 a ton they produced it at a very much increased figure. We have a right to know from them how it is that their expectations have not been fulfilled, and how it is that the prospects which [DOT]they gave out to the public came not to be Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
realized. We have the right to know also how their position can be remedied by a change in the tariff. We have a right to know whether or not the cause of their disasters, the cause which has brought them to the position in which they are now is really the tariff or some other cause. Therefore, under such circumstances, is it not the part of statesmanship, is it not the part which the government should take before we accept any other policy to see where we are and whether we can improve this condition of things or not or whether it can be remedied at all ? Within four days we have had these representations made to us, and if I do not betray any secrets I would not surprise any body by saying that we asked the gentleman who came to us to give us a statement in black and white which we could look into and study before we made up our minds whether or not we are to make any changes in our fiscal policy or allow it to remain as it is. That is the condition* in which we are at the present time ; yet, we are asked by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to rush into a change in the tariff and come down with a different policy. I say that before we can come to any such conclusion we must look into the question. It is a time not for action, as stated by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), but for consideration, reflection and study. That is the position we take. That is the duty which is imposed upon us, and it is the duty to which at the present time we are devoting ourselves. That is the reason why my hon. friend the Minister of Finance a moment ago said this motion comes at an inopportune time. You had better wait. It shall be the duty of the government by and by to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and when we go into Committee of Ways and Means it will be for us to state the position which we take before parliament and the country. In the meantime, as hon. gentlemen pretend not to be actuated by any desire to make political capital out of the question, it seems to me that the best thing they can do is to withdraw the motion so that we can look into the matter and come to a conclusion.


James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, lam sure that the right hon. leader of the government has relieved the tension to some extent in his finally deciding to take the country into his confidence and tell the reasons *why this delay is taking place. The right hon. gentleman usually pays great attention to the speeches that are delivered in this House, and especially to those coming from his supporters. He has forgotten that just a moment ago the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) told the House that this was not a question of today, but that it had been urged for months, yet, the right hon. gentleman now tells the House that they do not want to precipitate matters, but that they want to inquire into

the statement. The right hon. gentleman has had months to inquire into that statement. That statement was not brought down this week or last week. It was brought down before the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) brought down his tariff, two months ago. It was considered then. Why was that statement not asked for before the tariff was brought down 7 Was not that statement inquired into by the government before the hon. Minister of Finance came down and declared that with the exception of binder twine and steel rails, the latter contingent on the manufacturers being able to supply the home market, there would be absolutely no changes in the tariff this year. Now, we have the right hon. gentleman telling the House that the iron industry has prospered more under the present tariff than it ever did in the history of Canada, and he called upon the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to assent to what he stated. Well now, if that be true, if the right hon. gentleman is convinced of that, he will surely not assent to any tariff changes. He believes that is the best that can be done. If the right hon. gentleman is like the hon. gentleman beside him, and is willing to follow the hon. Minister of Finance, right or wrong, rather than follow the hon. leader of the opposition, he will no doubt agree with the statement of that hon. gentleman, that a protective tariff has never up to this period had anything to do in affecting the iron industry one way or the other in Canada. I can scarcely refer to a speech made by the right hon. gentleman during his tour through Canada in 1895, in which he did not call public attention to the iron duties in Canada and in which he did not state that these duties should be lowered if iron were not made altogether free. The right hon. gentleman pointed out that iron entered into nearly every industry in Canada, and he estimated that the burden placed on nearly every other industry was about GO per cent. When these hon. gentlemen came in, to satisfy the false sentiment which they had been teaching throughout the country, they made a reduction in the iron duties. What has followed 7 I shall not repeat the unanswerable statement made to the House this afternoon by the hon. leader of the opposition. He pointed out in the clearest possible terms, not in a general sense, but in the most specialized sense, the injury that has been done to the iron industry and the vast increase that has taken place in the importation of iron goods that might be manufactured in Canada in consequence of the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. Minister of Finance if, after careful consideration when that statement is brought down, the government will be prepared to say that they made a blunder in 1897, and that they will
reverse their whole policy in making a reduction in the iron duties. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they are prepared to be convinced by any statement that will be submitted by the iron industry that they made a mistake in 1897 ? I think this whole country is thoroughly convinced that it was a mistake. It is only a question now whether hon. gentlemen are agreed that they should retrace their steps and admit that they did make a very great mistake. Let us take the position of the right hon. gentleman's followers in this House. Let us take the time when these iron duties were reduced, and when the hon. Minister of Finance introduced his budget. Where do you hear the thunders of applause and the speeches that were made by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House on that occasion ? I do not want to be offensive, but I say that hon. gentlemen were absolutely insolent in what they believed to be their strength at that time. They pounded upon their desks at every sentence that was uttered by the hon. Minister of Finance in connection with the reduction of duties at that time and now these hon. gentlemen are pleading for time. Never in the history of the House of Commons of Canada was there witnessed such a spectacle as to-day. The leader of the opposition, with great strength, with great courtesy, with great patriotism, with that clearness and effectiveness which belongs to him more than to any other member in this House, stated his case and gave ample evidence that his was not a motion of want of confidence, and the hon. Minister of Finance got up in a peevish mood and declared that the rules of courtesy had not been observed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not. I did not charge any discourtesy on the leader of the opposition.


James Clancy: Then I retract any words that might misrepresent the attitude o-f the Finance Minister, but foe said it was an inopportune motion and be sat down not telling the House why it was inopportune. If the Finance Minister had acknowledged frankly that the government had the matter under consideration, and that they intended to make such changes as the interests of the country demanded, that would be' a reasonable excuse to give. But no such thing was done. The Finance Minister' was not taken by surprise. He has bad notice for many days. He has no reason to complain. If he was big enough as Finance Minister of Canada to acknowledge that he had made a mistake and that he would rectify it, that would be a reason for not pressing the motion, but he simply took refuge in making a general statement without giving any valid reason to the House. Has the Finance Minister forgotten that he has emphatically declared that the tariff was fixed, and that the government had made

up their mind that they would not make any changes. Why is this motion ill-timed ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Because it is embarrassing.


James Clancy: And is the country to remain in suspense because the government is embarrassed ? Are the speculators to be allowed to take advantage of the Finance Minister's reticence ? Will lie refuse hope to the struggling industries and give encouragement to those who are seeking for their own profit, to bring about the down fall of these industries ? Did the Finance Minister think that this matter was to be waived aside, I was going to say by a subterfuge, but I will not. Surely the business interests of the country demand an emphatic declaration from the Finance Minister, either that he sticks to his avowed declaration that any tariff that was not based on a revenue footing was a bad tariff, or, that he will acknowledge that he has made a mistake and save these industries from disaster by protecting them. In 1897, the Finance Minister read the Liberal platform of 1893, and he said that was the basis upon which the tariff would be revised. Will he adhere to that platform now ? The Prime Minister told us in 1897 that he was not a doctrinaire and that he was willing to be convinced and to change with the times. Let me ask him if there is one feature in the iron industry that has changed since 189G ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


James Clancy: What is it?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I gave it to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). I told him that the industry which under the Conservative policy was not paying any dividends has been prospering ever since.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


James Clancy: Then we have the answer of the Finance Minister, that these industries could not pay dividends under the Conservative tariff of 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In some years.


James Clancy: Then if the iron industry is prospering under the present tariff the government does not need to change its policy, but if the iron industry is not prospering the government will be forced to change its policy. The leader of the opposition quoted to the House a long list of *iron manufactures and he showed that under the Conservative government in 1896, they were imported into Canada to the extent of $1,174,000. while .in 1902. the imports of these articles amounted to $4,458,000, or over 400 per cent more. Perhaps that will explain the serious condition of the iron industry to-day. We are living alongside a country that is hostile to us Mr. CLANCY.
commercially and the overflow of whose market would be sufficient to supply us and to wipe out our own manufactures. There is no changed condition in the iron trade between 1896 and 1903. We were at the mercy of the United States then, and we are at the mercy of the United States now, but we protected ourselves then. That is the difference. I venture to submit, Sir. that the Liberal government will recede one by one from the mistakes they made in their tariff of 1S97. I defy them to point to any Canadian industry of any magnitude with reference to which they made a change that has not been injured by their mistakes. The iron industry, the barb wire industry, the binder twine industry, the coal oil industry, they lessened or removed the protection on each of these industries, and in each case they made a mistake. I state without fear of successful contradiction that they did not make one change of any importance in the tariff in 1897, that has not proven to be a grievous blunder.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite on the revision of the tariff has resulted in a succession of blunders. The first thing the Finance Minister thought it his duty to do was to shift the burden of taxation from foreigners to our own people. The iron industry, from its very inception in Canada, was protected by customs duties -duties which were very high from the year 1878, and which were never lowered until the hon. gentlemen took power. Up to 1897 the bounty on pig iron and on steel manufactured from pig iron was $2 a ton, and in that year it was increased to $3 a ton ; but, as was pointed out by the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon, the Minister of Finance, in tones of considerable apology, and the Minister of Customs on the same occasion, declared to the House that the iron and steel bounties were given to compensate the manufacturers for the loss of the protection which had been taken away.
Both sides of the House in 1897 were committed to giving the increased bounties. The Conservative party of Canada had offered what was thought to be a fair measure of protection. They recognized then, as they recognize now, that if that great industry is to be put on its feet in Canada, it must undergo the same process, encounter the same difficulties and have the same assistance, that it has had in all other countries wrhere it has been put on a sound footing. For that reason the Conservative party did assent to the additional bounties given on

that occasion. But, speaking for myself, I entirely dissent from the proposition to decrease the import duties on iron and correspondingly pay bounties out of the pockets of the people. As an illustration of the effect of this policy, I may state that during the six years, from 1891 to 1896. when the Conservative party were in power, $436,876 were paid out in bounties, whereas during the #ix years from 1897 to 1902, we have paid out in bounties $1,800,000.
Now, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance what he thinks is to become of the iron industry in Canada after the bounties cease in 1905 ? The hon. gentleman was very distinct in liis declaration that the bounties given in 1897, and continued for five years longer on the sliding scale adopted in 1898, were for the purpose of repairing the losses the manufacturers would sustain by reason of the reduction of the duties. I ask him now, not in an offensive sense, how does he expect the iron industry to live after these iron bounties have ceased, and it has no longer the protection which the hon. gentleman took away in 1897 ? His only answer will be to restore the bounties again, as he prefers to adopt a policy under which these bounties will be paid out of the pockets of the people, instead of one under which the foreign manufacturer would pay the import duties in order to get into the markets of Canada. There can be absolutely no doubt as to who pays the bounties ; there can be no doubt that the cost of iron to the people of Canada has been increased to the extent of the bounties. But the weight of opinion is entirely on the side of the position that the foreign manufacturer, in order to get into Canada to compete with the Canadian manufacturer, must pay the duties. The hon. gentleman told us, in his very able speech on the budget a few weeks ago, that when we imposed additional duties we increased, if not proportionately, to a large extent, the cost of the goods to the Canadian consumers. That is his doctrine ; but the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon challenged the hon. gentleman to point out one single case of any magnitude or importance in which the protective policy had been the means of permanently, or to a notable extent, increasing the price of an article to the consumer. The hon. gentleman was content to sit down, after that long speech of his of two or three minutes, declaring to the House and the country that this was an inopportune time to introduce a resolution of this kind, and without attempting in the slightest degree to gainsay what had been stated by the hon. leader oi the opposition on so important a question. We will take for granted that the hon. gentleman has changed his mind, and now finds himself face to face, not only with the public sentiment of the country, but with a policy that is threatening one of the greatest industries we have in Canada.
Now, the House must have been much amused at what the hon. gentleman's friends had to say. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), who was put up to defend an industry in his own province, said that the success of the iron industry was not in any degree due to protection, and that he himself did not consider protection necessary for it ; but, after all, he concluded his speech by declaring that he wanted protection for iron, but intimated that there should not be protection for anything else. He thought there should be a sort of piecemeal protection, as he called it, given to iron ; it should be given to one section and not to another, and he urged the government to adopt that policy. Well, I do not know whether the country will take it that the hon. member for Cape Breton speaks for the government, or whether the government is too weak to speak for itself. The country certainly expected some declaration from the Finance Minister to-day as to what the government intended to do ; but he sat down without giving the House any information whatever. The right hon. First Minister declared that they were going to inquire ; that they were waiting until they had statements from those who were asking for increased protection ; but he also sat down without declaring his policy. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance, since he has had his dinner, what the policy of the government now is on that question ? I would like to ask him, in the event of the government being satisfied that their policy of 1897, of making a slashing reduction in the duties on iron goods, has been the means of affecting the iron industry of Canada, if it is the policy of the. government to remedy the wrong they then did ? I am not asking that in an offensive sense ; but the hon. gentleman will see that it is a reasonable question to ask.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will answer the hon. gentleman, if that is any comfort to him. I will tell him that some of those who have approached us with reference to the particular company whose affairs are now engaging attention, have stated to us that they do not complain that the result is in any way due to the policy of the government. ,


James Clancy: You will observe that the hon. gentleman was very cautious, and said that ' some of those who have approached us declared that the policy of the Liberal party had not injured them.' Let me ask him if they all said so ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know. There are thousands interested in the steel industry. But I can say that those high in authority, in approaching the government on this question, have stated that they do not complain of the attitude of the

government. They have said that certain thing9 have arisen recently to which they invite our attention, but they do not complain of the attitude of the government.


James Clancy: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that no tariff revision was asked. I understand that no demand is made on the government for a revision of the tariff.


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


James Clancy: How is the hon. gentleman going to reconcile the two positions ? He declares that those who have approached the government have no complaint against the tariff of 1897 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that. I said that with regard to the representations made to us recently as to a particular company, and it is only one company whose affairs are in controversy-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is debateable, and I do not want to enter upon that now. I want to say that the particular grievance which has recently been brought to the notice of the government has been put before us in terms which do not reflect upon the policy of the government at all. Certain changes are sought and we are asked to do certain things because of conditions which have very recently been created and for which they do not blame the government at all.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: In other words, they have not gone for you with a club.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, deputations have not the habit of going for 'us in that way. They used to do that with our predecessors.


James Clancy: The intelligent newspaper readers will have some difficulty in finding out just what the hon. gentleman means. He has told the House that parties who waited on the government had no fault to find with its policy. If that be the case the policy of the government must remain as it was in 1897. What are the business men of this country going to understand by the hon. gentleman's admission that the government have been approached for certain changes. What are these changes? They must be changes in the tariff. If so, these changes must be asked because the tariff of 1897 was a faulty tariff, for I defy that hon. gentleman to point out one condition now that did not exist in 1897. What was the condition in 1897 ? It was that we were largely at the mercy of foreign manufacturers. That is the condition to-day. Yet the hon. gentleman repeats again and again that those who are asking for tariff changes say that they have no fault to find with the tariff policy of the government. This is surely trifling with the intelligence of the people. It is time that the country should Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
be relieved from suspense. The country is titled to know what tariff changes are asked and what are contemplated, and what are the conditions which, according to the Finance Minister, induced those parties to approach the government. This is not a private matter which should be kept secret. It is a matter affecting public interest and concerning which the public should be given the fullest information. We were to^l by the Rt. Hon. First Minister that these parties who came to the government for changes in the tariff were the sole cause of their own difficulties, and that the government would require from them a reliable statement in order to verify whether the complaints they had made had any foundation or fact before the government would take any action. Well, Mr. Speaker, what we on this side contend-and we care not what the men who went to the Finance Minister for relief may have said regarding the policy of the government-is that the policy of the government is bad. We say that it is a mistaken policy, and we have that fact demonstrated to-day. Take the position of the two parties on this question. Do hon. gentlemen opposite believe that the iron industry has any future in this country ? If they do, they must change their policy. Is the hon. Minister of Finance going to come down with a proposition to give bounties instead of protection. If he is, I am afraid that the people will not at all agree with him. Are the facilities wanting to make the iron industry a success in Canada ? I do not think they are. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition pointed out clearly that we have every facility for producing iron in competition with the most enlightened methods in the world. All we require is the chance. All we require is a tariff which will give us our home market. If the government want to have the iron industry succeed, as we believe it will, if properly fostered, they must not face this question with a faint heart. The whole question must be grappled with. Contrast the positions of the two parties. The one party is shuffling in uncertainty, Its leaders are afraid to proclaim its policy, although they have a majority of some fifty at their back. They declare that their policy of 1897 and their tariff of 1897 are sound, yet we have them to-day in the humiliating position of being afraid to proclaim that policy to the country. Compare the attitude of the hon. Finance Minister and the right hon. the First Minister with that taken by the hon. the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition boldly declares his policy and takes the consequences. He does not wait to follow public opinion but takes the lead and creates a healthy, sound public opinion. A comprehensive, broad and courageous policy has been enunciated this afternoon by the leader of the opposition. He is not afraid to take the responsibility of his doctrines in this House and before this country. But the Minister of Finance

tills afternoon proclaimed the cabinet to be a collection of weaklings and its supporters a lot of mutes. There never was a more humiliating spectacle in the House of Commons in all its history than we witnessed this afternoon on the government benches. This iron industry is too important, there is too much money involved in it, there is too much of the future of Canada dependent on it, for it to be treated in this shuffling, uncertain, faint-hearted manner. We must have a defensive policy in Canada. Who would put his money into the iron industry with its present prospects ? with the tariff reduced nearly one-half, and in some cases three-fourths what it formerly was, and with this uncertain and unsound policy of giving bounties. Bounties can only be justified when high protection ceases to give the encouragement to manufacturing industries to which they are entitled. What does the hon. gentleman offer the country if our iron industries are embarrassed in any sense ? Has he invited men of capital to come to the country and put their money into it ? They will never put a dollar into the industry until the hon. gentleman changes his policy. No payments of bounty, paid out in dribbles and drabbles, and taken out of the pockets of the people, will give a home market to our farmers. Our people have to compete with foreign goods-I do not say in prices, for we are always able to compete in prices. But what the manufacturers and the farmers and all classes of producers in this country desire is that we shall have the home market which is the best market. What they want is the field, not the prices. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that we live in an age when a business must depend upon the amount of trade done rather than upon the margin of profit on each transaction. Now, I do not Wish to detain the House any longer. I have only to say that, of all the resolutions proposed in this House in the short time during which I have had the honour of a seat here, I know of none more far-reaching, more comprehensive or clearer in its statement of the case than this. Not only does it state the case with clearness, but it shows that the Conservative party are prepared to face the people with a policy that grapples with this Whole question from the raising of the ore from the mines to the manufacture] of the smallest article required by the people. That is what it means, and I know of no resolution proposed in this House that I support with greater pleasure or greater confidence than I do the one now in our hands.


Mr. ROBERT A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, this is a great question, a question affecting great Canadian industries, and I hope in the few remarks I shall make, to speak upon broad Canadian principles. The hon. Minister of Finance, in opening his remarks, referred
to the resolution brought down by the leader of the opposition, and said that this was a most inopportune time to bring down such a resolution. But has not the hon. gentleman had ample opportunity to consider the advisability of protecting this and other great Canadian industries ? AVe find that, on the lOthi of March, the government met a committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for the purpose of discussing with them the advisability of a general revision of the tariff. We find, Sir, that that committee reported to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and that, subsequently, on the 19th of March, they presented a tariff memorial. I am sure the House will pardon me if I refer to some of the things contained in this memorial. They say :
In pursuance of the interview granted on the 10th instant to a special committee appointed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, when they had the honour to consult with you relating to a general revision of the Canadian tariff, we beg to place before you a brief review of the circumstances from the standpoint of our association.
And they go on :
For some time past we have urged that, in the interests of Canada, her tariff question should he removed entirely from politics, and be viewed as a national business problem. As time passes and the tariff wars of nations multiply, we are more than ever convinced that in this we are correct; and we believe it to he the duty of the government of the day, irrespective of any party watchwords or traditions, to immediately adopt that policy which will best defend the Interests of our citizens and not only secure for Canada the development of her vast resources, but reserve and foster within o.ur borders those great industries which provide Industrial opportunities for her people. In recommending immediate and general revision of the tariff this is our sole purpose, and we believe we need no other.
Then, in this memorial, they go on to point out the great increase in the importation of the manufactured goods from the United States of America and the great increase in importation under the British preference. They also show the reasons why it was necessary for the government to take into immediate consideration the general revision of the tariff. They say :
Many of our industries have been comparatively prosperous during recent years. This has been due largely to the abnormal prosperity which the world at large has enjoyed, the partial protection afforded toy the present tariff, the growing excellence of the products of Canadian factories, and specially to the fact that the demands of the United States market, where industries are encouraged have taxed the output of the United States manufacturers to its fullest capacity. This home demand has been so great that recognizing the importance of their own market they have sacrificed their export trade, and speaking generally, have confined their attention largely to their own country. But even in spite of this, it is quite clear that any ground gained by the manufacturers of Canada has been only by persistent struggle

and that the price of the product will be steadily reduced. Now, he says further :
The courage of our iron and steel manufacturers in entering upon new enterprises of the greatest magnitude and the skill displayed by our engineers and mechanics in attaining important and 'Valuable metallurgical results must be a constant marve'l to every student of our industrial history.
The people who have gone Into this great enterprise in this country have had a good deal of pluck. They have had a good deal of nerve to invest their money in such a large and important industry, and I say that having done this it is the duty of this government to assist them in every legitimate way to bring that industry to a success. I- would like to refer for a moment to the great progress that has been made in other countries in this industry under a protective tariff. I do not intend to take up much time in that respect, but I would like to refer to Russia. We all know the experience that Russia has had under a low tariff, and we know the prosperity she is now enjoying under a protective tariff.
Ia Russia, in 1861. pig iron was imported free of duty and the free Import of all kinds of machinery and implements was granted, which, of course, operated against the Russian machinery building industry. It was not until 1880, however, that the privileges of free importation was abolished. In that year duties were levied upon all machines and tools made of *wrought and oast iron and steel. In 1882 the duty was made still higher. Under this Influence machine construction and the manufacture of rails developed rapidly. The railways now in operation began to bring ore and coal nearer to the mills, and. when the Ekaterlninsk railway in the south of Russia was finished, it opened up mines with inexhaustible veins of fuel. In 1884 the government raised the duty on cast iron and still protected coal mining. Almost yearly since that time to the tariff of 1891 duties have been levied to meet particular needs of the iron and steel industries.
The position we should take in this country should be identically the same as that which has been taken by Germany, France, Russia and the United States, and that is that duty should he levied to meet the particular needs of the iron and steel industry just as well as to meet the particular needs of all the other great industries of this country. When we consider the enormous importance of an industry of that kind to this country I say that it should receive every consideration. We know that in the manufacture of pig iron there is about ninety per cent of the cost which is labour. Is there anything better for us than that the labour of this country should be employed in the manufacture of iron and steel ? I do not think that I am stating it at all excessively when I say that the labour cost of one ton of iron is somewhere about ninety per cent. Some experts put it a little higher. The authority that I have referred to says that the cost of a ton Mr. PRINGLE.
of 2,240 pounds of pig iron, based upon a certain cost of material, is 90:8 per cent. In the same way it can be shown that over ninety per cent of the cost of a ton of steel rails, or any product of iron and steel, is labour. I have also the opinion of good authority, the Hon. Abraham S. Hewitt, based upon bis experience as a miner and manufacturer of iron. He said :
The value of every manufacture is made up entirely of the wages paid to produce it. Coal and iron in the mines cost nothing. They are the free gifts of God. But they are excavated by the pick and shovel of the workmen ; by him they are wheeled, carted, boarded to market ; by the workmen they are caried to mill ; by the workmen the furnace is heated and charged ; by him the iron is puddled, rolled, put up for the market, carried thither and sold. It is labour, labour, labour that constitutes every addition to the value of the article, and it is the man whio bestows that labour who should enjoy the fruits thereof.
I say, Sir, that the policy of this government ought to be toi protect the labour of this country which so largely enters into the manufacture of iron and steel.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Let me point out that prior to a very high protective tariff being brought into force in the United States they had nothing but failures in that country. Men invested their capital and made brave attempts to develop the industry, but time and again they were crushed out by foreign manufactures. Up to the time they got very high protection, there was a constant series of failures amongst the very large iron industries. Mr. B. F. French in his history of the iron industry of the United States accounts for it in this way :
It is an established fact that in many departments of English industry, those who are interested trill carry them on at a loss for years, to aid in retaining markets from which they are in danger of being excluded by commercial restrictions or industrial competition; and scarcely a branch of industry has sprung up in the United States which has not, at first, had to encounter a severe struggle in con-seauemce of the foreign article being reduced in price below that with which it had been expected to compete.
But in spite of this handicap, the iron and steel industry in the United States has made remarkable progress since 1860. In every branch, as soon as an adequate duty was levied, the manufacture began and increased greatly while imports and prices decreased in an almost constant ratio. I have a list here of the failures prior to 1860, but it is sufficient for me to say that during that period there were a large number of failures in the United States. After they got an adequate protective tariff we heard of few failures of any moment. It was not until 1870, that the iron industry of the United States received adequate protection and really began to show what it could do. The production of iron in the

United States in 1867 amounted to 2,277 gross tons and in 1894 it amounted to L-017,096 tons which as you will see is au enormous increase. But I need refer more particularly to the increase from 1870, for the reason that in 1870 a very high protective tariff was placed on the iron industry of the United States. In 1870 the gross tons produced were 30,357, but in 1880 under a heavy protective tariff that production had increased to 864,353 and from that time down to the present day there has been a constant increase, except during the short period that the United States adopted a lower tariff when their productions diminished and when they were not as prosperous as when they re-adopted the high protective tariff. Let us see what protection did for the steel rail industry of the United States. In 1867 the importation of rails of all kinds into the United States amounted to 145,580 tons, and in 1878 it dropped down to nine tons.
An hou. MEMBER. What is that V


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Nine tons was the total importation of rails in 1878 into the United States. I will admit that some years subsequently the importation increased because there was an era of marvellous railroad construction, and the industry in the United States was not able to cope with the demand, so that in 1882, for instance, the importation ran up to 200,113 tons. But just so soon as railway construction slackened the importation of rails slackened also and in 1885 it only amounted to 2,189 tons, while in 1892 there were only imported into the United States 347 tons. The United States have been able to manufacture steel rails cheaper than any other country under the sun. They cut down the cost of steel rails some few years ago to $22 a ton, and they were able to underbid the manufacturers of Great Britain and Europe in that industry. That result was obtained under their system of high protection. We are familiar with the tariff history of the United States and we know that the Republican party in 1861 after a long period of low tariffs, inaugurated a high protective tariff and there has been an unbroken line of prosperity in that country ever since with the exception of the years between 1894 and 1897 when a low tariff was in force. Since 1860 the population of the United States has grown from 31,443,321 to 76,303,387 in 1890, an increase of 143 per cent. That was an enormous increase in a country which, if the argument of gentlemen opposite were true, should have retrograded under a system of high protection. In 1860, the national wealth of the United States was $16,159,616,000, or $514 for each individual, and in 1890. it was $94,300,000,000, or $1,235 for each individual. It is no wonder, Sir, that Gladstone made the remark that the United States of America, under her protective tariff, was passing
Great Britain, with her free trade policy, in a canter.
In the great manufacturing industries, the activity of the manufacturer and the earnings of the workmen show equally striking improvement. The cotton manufacturers have increased their consumption of domestic cotton from two and a half million bales in 1896, to over three and a half million bales in 1901 ; the number of iron furnaces in blast has increased from 159 in 1896, to 266 in 1901 ; and the manufacture of tin plates has grown from less than 40,000,000 pounds in 1894, to 678,000,000 in 1901. While I am on that subject, let me say a word in regard to that tin plate industry. We are all familiar with the attitude that was taken by the late President McKinley in regard to protecting the tin plate industry. The duties on tin plates and turned plates provided by the tariff of 1890 went into effect on July 1st, 1891. From that date until the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1897, the statistics of tin plates and turned plates were regularly collected for the Treasury Department. Let us see the increase under the protective tariff in that country. In 1892 the gross tons produced were 18,803 ; in 1901 the gross tons were 399,201, showing that under the protective tariff there was an enormous impetus to that industry.
Let us see what was done in the great industry of building locomotives in the United States. We know that it was not many year's ago when it was impossible for the United States to construct an American locomotive in competition with a foreign manufacturer. The foreign manufacturer chose to put his price down to the point where he could prevent the American manufacturer from making locomotives at a profit. But under that system of protection we find that American locomotives are running on American rails in every part of the world. You find them to-day passing the pyramids of Egypt ; you will find that the railroad now being built in the Orient, the Manchurian Railway, is being supplied entirely with American rails and American locomotives ; and, strangest of all, you find in free trade Great Britain that there is not an important railway on which there are not American locomotives used. That shows the progress which the United States has made in that industry.
But, Sir, I do not wish to be understood as saying that the only industries that prosper under a protective tariff are the great manufacturing industries. I recognize just as well as any one that the great agricultural interest is the important interest of this country ; and I could show by evidence that the great agricultural interests of the United States have prospered under protection just to the same extent that the great manufacturing industries have done. The Agriculture Department reports an increase of more than $350,000,000 in farm values,

and an enormous increase in all tlie products of the agriculturists of that country.
I have quoted from some of the speeches made by the hon. Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman, like others on that side of the House, always leaves an open door. In a speech of his, made at a banquet in Halifax on December 12, 1902, the hon. gentleman was evidently looking forward to leaving an open door for some changes in the tariff. This is taken from the Toronto ' Globe's ' report:
If there is an inequality which needs to be rtmedied, we are prepared to consider it and remedy it. If there is a new' condition created by the establishment of some new industry ; if there are conditions abroad which are interfering with our trade ; in short, if anything has happened, we do not propose to shut our eyes to established facts, but we do say that whore the eo.untry has prospered under this tariff there is no reason for getting up an excitement for purposes of having us return to high duties.
Now, Sir, I say that something has happened. The manufacturers of this country, on the 10th of March and on the 19th of March, and persistently from that day to this, have informed the hon. gentleman that something was happening, and that the industries of this country desired that there should be a revision of the tariff. If the hon. the Minister of Finance meant what he said in the speech delivered on the 14th of December, 1902, he should, when he brought down the budget, have taken into consideration the revision of the tariff. I am not going into the figures of the importations of iron products .into this country. These have been brought out very fully and ably by the speakers who preceded me on this side. Suffice it to say that, according to the figures given here to-day, there are over $33,000,000 worth of iron products brought into this country, some of which are free, some subject to a very small duty, but the larger portion dutiable. Our aim should be not to encourage the foreigner, not to bring in foreign products, but to encourage our own people and our own manufacturers. No industry, such as our iron industry, with free imports or a very low protective tariff, can stand up against the huge corporation now doing business in the United States, and known as the United States Steel Corporation. That company is bound to control this market and will control it, to the ruin of our iron industry, unless the government comes down with an adequate measure of protection. We have had enough in this country of this * let alone ' policy. We want a government which will act and act in the interests of the Canadian people. The policy which hon. gentlemen opposite advocate is not the policy of the great statesmen of the neighbouring republic. It is not the policy of our late chieftain of the Conservative party, Sir John Macdonald, it is not the policy of the present opposition in this House. This is a matter which we should consider on broad Canadian lines.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Are we to be told, as our manufacturers were told prior to 1878, that under no circumstances or conditions would the government raise a finger to protect or encourage the industries of this country, that if anybody went into any manufacturing enterprise, he did it at his peril and must take the consequences, and that it was not the intention of the government to interfere in any way to protect industry, under any circumstance. We have had the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), when speaking of the woollen industry, stating that if that industry could not survive under the tariff then in existence, it had better go down. I perhaps speak a little feelingly when I refer to the woollen industry, because I have the honour to represent a constituency in which there is a manufacturing town. In that town we had a prosperous, thriving, woollen industry, giving employment to from 150 to 200 men, but its doors had to close, and these men, who had no desire to leave Canada, had to go to the United States to find employment in the woollen industry there. But if the government had acted as it should, that industry, instead of being in crippled, would be to-day in a prosperous condition. We say that it is within the power and it is the duty of the government to give proper protection to the energies of the country, and to encourage and relieve distressed industries. That it can do by making such changes in the fiscal policy as may be necessary. Situated as we are, owners of the best half of the North American continent, possessing a territory stretching from ocean to ocean, with varied resources and capabilities, it is our mission to do everything that is necessary to make the Canadian people a great and powerful nation, and we should neglect no opportunity to lay the foundations broad and deep of future greatness. It is possible to do much by legislation. We are likely to have another great transcontinental line. I do not know whether it will be the policy of this government to subsidize that line or not, but if it should be the policy of this government to vote millions of dollars of the people's money toward the construction of that line, then it should be the policy of the government to see that these millions of dollars are expended in this country in so far as possible. As I said a moment ago, in my opinion the right hon. the Prime Minister should have gone further than he did. There are great interests to-day waiting the decision of the government. I think he should have announced to the people whether the government deemed it necessary to assist along proper lines the enterprise which is appealing to it for assistance to-day. I have no doubt that there are other industries which will make a similar appeal before the session is over. I would like to see these hon. gentlemen in favour of their own country. I would like to see them frame their policy

for the benefit of our own farmers, our own mechanics, our own miners, our own labouring men. Let them protect our own people. It is within their power to do so, but their policy seems to be to favour the foreigner and not the Canadian. I know that it is very hard for us, on questions of this kind, to separate ourselves from politics, but it seems to me that on a great Canadian question such as this we should be able to do so and consider it free from party prejudice. It seems to me that we should be able to come to its consideration in a true Canadian spirit, it is a question that soars far above and beyond party interest and consideration, and we should discuss it on broad Canadian principles. I have probably taken up a little more time than I had intended in speaking on the question of protecting this great Canadian industry. Ninety per cent of the cost of all iron products consists of labour, and there is no capital so important in this country as labour. I say that productive labour is the greatest thing we have in Canada. Its importance is incalculable. Just suppose that we have in this country 500,000 working men, whose wages averaged $400 a year. That is equal to the interest of $8,000 at five per cent, so that each labourer's capital is equal to $8,000 at interest. Multiply this by 500,000, the number of labourers, and it gives you capital to the enormous sum of $4,000,000,000, producing, at five per cent, $200,000,000 a year. That is the interest that we ought to protect in this country-the labour interest. This labour capital the Conservative party have always striven to uphold and maintain. It is, after all, the great national interest of the country, and it is this that we wish to defend against the ruinous effect of unrestricted competition. We on this side of the House have always been for cherishing Canadian labour, for giving it high wages, foy surrounding it with substantial comforts of life; and I say it should be the object of the legislatures of this country to protect in every way the labour interest of Canada. I know that my hon. friends on the government benches have many difficulties to contend with. They have these very clever and brainy gentlemen from the west who have settled upon a free trade policy in so far as they can. Let me say to these hon. gentlemen that they should take no narrow view of a matter of this kind, but that they should approach it upon broad national grounds. Let me say to them that if they take protection from the old provinces of- the Dominion, they rob us of that which not enriches them and leaves us poor indeed. Destroy protection in this country and you destroy the older provinces of the Dominion, and with the older provinces of the Dominion the great west would also suffer.
Sir, I hope the present let-alone policy of hon. gentlemen opposite will be abandoned and upon its ruin will arise a Canadian 136
policy protecting and cherishing Canadian industries, a policy which alone, I believe, will save this country. If hon. gentlemen will adopt that policy, I am satisfied that there will be no question about the prosperity and progress of the Dominion of Canada.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a motion in amendment to the motion to go into Supply is usually considered as a motion of want of confidence. Under ordinary circumstances, the government are justified in calling upon their followers to reject and vote down such a motion. Has the government been justified, or are they justified in resorting to that procedure in this debate ? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has very clearly and distinctly stated that he did not present his motion as a motion of want of confidence. It was rather, if I rightly interpret his words, an invitation to the government to relieve the present situation by making declarations proper to restore public confidence. My hon. friends on the treasury benches cannot ignore, cannot possibly ignore the fact that we are passing through an industrial crisis- it is out of the question. I do not believe that I am exaggerating the figures in stating that, during the last three or four months, there have been $100,000,000 of Canadian money lost. That is indeed a very large amount of money. I do not mean to convey the idea that the policy of the government is responsible for all that loss. All the same, the losses are there. And the last phase of the losses and of the crisis have come from the very industry that is under discussion to-day. For a time, the iron and steel industry was a very popular one. In my hearing, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said, a year or two ago, that he expected, before he was very much older, to see the Sydney iron industries rival the Pittsburg industries. My hon. friend must know to-day that he was then very far from the mark. The doors of the Sydney works are closed tonight, and my right hon. friend knows it better than I do, because he has information that is not available to ordinary members of parliament. Yet, I happen to know that I am not exaggerating, that I am not going beyond the mark, when I say that the doors of the Sydney works are more than half closed. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) whose good intentions I do not question, whose honesty of purpose I do not question in any way whatever, has said that he has one consolation after all, and that is that the opposition gave him the credit that the duties on iron have been lowered since 1896. That is indeed a poor consolation. What the opposition may think, what any of us may have said or thought years ago, is a poor consolation in place of



the loss by the disasters which face us today. And why are these losses so heavy ? Let me tell my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that it is because we have reduced the duties on iron. I am responsible for that reduction as much as my hon. friend is; politically I am responsible, although I am free to say that I have never had much confidence in the bounty system. My former colleagues will do me the justice to say that I have never had much faith in that system. The bounty system is not a policy, it is an expedient; and expedients have never led to any good results in the world. Capital cannot possibly have any confidence in a bounty system. If this country had gone firmly, energetically, into a protective policy on iron and other things, I make bold to say, we should not have had the crisis that we have had during the last month. And so much is this the case that to-day the men who are at the head of these large industries, are applying to the government to remedy the evil. If there was no remedy, they would not be here now. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has told us, in his very short speech, that this amendment is inopportune. Why is it inopportune ? We have not been told. I would like to know what my hon. friends on the treasury benches have in their minds when they say the amendment is inopportune. Is it so because they believe that the opposition and men in politics who hold protectionist views have no right to place their views before the country in the way we are doing now. I know that governments do not like to see their hands forced; we must admit that governments are in office to rule. But governments are in office to listen also; and when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said distinctly, that he meant simply to offer to the government the help of hon. gentlemen on his side of the House, it seems to me there is nothing inopportune in the motion.
Sow, Sir, the words of the Minister of Finance have been re-echoed by the right hon, gentleman who leads the House. He has told us that this is a time for reflection, for consideration, for study. My hon. friend has had a lot of time for reflection, for consideration and for study. For the last two or three years this question has been brought to his notice, the difficulties of the industrial situation have been made known to him as they have been made known to us. He knows that representations after representations have been made to the government. He knows that the iron men have come to us over and over again. He knows that his strongest political friends havei warned him. Let me quote only a few words from the Hon. Mr. Cox, who is a friend of the government. I am sure he will not be accused of being a traitor because he shares the views that other men hold, other men who are no more traitors than he is. In Hon. Mr. TARTE.
his speech at the annual meeting of the Bank of Commerce, in November, 1902, the Hon. Mr. Cox spoke these words :
Apparently thus far we are able to view with some satisfaction our position. But the tendency is clearly towards a condition demanding caution.
I shall not weary the House by reading the whole utterance of the Hon. Mr. Cox, who was then warning the country that we were in a difficult position. Mr. Cox knew then, what has been made very clear since. He is a financier who is at the head of several great banking and financial institutions, and he saw signs of trouble, he saw the signs of the times that we are face to face with now.
My hon. friends have been warned. During the last session of parliament, the Minister of Finance made a statement which is much like the one we have heard during this session. He inviited the country to wait. Not this session, said he, not now. The country waited, the manufacturing interest waited, the big institutions waited one year. That year passed away. At the opening of parliament this year the hon. the Minister of Finance invited us once more to wait. Last year the Loudon conference was to be held. It was a reasonable pretext. This year we were informed that the high commission might perhaps meSt again. That was also, to a certain extent, a reasonable pretext, but after all these are only pretexts. These arguments cannot inspire capital with confidence, they do not save us from the great crisis that hon. gentlemen have to take now into their consideration. We have waited two years, and we are invited to wait again. I know that it is rather late. The hundred millions! that are lost may not be reimbursed, may not be made up again, they are lost. Why should we wait any longer ? Sir, I do not wish to be a prophet of evil, but let my hon. friends on the Treasury benches permit me to say to them that unless they pause, unless they reflect a little more rapidly than they have done in the past, before we are much older we will have greater losses than the losses we are lamenting to-day. I make this statement to the right hon. gentleman and to his colleagues. They should know just what we know ourselves. They should know that great banking institutions are afraid of the present situation. I happen to live in a city where there are large institutions, I happen to meet business men, and I know what they think of the situation, and I know that my hon. friends on the Treasury benches have been made aware of the danger of the situation. Let me say that party politics should not interfere at a moment of crisis to vast interests. It should be no humiliation for the Minister of Finance and for his colleagues to come before parliament and to say:	Circumstances have

changed. The ministers are not infallible. If they would come before the House and say : Circumstances have changed, we are passing through a great crisis, let us change the tariff-they would be supported, not only by their own friends, but by their opponents. I know that there are in the rank and file of the Liberal party, not only In this! House but outside of it, thousands of men who think as I am speaking to-night. I know they would cheer my hon. friends on the Treasury benches, they would be glad if they would come before the House, before this session is over and say :	Well,
let us save the industries that are most in danger. I know it is late, the session is advanced. But my hon. friends, as I said before, have had time to reflect. I would not blame them one moment for what they have not done, if they would do to-day what they should do.
Now, Sir, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said, and I believe there is a great deal of truth in it, that perhaps the management of the Sydney mines has not been what it should have been. Let that be so, that does not change the situation by any means. The fact that there may have been mismanagement does not prove that the Policy of the government is right. My hon. friends know it, and they know it so well that at the beginning of the session they tried to improve it a little by announcing that they would put up the duty on rails. What is true about i;ails is still| more true about dozens and dozens of articles of iron. I say it again, if there has been some mismanagement in the Sydney mines, that is no evidence that the policy of the government is right. Getting a statement from the gentlemen who are interested in the Sydney mines will not improve matters in any way. The proposal is an evidence of the unwilling' spirit with which the government is grappling with the situation-let me say it without meaning to give any offence.
The government should make up their minds that new conditions have arisen, that even in England, free trade England to which we are referred so often, there is a political revolution going on to-day. England was the only country in the world which professed free trade, and now the greatest English statesmen have made up their minds that long enough they have allowed other countries to slaughter their market, and they are right. Let me say it openly, I recognize the broad and statesmanlike spirit of the Hon. Mr. Chamberlain. We may not always agree with him in everything that he has done, but he has at least a pride in the great empire of which he is one of the servants. He knows, not only as a statesman but as a practical business man, that the industries of England are being) destroyed. He knows that the agriculture of England is being injured, and as a business man as well as a statesman he is not ashamed to say : Let by-136}
gones be by-gones. I have been a free trader, I have made free trade speeches ; now I want to protect and defend the industries of England against the unfair competition of foreign countries. That is a statesmanlike position. Why should my hon. friends be more proud than the hon. gentleman who is one of the' first statesmen of the empire to-day ? We may all have made mistakes. I am very much afraid we have all made mistakes, but I would not call it a mistake to have said ten or fifteen years ago that it was better to have a low tariff. I do not say that those who spoke in that way then are obliged to admit that they have made a mistake, but they must admit that circumstances have changed.
Sir, the iron industry needs' no defence. It is one of the most important industries that the country can see grow and prosper. That industry is intimately bound up with the shipbuilding industry. If the government allows, by false shame, that industry to go to the wall, it will be many years before it could recover. I would not hesitate one single minute if I were in the position in which the right hon. gentleman
is,	to take up that iron question and solve
it.	It would be solved very easily indeed. I do not mean to say that we could impose duties on every detail of the iron industry. There is a way of doing it. We know what we can manufacture. In 1897 we had scarcely any iron manufacturing industries. We were then only beginning. Our industry has been developing since, not very much, but it has been developing. We have erected great buildings for the manufacture of iron. We have plants to do that. Let us examine carefully and ascertain what these plants can make. Let us protect immediately all that these plants can manufacture. I would suggest to my hon. friends on the treasury benches, if they are good enough to accept a suggestion at my hands in the spirit in which I am offering it.vto raise the duties on a certain schedule of iron articles against all foreign nations, giving a preference to England. We would then import from England articles that we are not prepared to produce here. It would be a national policy, it would be a sound policy, and it would lead to a trade between this great colony and the mother country, and largely encourage our merchant marine while at the same time protecting our own industry. There is no difficulty in adopting this policy. The shares of the iron indus-tires are very low to-day. Would my hon. friends permit me to say that if they would adopt the policy I am suggesting this evening the shares would go up immediately. Confidence would be restored. I see smiling faces. I am not surprised, because I know a good many of my hon. friends in this parliament have lost a lot. But, outside of this Chamber men in perfect good faith have also lost money by leaps and

bounds. Let us not forget, as I said at tbe beginning of these remarks, that about one hundred millions of money have been lost.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) if that one hundred millions went into the industry


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, X do not mean anything of that kind, but a very large amount of money has been lost as my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) knows, in the iron industry as a result of the slump which has taken place in the iron industry as in many other stocks. Disaster invites disaster, and unless my hon. friends on the treasury benches make up their minds that they must grapple with the present situation, they will have to face more disasters than we have had to face yet. The great trouble to-day is lack of confidence. There is no confidence in banking institutions or in the industrial world, and X may very frankly tell my hon. friends on the treasury benches why this is so. Telling the country and telling parliament to wait until next year, to wait and see is not a policy. It is the lack of a policy. It is the absence of a policy. Capital cannot have confidence in such a state of affairs, and let me assure my hon. friends on the treasury benches that in what I say now I do not mean to impute any undue blame or give any offence to them. I mean to convey to them with all the earnestness that I can put into my words the conviction that I am speaking the truth, that I am making out the position as I know it is to be, that we are face to face with grave dangers and that in their own political interest they had better take up the question now than later on.
References have been made to the progress of the iron industry in the United States. The industry in that country encountered a great deal of trouble before it could take root. Why was it V It was because England was then a strongly protectionist country. Our English friends went very far. Parliament went so far as to pass an Act to prevent the emigration of mechanics or skilled workers to the United States. There was an Act of parliament passed in 1785 to prevent the emigration of mechanics or skilled workers in iron or steel or the exportation of any tool, engine or machine beyond the sea. Lord Brougham, in the House of Commons in England denounced the efforts that the young American nation was making to build up its industries. He suggested to the iron masters of England to undersell the infant American industries. In his speech, Lord Brougham said :
It was even worth while to incur loss upon the first exportation in order by the glut to stifle in the cradle these rising manufactures in the United States. '	[DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: What year was that in ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Act of parliament I referred to, was passed in 1785. Of course, it was going far. As my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) who has just spoken, said, the iron industry took a foothold only after it was protected as highly as it has been for years and years. Now, it is easy to give more figures. Last year the United States produced 16,250,000 tons of iron, and over 11,000,000 tons of steel. Germany had also an immense production ; England is no longer in it. Mr. Chamberlain wants England to be in it, and it is for that reason he wants to protect England. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not much more to say.


An hon. MEMBER.: Thanks.


Joseph Israël Tarte: An hon. friend behind me says * thanks.' It is the gentleman from the North-west that we hear so often speaking in such dignified language. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) has urged the government to come to the rescue of the Sydney works. But he is a free trader. He has informed us that he is very sorry to have to come to that conclusion, but he came to it. Let me tell him that the Sydney works are not the only ones involved. The whole iron industry of Canada is involved, and all the iron men have asked the government for relief. We had a pretty big disaster at Sault Ste. Marie a few months ago. The crisis began there, it travelled down by the sea, and it is everywhere now. I believe that if my hon. friend (Mr. Kendall) and others who have influence with the government would combine with the independent members and with the opposition, we would carry the day. If we assure the government that it is the wish of parliament that those industries should be relieved, the government would come out all right. Let us tell the government that we do not mean to imply any want of confidence, and that is my intention in the speech-I am making now. One last word. The Prime Minister has asked: Why is it that the Sydney works have not produced iron as cheaply as the promoters of the industry thought they would That is a very pertinent question, and I think I can answer it. My humble opinion is that unless you give to an industry enough to produce, it is out of the question to expect cheap production. Quantity is essential in the cost of production. That is an elementary law. How can we expect that our infant industry at Sydney and elsewhere can compete successfully with the giants on the other side of the line, the giants of Germany, of England, and of France ? Let us start by doing the right thing. As the Minister of Finance said, the granting of bounties was a liberal thing to do. Yes; but it was not the right thing to do. A good many of us thought that bounties would help but that they would not be sufficient, because bounties will not secure the home market. A bounty means taking the

money out of the pockets of the people and paying it to the manufacturers, while protection, adequate duties, mean cheap production; it means the securing of the home market and it is because that cheap production has not been secured by sufficient duties and that enough protection has not been assured, that the cheapness that the Prime Minister expected has not been achieved.
In conclusion, let me say, that in my opinion the government would not only be justified but would be doing its duty towards this country by raising the duty on iron.
I know very well that other industries will apply, but it seems to be that fifteen days of consideration to a revision of the tariff could make it right. The government have a lot of material in their hands. When I left office they had it, and I have a very large amount of it myself. They have time still to consider it, and to come before this House with, if not a complete policy, at least a policy sufficient to relieve the present situation.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: I feel quite at ease in expressing my opinion on this question, because I am not a convert to the idea of protection. Even when the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was a member of the cabinet, and before he had decided to take his free course upon this question, I expressed clearly my opinion in this House that I was in favour of a bold policy of protection to the industries of Canada against undue competition from the United States. But because I am a protectionist, and for the very reason that I am a protectionist, I would not like to see this government or any government use what I have always considered to be the true national policy of Canada, as a means for helping stock gambling. Not that I say that stock gambling is the only question involved here, but I do say that it is deeply involved, and unfortunately it has not been treated of so far in this debate. Considering first the protection needed by the iron industry so far as it is covered by the motion, I wish to give the reason why I approve entirely of the position that has been taken this afternoon by the Prime Minister, when he said that it was impossible that the government could accept immediately the motion of the leader of the opposition. It is not my habit to attribute base motives to any member of this House, whether he sits on this side or on that. I am convinced that the motives of the leader of the [DOT]opposition are sincere and are patriotic, but we must consider the consequences of such a course as he invites us to take. The hon. smember for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has properly said that the policy of bounties "was a policy of expediency, that It had not the permanency of a policy of protection. And just because a policy of protection is of a permanent character, it would be foolish on the part of this government or this parliament to accede right away to the demands of the iron producers without considering what would be the effect of such protection on many other industries that are entitled to the care of this parliament just as much as is the industry at Sydney. Before the government grants any further protection to the iron and steel manufacturers, it is its duty to ascertain what would be the result of such protection to the farm implement manufacturer, to the manufacturer of carpenters' tools, to the nail and screw manufacturers, and In fact to every other industry in this country whose raw material is the product of the industry which we are asked to protect. If protection is to be given to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company-and I do not say that it should not be given-the government should be prepared at the same time to give an equally fair measure of protection to all those industries which have to buy their materials from that company or import them from abroad.
But, Sir, there are other industries than the iron and steel industries, and those which use iron and steel, that are entitled to the same care and attention of parliament ; and it would not be proper for this parliament and this government to come out now and say that because there has been a_ disaster in the stock gambling of this country, and certain industries are affected by stock gambling, other industries which are being conducted on a legitimate basis, and which offer to capital a prospect of a fair and honest profit, are not entitled to the same consideration at the hands of the government.
Therefore, the question that is raised tonight, with reference to only one industry, is in reality the whole question of the tariff. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) gave notice in the debate on the budget that he was going to bring into this House a resolution on the general tariff policy of the government. I could understand the hon. gentleman, on such an occasion, giving out the views he has expressed to-night-and I do not say that I do not partake somewhat of the views of the hon. gentleman ; I do not say that I shall not be prepared at some future time to consider the whole question of a tariff revision ; but whatever may be our different opinions of what the real interests of this country require, whatever may be the policy of the Liberal party, or the policy of the Conservative party, to-night is not the time, just because a few men who have lost money through stock gambling are coming here to ask for more protection, to raise the whole tariff question by a motion affecting the iron and steel industry alone.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to tell my hon. friend that this motion was prepared weeks before I ever had the slightest I idea that the iron and steel men were coming to the government at all. To my
4S31

knowledge they never came to see the government except during the latter part of last week. I had given notice of my motion on the previous Monday, and it had been prepared for two weeks before that, and X was waiting for the return of the hon. Finance Minister to afford me an opportunity of moving it. When my hon. friend makes the statement that the difficulties of a certain company which he named have been caused by stock gambling, I think he ought to give some explanation as to how this company has been brought into business difficulties by gambling, or how its financial position could be affected by the fact that people throughout the country have been buying or selling its stock.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As far as the first part of the hon. gentleman's statement is concerned, I am quite prepared to accept his explanation. But what I say is that the position put before us in the motion to-night is the position that has been raised by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. It is the position taken by most of the newspapers, including the organ of the hon. member for St. Mary's. I do not blame the hon. member for St. Mary's, nor do I blame the hon. leader of the opposition, for the views these hon. gentlemen entertain. But I say that the government are justified in refusing to adopt such a resolution to-night. I say that they would not be entitled to the confidence of this parliament and this country if they would not withstand such a demand in a moment of excitement, because there are some men who, in good faith, and some who in bad faith, are now in a position to accept a motion which would mean an entire revolution in the fiscal policy of this country.
I will come later on to the question of stock gambling ; but when the hon. leader of the opposition interrupted me, I was just going to say that we are told to-night that the only remedy required by this large industry in order to prosper is an increase in the duties. We have been told of the great development of the iron and steel industry in the United States on account of a high tariff; but I would like, before this debate is over, to have an explanation of the statement that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) that one of the dangers that threaten our industry was the state of depression of the iron and steel industry in the United States -the industry which, according to other members of the opposition has been so greatly flourishing under a high protective policy. Is the tariff in the United States lower to-day than it was five years ago ? If the tariff does not protect the iron and steel industry in that country, - born and brought up and kept under the most favourable circumstances with which any industry was ever favoured, with a huge monopoly extending not only over the entire territory Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of the American republic, but invading the neutral markets of this world, going to England and competing there with old iron industries, going to Egypt and supplying the railways there with American rails, going to China and superseding the English products there-I say that if such an industry is not prospering to-day, how can the logical conclusion be drawn from the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition, from the speech of the hon. member for St. Mary's, or from the speeches of the other supporters of this motion, that, by adopting the same policy, we shall avoid the disasters which the iron and steel industry of the United States has suffered ? I say that the conclusion is not logical that by adopting that same policy we would revive our industries.
Now, I am not going to enter into any technical details regarding this industry; I am not competent to do so. The hon. member for St. Mary's said that one of the reasons why iron cannot be produced at Sydney cheaply enough in the present situation is because the iron industry cannot expect a large enough market to develop and to prosper. But, Sir, the statement was given out some days ago by some of the directors of that company that it was not the iron part of the business that was suffering, but the steel production, and that if they were given some special protection on some of the articles of steel, the production would be revived. But the fact remains that under the present tariff, knowing exactly where they were, knowing what property they had, knowing what the population of Canada was, knowing the purchasing power of Canada, that company started some four years ago with a huge prospectus asking the people to subscribe millions and promising them large returns and profits, without conveying the slightest hint that the tariff was an impediment. Therefore, I say that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was right when he said that the public of this country were asking for some explanation regarding the management of the Dominion Steel Company. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has asked the government to declare immediately in favour of a high tariff upon most of the productions on iron and steel with a preference in favour of the British producer. I must say that I was astounded at this declaration, and it was mainly this declaration which brought me to my feet. It is well known that when the government decided to increase the preference to the British producer, I spoke of that policy with great caution. While I had supported' that policy in 1897, I expressed my fear that we were going too far in that line.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What I said is this. There are certain articles we could not produce now, and which We are buying from the United States and elsewhere, and I was

suggesting that we should give a preference to England on these articles but not on everything.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad my hou. friend has given that explanation. 1 go further on that point, and that is one part of the motion of the hon. gentleman to which I wanted to refer, and I might as well do it now. I was just going to tell the hon. leader of the opposition that there iS| a part of his motion which needs some explanation. It is when he says that we should give- -
Such protection to the iron and steel industry as will not only secure to our own producers and manufacturers the Canadian market in articles now produced or manufactured in this country, but will also develop and sustain the manufacture in Canada of other iron and steel products which at present are imported in large quantities from other countries.
This is a broad statement. Does it mean that he would like the government to notv impose a duty on all iron and steel articles that come into this country, even those which are not manufactured and cannot be manufactured here with profit, because the market is not large enough, and thus impose on the other industries which have ' to use these articles a further amount of taxation without compensating them by other protection ? The hon. member for St. Mary's had evidently that position in view, when he spoke of the preference which we might give to British goods. But if we acknowledge that certain goods cannot be produced in this country, by what right should we prevent the manufacturers of Canada, who need those goods, from buying them where they can get them best and cheapest ? Why should we compel them to go and buy them in England ? In my view, Mr. Speaker, on these articles which we cannot produce, we should have absolute free trade. If by a certain amount of protection and without imposing too heavy a burden on other industries we can force the production of these articles in Canada, I am in favour of our doing so, because I am a protectionist; but since we cannot do that, we have no right to impose on those manufacturers the obligation to buy those goods in England. We should leave them free to buy them where they can get them of best quality or of best producing capacity, if machinery, and at the cheapest price.
I am just now coming to the point that I touched at the beginning of my remarks. The hon. member for Both well (Sir. Clancy) said this afternoon that the country wants more protection on iron and steel. The hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said that $100,000,000 had been lost to this country in the last three months by the policy of the government. The hou. leader of the opposition said that an increase of duty was imperatively necessary to save the parties interested in the manufacture of steel and iron. Well, as regards the loss of $100,000,000 within the last three months, at least nine-tenths of that loss is due to the fact that many people of the country lost their heads. If capital has become difficult, if bankers have become close-fisted, it is not because of the tariff policy, but because capital was forced into improper channels. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the opinion of the bankers. I know, as a matter of fact, that in December last, there was a consultation between the managers and directors of the most important banks of Canada, and what did they decide ? They decided, not that the tariff policy was wrong, but that an immense amount of capital was invested in stock gambling-for which they were in a large degree responsible-and they decided there and then to restrict supplies to stock gamblers. Certainly the decision was a wise one in itself, but perhaps it was hardly a wise decision, after they had enabled those people during nine and ten years to get money on a margin of 10 per cent, to close immediately their doors and bring about this slump in the markets.
The hon. member for St. Mary's has said that the bounty system is a policy of expediency in tariff matters. Let me say also on the part of many people who have money invested in the industries of this country, that black-mailing is also, for too many people, a good policy to be used in finance and tariff matters. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that for three years the government has been made aware of the situation of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Well, Mr. Speaker, the investing public was not made aware of it. On the contrary, the directors of that institution repeated time and again that the industry could not fail to be most prosperous ; and if these directors were going to the government for the last three years and asking for more protection, while at the same time they were enticing money from the people on the pretense that the company had a glowing future, I say that a thorough investigation should be held; and if the people have been robbed by the directors of the Dominion Steel Company, these directors should be held accountable before that industry is given any more protection.
What was the prime occupation of the company ? They issued bonds to the amount ol' nearly $8,000,000, at the rate of $85 for every bond of $100, and every purchase of a bond received in addition a paid up share of $100 common stock. So that the company gave a par value in bonds and shares of $200 for $85. They issued preferred stock to the amount of $5,000,000, they issued common stock to the amount of $20,000,000. they gave shares all over the country, and they made returns of the common shares to the amount of 80 per cent, because it was a tremendous industry and was going to be the best investment the people of Canada

could make. And during all this time, I am told by an ex-minister, they were going to the government and begging for more protection because otherwise they could not live. I say, if that is the case, first and before all, what the public of this country will demand is not so much protection for Mr. Cox and Mr. Ross, but that they should be made accountable for the declarations they have, made to the people of Canada.
Now, Sir, I quite admit with the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the mismanagement of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and the way in which the people of this country have been led to take stock in that concern, is no reason for not having a bold policy on the industry itself. I quite admit that, and I am prepared to say now to the government that, after they have carefully considered the question, after they have taken into consideration the consequences that will arrive as affecting every other industry that is dependent upon this mother industry, if they are prepared to recommend an increase of duty, I do not say I will not support it, but I say


Mr. POPE.: Oh, you will support anything.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, Sir. Before now I have asked the government for more protection than they were willing to give. My views on the tariff question are well known. I ran as a protectionist in 1896 and again in 1900 in a purely rural constituency where there could be no political advantage to me in advocating that policy. But I am convinced that, as the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) has said, the tariff policy of the country should not be made a tool either in the hands of financial speculators or in the hands of political speculators. I am in favour of a solid policy of protection for this country. That should be our national policy. But, because we make it our national policy, every part of it should be wisely considered, and it should not be changed on the spur of the moment because of some financial distress existing which arises from causes entirely foreign to the tariff. Let me add-I cannot give it as a piece of information, but as a rumour which has been current on the streets of Montreal for some weeks-that a high official in the Dominion Iron and Steel Company has thrown lately on the markets over one thousand shares of his own company's securities Perhaps that has had something to do with the fall in value of the shares of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company-perhaps nearly as much as the competition of the American industry. Therefore, I say, and I insist upon it, that, while public opinion in this country, or at least a certain part of It, may require that more protection should be given to that industry, what this country requires and immediately demands is that a thorough examination be made not only of the way Mr. BOURASSA.
the stock of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company was managed and put on the market and used by stock gamblers, but that the whole question of stock gambling should be considered by this parliament. Sir, if we wish to have confidence established for the capital of our country, if we wish to bring in foreign capital to support our industries, if we wish British and American and German capitalists to invest in Canada, we must make it known that no board of directors is allowed to speak one way in secret when they want favours from the government and another way to the public when they want the money of the public. We must make it known that when the public has been allured by false promises to invest in any industry, the government's hand is strong enough to force those who have made those promises to give an account of their deeds. We must make it known to foreign; capitalists thjat when money is placed in an industry in Canada it is placed in safe hands, and will not be subject to stock gambling on any change of opinion on the part of this director or that. We must make it known that no particular director has the right to give three times the value received without knowing that some day he will be obliged to pay back that capital and in the meantime to pay interest on it. I say that the hon. member for St. Mary's may be right when he says there should be a tariff revision. That is a question which should be studied. But I contend that I am right in saying that the time has come when this parliament should deal with the whole question of the stock exchange and the way in which strong industries in this country are placed at the mercy of speculators, of men who have no responsibility, who do not care for the future of the country or even for the general character or permanent stability of their industries, but simply care to raise money for the time being, whatever the consequence to the people of the country.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: In following this debate it has become difficult for me to understand whether the motion was intended to deal with a general principle or to apply to a specific case, whether it is intended for the purpose of bringing about a change in the conditions connected with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company or whether it was intended to deal with the iron industry as affecting the Dominion as a whole. I would like to deal with the question from the standpoint of its effect cn the general industries of the Dominion. Canada, situated as it is, and constituted as it is, needs iron as England needs bread. Cheap iron is as necessary to the development of this country as cheap bread is to the support of the industries of England. I believe in protection, but I do not understand the idea which seems to prevail with some of our friends that a mere increase of duty is protec-

tion, and that such an increase is a cure for every evil that can possibly affect the nation. We have had, in times past, a policy of protection to the iron industry. It was not a part of the National Policy. It was an addition which proved the unreasonableness of the high tariff policy and actually broke its back; it was the high protective duties in favour of the production of iron which caused our other manufactuiiug industries throughout Canada to languish in the latter years of the so called National Policy.
There is no part of the present tariff policy of the government which has been so effective in improving the condition of our manufacturing industries and improving the general conditions of this country as the reduction in iron duties which is part of the tariff of 1897. The iron duties were reduced in 1897, and the country benefited thereby. But it would seem as if our friends wished to create the impression that the iron duties were abolished at that time. I find on looking at the Tariff Act of 1897 that there are duties attached to the importation of iron and steel which seem to me to give a very substantial measure of protection, quite as much as any industry is entitled to under a revenue tariff. 1 find on looking at this list that pig iron has a protective duty of $2.50 a ton; that rolled iron or steel has a duty of $7 a ton; bar iron and steel 87 a ton; rolled iron and steel, in sheets or plates, $7 a ton; iron and steel rails, 30 per cent; fish plates, $8 a ton; cast iron pipes, $8 a ton, and so on through the list. Does any person suppose that the manufacturing and agricultural industries of this country can afford a higher rate of protection to the iron industry than is now accorded ? For my part I do not believe they can. Under any circumstances, and according to the knowledge which has come within my range, I am prepared to vote against any increase in the iron duties, beyond a mere readjustment thereof. I believe that in doing so I am acting in the best interest of the country as a whole. 1 find that not only is the iron industry protected to the extent I have mentioned, but that it is also bonused to the extent of $3 a ton on Iron and steel ingots, puddled bars and pig Iron. Now, I say an industry that is protected to this extent, and is further bonused to this extent, has certainly no right to come to this parliament and make a plea that it does not now enjoy a very considerable measure of protection and advantage at the hands of the country at large.
Now, a word in regard to the bonus policy and the difference between a bonus and a tariff. It has been said that the bonus is a policy of mere expediency. No doubt it is a policy of expediency or experiment, and why not ? Why should the country be committed without experiment to a policy the result of which no man can foresee,
or if he can foresee, it would be in the light of experience, and that would be that a policy of high tariff in favour of the production of iron would mean disaster to the country. I think it Is right and proper that if you desire to encourage iron production in this country-and who does not so desire?- the encouragement should be given by way of a bonus rather than by way of a tariff. Let me point out the difference between the cost to the country in the two cases. Supposing we produce 100,000 tons of iron in a year, we bonus that to the extent of $3 a ton, we pay a specific amount of $300,000. Supposing we put a protective duty of $3 a ton on iron and we import a million tons. It costs the consumers of that iron $3 a ton on a million tons, or $3,000,000 ; whereas the bonus only cost $3 a ton on 100,000 tons, and the iron industry of the country had just the same advantage on every ton actually produced. The policy of bounties is only a policy of expediency or experiment. But as one who desires to see the iron industry encouraged, and does not want to see the country itself or the industries therein wrecked, I have supported the policy of iron bounties, and am prepared to continue to do so to a moderate and reasonable extent in preference to an increase of duties.
In regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that if the iron duties were raised to-night, to-morrow the millions which have been lost, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said, in stock gambling, would be recovered. I ask this House if that is a proper reason to present to us. Does this parliament exist for the purpose of rigging the stock market ? Surely we have other duties to perform, other interests to guard than the interests of those who have invested their money under such circumstances. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the construction of railways necessary for the development of this country, in the expenditures on manufacturing industries necessary to keep pace with our agricultural development, we require cheap iron more than we do anything else. If Canada can produce that iron, and if any legislation can be brought forward or any assistance be given that will really induce the production of that iron by Canada as cheaply as it can otherwise be procured, then I am in favour of such legislation. But legislation which shall cause iron to be dear throughout the country, which shall cause an increase of its price one-third, or one-half, or possibly double-I say such a policy is not a policy of national protection, it is a policy of industrial and commercial suicide.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: I had not the pleasure of hearing what has been said on this question, yet it is of sufficient importance to excuse me for occupying a small portion of time. With the spirit of

the resolution I am in hearty sympathy. I believe it is in the interest of this country to protect the development of all its natural products. But the question arises whether the resolution itself, at this stage, is not of an academic nature, incapalble of doing any good, or of being made applicable in the slightest degree. If the resolution was propounded at the proper time, I would be glad to give it my sympathy and support. I believe in cultivating the iron and steel industry of this country, because I believe they are indigenous to it. I do not think that if this resolution was carried to-night the government are in a position to make it effective. It would involve a readjustment of the tariff from top to bottom. It would require an investigation into the manufacturing conditions of every industrial concern in this country that uses iron. It is a task that, at this late stage of the session, it would be impossible for the government to overtake, and it is not in the present instance an absolute necessity. Therefore, while I sympathize with the resolution, I do not sympathize with it under the present circumstances, because it is incapable of doing any good.
Now, it has been urged that a bounty differs from a duty. So it does to a certaiu extent, but in so far as any manufacturer is concerned it is exactly the same thing. It does not matter whether he is protected against the foreign producer by $G a ton duty or whether he receives a present from the government of $6 a ton. It does not matter if he is able to put his wares upon the market at $6 a ton less than the people who are competing against him. I take exception to some of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who sits in front of me (Hon. Mr. Tarte) when he undertook to asperse the government and to hold it responsible for the loss of a large sum of money. The government is not to blame in the slightest degree,, because of the disaster which has overtaken some of the industries that may be affected by it. These people knew when they went into this business exactly what the tariff was. They thought they would be able to bring about a successful condition of affairs but they have not been able to bring about that condition. This disaster has not been brought about by the neglect of the government because it has taken no new attitude since the present tariff was inaugurated. My hon. friend who sits in front of me, says that over a hundred million of dollars have been lost by the people of this country. I think he is incorrect in that. I think the ownership of that hundred million of dollars has shifted. The people who had that hundred million of dollars a short time ago have not got it to-day, but somebody else has and in so far as the country is concerned, I do not think that any very serious loss has taken place. If we were to compare, as has been done here, the value Mr. HEYD.
of the stocks to-day with what it was in 1896, we would see that there has been an actual increase of several hundreds of millions, not of a hundred million, in value. The crisis that has been brought about and which has precipitated this discussion in the House is the result of an attempt to float upon an unsuspecting public manufacturing estimates that are not truthfully represented. Take the very industry whose condition has precipitated this discussion. We know that at the time it was floated the promises that were made. We know that the vice-president and manager made a speech in Toronto before the board of trade and we know what he said. I will read from his speech :
As to the Cape Breton district, situated on the seaboard, the whole wide world is her market, all of it, and In our modesty we do not ask for more.
At this point we must again revert to our cost comparison. Then he goes on to say in his speech that they can produce iron and steel at Sydney at $6 per ton at tide water cheaper than they can at Pittsburg.
I will be pardoned for a few more words cn the great promise of the Cape Breton district. So great is this promise that it has ceased to be local. It has ceased to be sectional. It has become International in its influence. To-day, Sydney is a familiar name to every steelmaker in England, and before another year rolls around the leaders in this industry will have beien with us to see for themselves the new centre. At this moment Sydney is debated with doubt and misgiving by the large German syndicates, and in the United States the strength of her position is conceded by every expert. Canada alone at this moment does not realize how splendid an opportunity is within her control.
That speech was made only two years ago before the Board of Trade of Toronto by the vice-president and manager of this very institution and yet we are told that the government Is responsible for this loss. These men have induced an unsuspecting public to pay three times as much for the stock as it was worth, they floated for about $28,000,000 a concern that never had more than one-third of that money invested in it. What can you expect ? There is not one manufacturing establishment to-day in Canada from one end of the country to the other, except, perhaps, those that are affected by the preferential tariff, for instance, the woollen mills, which are not successful and whose stock is not above par. I am willing to admit that the preferential tariff lias affected some of our industries, but I believe the surtax will do them good. I believe that in not more than a year from now' better conditions amongst the woollen and cotton mills will prevail. The iron industry w7as started a few years ago knowing the conditions which existed. The same conditions exist to-day as those which existed in 1897 and 1900. The government has done nothing to precipitate the disaster

which has overtaken this concern, and these establishments that have been over capitalized, and then floated upon an unsuspecting public must come to disaster. You cannot float a company and declare dividends on a capital of $30,000,000 when there is only $10,000,000 in the concern. You cannot declare dividends on water and keep it up for ever. To hold the government responsible for what has taken place is to make a foundationless charge. I sympathise with the resolution. I believe higher duties should be put upon iron and steel, but before passing a resolution like that to-night we must consider what it involves. It is simply an academic expression of opinion that it would be a good thing, but would it restore confidence V Not at all. It would demoralize all subsidiary trades and other great industrial institutions. If the industries which are engaged in buying iron were told that there would be an increase in the value of iron and there was a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty created in every large establishment that uses iron unless the government promised that it would make a corresponding increase in the duties which these establishments now enjoy. That would involve a re-arrangement of the tariff from beginning to end, months of labour and a great deal of study. We know that when tb,e old government existed and when the new government took office nearly a year was consumed in ascertaining exactly the conditions as they existed. It is as necessary to-day asl it was seven years ago to make careful inquiry and when this revision of the tariff takes place it must be the result of careful investigation and consideration and after the opinion of experts has been had in every department of trade. But, because disaster has overtaken men who have engaged in stock speculation, and men who have floated fictitious enterprises on the public it is no reason why the government should go to the rescue and disarrange the financial and industrial affairs of the country-


Rufus Henry Pope: Mr. Speaker, this discussion was brought about by the introduction of a resolution by the bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) asking that further consideration in the way of increased duties be given to the steel industries of Canada. It was met, first, by the reply from the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that it was not an opportune moment at which to bring forward this resolution intimating that it was unfair that my hon. friend should have brought this resolution forward at this particular time. He did not give us any reason for making this statement, but thought that this House should be satisfied with the fact that he simply made the bald assertion that it was untimely. At the beginning of this session, or nearly at the
beginning of this session, when the budget speech was delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance, a resolution was proposed by my hon. friend in which he declared, and in which those supporting him declared, that the hour for the revision of the tariff had arrived in this country. It was voted down and there has never been any moment since that time when we were going into Committee of Supply that it was not the legitimate right of the hon. leader of the opposition, or of any hon. gentleman on this side of the House, to move such a resolution as that which was moved today. So, Sir, I say that it does not become the hon. Minister of Finance to put forth that as the basis of his argument against the introduction of his resolution. It indicates fear, it indicates cowardice on the part of the hon. gentleman when he attempts to ward off the pressure that is brought to bear on him from all sorts of financial institutions throughout Canada ; it ill becomes him to say in a whining manner to the leader of the opposition that this motion is inopportune. But we have a franker statement from the Prime Minister who told us that it could not be expected that the government would revise the irom tariff without first having a statement from the Sydney Company. Well, to a protectionist like myself, a protectionist in season and out of season, who believes in the application of principles rather than dodging between two theories, it does seem peculiar that the leader of the government should have to wait to apply his sound principles until he inspects the private books of a company. The right hon. gentleman told us that the growth of this industry had been brought about by the tariff inaugurated by his government, which is lower than the tariff of the Conservative government. If that is true, then for heaven's sake do not let the hon. gentleman return to a higher tariff and ruin the industry. But the Prime Minister, in the next breath, told us that he was going to look oyer the books of that concern, and that if he finds good reason for returning to higher protection he will do so. That is the kind of shifting policy we have had for six years of Liberal rule in Canada, and it is a sort of policy that has never built up industrial life in any country. The Liberals have been lucky. Since they came to power they have had the benefit of prosperous times and wonderful crops, but, notwithstanding that, they are now beginning to learn that they made a mistake when they did not revise the tariff this year. It is quite true that if they once open the door they will have many other industries knocking ; they will find the silver lead men of British Columbia and others demanding protection, and I can well understand how they are in fear and trembling. But, Sir, no government, whether free trade or revenue tariff, or protectionist, can sit supinely there and permit such a

great industry as that at Sydney to go to the wall. If the prayers of the men interested in that industry have any foundation, the government will be bound to increase the iron duties and to declare to all Canada within thirty days that the leader of the opposition is really the leader of the House. They may dislike to do so. They may get their supporters to bob up here and there, one after another to declare that they are in sympathy with the motion, but will vote against it, but all their hedging won't do. The only man who is in sympathy with the motion is the man who has the moral courage to vote for the motion when it embodies the principle he believes in. And now as to stock gambling. We are not concerned about that on this side of the House. Pei

haps we do not deal in stocks as extensively as hon. gentlemen opposite do. I noticed that when the hon. member for Labelle suggested an investigation, many gentlemen opposite applauded, and I thought at once that these gentlemen had dropped their money, and even though an investigation could not find out where it went to, it would give them some consolation. They want consolation instead of cash, and if the iron industry is not protected that is all the people of Canada will get. I have listened to the Finance Minister, I have listened to the Prime Minister, I have listened to the Minister of Customs, the thunderer of the administration, quoting stock prices in this country and in this House as an evidence of prosperity. Why are they ashamed to quote those stock lists to-nightV For several years we have heard the Liberals glory that they established the works at Sydney. Where is their glorification tonight ? I do not care whether the management of these works has been extravagant or not. I never knew of a new industry of such an extensive nature that did not commit mistakes. It is not enough to have markets for their products and to have their raw material, but you must have practiced and experienced men to mould the iron from its raw state into its perfect manufactured condition. That man has to grow up in the institution, and that is one of the great reasons why protection must be had in a new country with infant industries. Now, Sir, what sympathy are hon. gentlemen opposite showing to these men who are said to be in difficulty-saying that there should be a committee to investigate the heads of the company-Mr. Cox, Mr. Boss and others who but a year ago they were lauding to the skies ? As Liberals, they were at that time gloating over the fact that they were establishing a great industry down by the sea. To-day they are characterizing these men as great stock gamblers who should not receive any protection. Great is the ehange that has come over hon. gentlemen opposite and over this great industry down by the sea.


Rufus Henry Pope: Holmes,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Kendall,
Hang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
LeBlanc,
Logan,
Lovell,
Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot, Tobin, Tolmie, Tucker, Turgeon, Wade, Wallace, Wright.-91.
Ministerial.
Thompson (Haldi-mand and Monck), Dyment,
Charlton,
Sutherland (Essex), Ross (Victoria), Hyman,
McColl,
Mulock,
Lavergne,
Beith,
Ross (Yukon), McCarthy,
Laurier
(L'Assumption),
Gould,
Hughes (P.E.I),
Cartwright,
Emmerson,
Fraser,
Guthrie,
McEwen,
Johnston
(Lambton),
Sifton,
Paterson,
Carroll,
Campbell,
German,
Grant,
McGugan,
Copp.

Opposition,
Ingram,
McCormick,
Tisdale,
Northrup,
Ganong,
Gilmour,
Ward,
Maclean,
Ball,
Kemp,
Thomson (Grey), Johnston (Cardwell),
Gourley,
Robinson
(Northumberland), Sproule,
Tupper,
Fowler,
Bell,
Porter,
Sheritt,
Simmons,
Roche
(Marquette),
Alcorn,
Monk,
Kendry,
Roddick,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Seagram.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: We will take up the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to the fact that the statements we get as to the business that we may expect to be called upon to deal with are not very accurate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In what
respect ?


Robert Laird Borden: For example, we are told that certain business will come up next day, and when next day comes, the order is entirely reversed or the nature of the business is changed. We were told that to-day the Railway Commission Bill would come up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understood that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Hali-Mr. POPE.
fax) had expressed a desire that the motion for Supply should be made in order that he might move the amendment of which he had given notice. We thought we were accommodating him.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so, but the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), who made the announcement, was not able to give me any satisfaction on the subject. He said, as I understood him, that he would consult the Minister of Finance, and I never heard a word afterwards until I came into the House. The motion was made to go into Supply at the very first stage, very much to my astonishment. I was not prepared at the moment not even having my papers at hand. I had not the courtesy of a line from my hon. friend to state that the arrangement had been changed. I am only drawing this matter to the attention of my hon. friend with the idea to suggest that he might be a little more particular in these matters. I would not mention it if this were the first time it has occurred, but it is more than the sixth or seventh time. On other occasions when attention has been called to it, I am bound to say, hon. gentlemen opposite have been courteous enough to say that they would not presume to go into matters concerning which we had no notice. I am only suggesting that with a little care we might have a better idea as to the work we are to be called upon to take up.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I am very much surprised at the attitude of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) with regard to this matter. I happened to be the senior minister here last evening when the House was about to adjourn. In answer to the question of the leader of the opposition, I stated that the intention was to take up the Railway Bill and after that to go into Supply. The leader of the opposition requested me to present to the leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the fact that he had a motion to present on going into Supply, which he had not had an opportunity to present yesterday, and that he hoped that if the motion for Supply was to be made, it would be made early so as to enable him to reach a conclusion on the motion if he moved it. I laid the matter before the Prime Minister and he said that certainly he would take up Supply early so as to give the leader of the opposition every opportunity to reach a conclusion upon his motion. Practically the whole day has been required to reach a conclusion. It is fair to infer that had we not done what we did this afternoon and presented the motion for Supply early, a conclusion could not have been reached. The course followed was entirely for the purpose of meeting the views of the leader of the opposition, which I informed him we would try to do.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding fault with the course pursued to-day, but suggesting that it would be more convenient if the course to be followed were more accurately made known to us. In this case, I was not made acquainted with the fact that the government were willing to meet my request. When the hon. Minister of Agriculture told me that the Railway Commission Bill would come on and later Supply, I made the suggestion I did, and he said he would report the matter to the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: And said that no doubt we could meet your views.


Robert Laird Borden: What I complain of-and I think I have the right to complain of-is that I have not had the courtesy of a note or telephone message or any intimation from the government, so that I could know what they intended to do. It is no very serious matter, but I would say to my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) or the Minister of Finance or any other minister charged with informing us of the course of next day's business, that, if any change is made it might be intimated to us in the course of the morning what the business of the day will be. My right hon. friend will understand that it makes the business of the House much easier to carry on. I am only asking that the same principle should be followed that is followed on this side in giving notice of any matter which we intend to bring up and which is likely to disturb the course of business set out for the day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The request of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is not unreasonable, on the contrary, I agree with him wholly. If, in this case, there is any blame, I must take it all upon myself. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) notified me early this morning of the request that had been made by the leader of the opposition, and I said that to meet the hon. gentleman's views we would present the motion of Supply the first thing. Now that my attention is brought to the matter, I admit that I should have sent the hon. gentleman a note. But, as I knew he was anxious to move the resolution and thought that he had had his speech prepared for some time, I assumed that he would be ready. I hope that the relations will continue always courteous between the hon. gentleman and myself, and that in this case he will acquit me of any intention to incommode him.


Robert Laird Borden: Absolutely. In matters of this kind as in others, the right hon. gentleman has shown me the most perfect courtesy.
Department of Agriculture

salaries, $66.152.50; contingencies, including payment up to $800 each per annum to three assistant patent examiners, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $17,7&0, $83,902.50.


Mr. INGRAM.: We want to know who these chief clerks are 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. George Johnston, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Lynch. There is a vacancy caused by the death of the late Mr. Brymner. No appointment has yet been made, but probably there will be one within a short time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can the hon. gentleman give us his name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can the hon. gentleman tell us how many clerks each one of these chief clerks has under his charge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Johnston has four, Mr. Jackson three, Mr. Jarvis has a technical department, with no particular clerk under him ; Mr. Lynch has practically all the clerks in the patent branch, some twenty-two or twenty-three. Mr. Johnston's salary is $2,400, Mr. Jackson's $2,400, Mr. Jarvis' $2,312, and Mr. Lynch's $2,200. These are the figures for the ensuing year.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see the salaries of these gentlemen bear no relation to the number of clerks they have under their charge. Are we to understand that those who have charge of the largest number of clerks perform more important services, or have more responsible duties to discharge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think that would be a fair measure of the duties or of the work of the chief clerks. For instance, Mr. Lynch is the chief clerk in charge of the patent branch, and has a large number of employees under him. Mr. George Johnson is the chief clerk and statistician, and also has charge of the statistical year-book and other work of that kind. These salaries are regulated by the seniority or status of the clerks in the civil service, that is to say, they grow by years of service and by statutory Increases. The actual figures are not decided by the amount of work they do.


Andrew B. Ingram: Speaking of the patent branch, I am hound to say that having had some business to do with it I was impressed with the courtesy and with the expert skill which I observed in there on the part of the employees. It Is highly important they should be treated well. I think that branch needs a little more assistance. I noticed that some parties applying for patents had some time to wait, owing, I fancy, to the large amount of work in that branch. The hon. gentleman might well engage a few more experts to deal with these matters.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The minister will remember that last session I drew his attention to this branch of his department, and he promised that certain appointments

should be made to facilitate the examining of claims and applications.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have added two.


Samuel Hughes: With reference to the statistical branch, has the Minister any record of the freight rates between Canada and the old country, or between the interior cities of Canada and the seaboard ? The collection of these rates would be a very useful function for the statistical department to undertake. I think the United States Department of Agriculture issues a statement showing the freight rates from every important centre of the United States to the chief seaboard cities. It also shows the freight rates over every important line of steamships from every American port to European ports, English, French and German. This is most interesting information. If we had this in Canada, I am satisfied that the people in the interior points would have just ground for interference with the railway rates, and would strengthen the appointment of a railway commission. The minister is well aware that the rates between many inland cities of Canada are higher than through rates to the seaboard. I trust the minister will give this his attention, and that next year we will have all this information furnished to us month by month.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Would the minister give the reason for this increase of $3,540 in salaries ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are all statutory increases, there is no increase contrary to the Civil Service Act. There is an increase for two second-class clerks and one junior second-class clerk. The junior is a new appointment.


George Taylor: I have before me the estimates of 1895-96 and 1896-97, brought down by the late Conservative government, and I see that the amount asked for the Department of Agriculture, which was as important then as it is now. was $49,782. Now the hon. gentleman is asking for $83,902, an increase of $34,120. How can he possibly justify so large an increase in the last six or seven years, while the work of the department is practically the same ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place the work of the department is not at all the same. The increase in the patent work is responsible for practically all this increase of salaries in the civil government estimates. The increase in the patent work has been something like 30 per cent. The increase in the patent work is very considerable, an increase of something like 30 odd per cent in the number of patents that have to be examined and issued each year. The staff of examiners has been increased to the extent of three times the number formerly employed and the system


Samuel Hughes: of examination is much more complete than it was, and therefore calls for more time.


George Taylor: Why, the patent branch was just as efficient in 1895-6 as it is today.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Totally different.


George Taylor: Yet, there has been $34,000 of an increase in the expenditure since 1895-6 according to the main estimates brought down.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot see where the increased expenditure that the hon. gentleman speaks of comes in. There is no such increase as that.


George Taylor: I have the estimates here.


Andrew B. Ingram: As to the expenditure that the hon. gentleman is pointing to, they are students from our colleges ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They must be university graduates in science.


Andrew B. Ingram: Their appointments are not of a political character ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, they have been appointed solely on account of their expert knowledge. I have the estimates here for 1895-6 for the Department of Agriculture and I find they amount to $49,782. This year they are $66,000 which is a difference of $16,000 instead of $34,000.


George Taylor: And the minister has a lot of contingencies to add which were not in the main estimates before.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are no contingencies here, which were not in before.


George Taylor: Point them out in the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that contingencies are not a separate item. They were in the estimates then and they are still.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In regard to contingencies, I may say that it was the practice in former years to have separate votes. We found that we were discussing the estimates of the same department at different times, and it was found to be more convenient to put the two items together and to have salaries and contingencies under review at the same time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Civil government and contingencies in 1895-6-amounted to $14,500 and this year the estimate is $17,750.


George Taylor: Which leaves an ineresased expenditure on the two items of $20,000'

since the hon. gentleman took charge of the office and the work is practically the same.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work is not the same.


Mr. BARKER.: In the Auditor General's Report for 1901-2 the contingencies under this heading were $9,711.22, which appears in the first volume at D-11, while last year and this year contingencies are put down in the estimates at $17,750. What is the explanation of that?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The item covers clerical and other assistance the vote for which is $10,000 and in addition to that the hon. gentleman will find two other items, printing and stationery and sundries; They are not included in the $9,711.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to ask the hon. minister whether or not he has taken into consideration the matter I brought before him last year in reference to the dismissal of Captain D. C. Stuart, of Halifax, as well as the refusal of the department to pay back to that gentleman a considerable sum of money which he had paid into the superannuation fund. He was dismissed without any investigation and without anj' opportunity to make his defence, although, I think, some explanation was received from him in writing. I promised my hon. friend last year that I would disclose to him conduct on the part of at least one official in Nova Scotia which was infinitely worse that anything that had been charged against Captain Stuart. That, however, was by the way. I did insist with a good deal of earnestness that these moneys which had been taken from him should not be detained from him any longer, and that the same rule which had been applied in similar cases before should be applied to him and that the money should be paid back with four per cent interest. I think the lion. Minister of Finance raised the point that the terms of the statute which was passed did not technically include this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not exactly the statute but our explanation of the objects of the statute.


Robert Laird Borden: If there is no technical difficulty it is so much the better. The alleged misconduct, although I do not think there was any real misconduct, for which he was dismissed was of the most trifling character. The hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross), under whom Captain Stuart acted for many years, stated very freely in this House that he had not the slightest doubt that the only reason why Captain Stuart was dismissed was on account of the feeling that existed between him and one of his superior officers. Under these circumstances I do' not think there is any reason why the government of Canada should take from Captain Stuart the money 137
which he has paid into the superannuation fund, and at the same time dismiss him without any proper investigation into his alleged misconduct. I hope the hon. minister to whose attention I drew this matter somewhat late in the session of last year will look into it because I have not the slightest doubt that if he becomes really seized of the facts as they are and as I believe they are supposed to be by the public in Halifax to-day, he will have no hesitation in paying back this money.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I confess the matter has escaped my attention, but I shall be glad to see if there is any justification in my mind and the minds of my colleagues for action such ns the hon. gentleman speaks of.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The general question of repayment of superannuation contributions is not a matter we cam saddle on the Minister of Agriculture. The statute does not expressly forbid it, but it was expressly declared in this House when the statute was passed, that its object was. to make provision for the return of superannuation money to men who were dismissed for political offences. The ground we took was that while these men have been punished by losing their office, they should not be further penalized by the loss of their superannuation money. Once we depart from that there are numerous cases many of which appeal to our sympathies, and so far we have adhered to the purpose for which that Act was passed as stated in parliament. I do not want that the Minister of Agriculture should bear the responsibility for the non-payment of the superannuation money. That is a matter of general policy, and the Treasury Board and the government are responsible for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Any policy that withholds this money from Captain Stuart is a policy the government of this country should not indulge in. The charge against him was a slight dereliction of duty which did not amount to anything, and because of which the public interest did not suffer. The usual practice is that ordinary corporations pay back money received into the pension fund where officers are dismissed for reasons ten times as serious as that for. which Captain Stuart was dismissed. I do not think that the government is justified in retaining from Captain Stuart the sum of $200 or thereabouts which was received from him first and last for the superannuation fund, and which ought to be paid back to him with interest.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not wish to discuss Captain Stuart's case, because I do not recall the circumstances. If private corporations pay back money under such conditions it is likely one of the conditions attached to their superannuation fund, but. that has not been so in the Do-



minion service and under all governments men have passed out of the public service after contributing to the fund for years, and have not received a penny. A man who lias been a quarter of a century in the service dies and under the old system liis family would not get a penny of his contributions to the fund back; but such cases of hardship have arisen for many years under the Superannuation Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly the same thing occurs with regard to the pension funds of private corporations. An officer dies and lie does not get the benefit of his contribution to the fund, but I know of my own knowledge that where corporations have had the most absolute power to retain the money they did not think it wfis fair'to do so. I do not see why the government of this country should adopt a smaller policy than that adopted by private corporations. X will leave the matter with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance, but I will bring it up again when, they will have had time to' consider it. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will consider this matter impartially, and 1 have no doubt that he will come to the conclusion that it is not just to retain this money from Captain Stuart.


Samuel Barker: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The great bulk of that postage is in regard ' to the correspondence about patents with foreign countries and the post office charges for that.
IMr. BARKER. I thought the minister's frank would be honoured in all countries in the postal union.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, the post office arranges that, but it charges us.
air. BARKER, I notice that the minister purchased a book called the ' Nemesis of mis-Government.'
The ailNISTEIt OF FINANCE, lie must have been studying the history of the late government.
air. BARKER. Ok, no, this was many years after the late government went out of power.


The .MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not read the book, but it must have been required by some branch of the department.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have not had the *pleasure of meeting the deputy aiinister of Agriculture, but I notice that the gentleman sitting in the Chamber to-night is not the same gentleman who met us on former occasions. I would like to ask the minister Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
who the gentleman is, what his former occupation was and what are the special qualifications he has to fill the duties of deputy Minister of Agriculture. I think it is a proper thing that the new deputy should be introduced.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) of course must be constitutionally blind to the appearance of anybody having a seat on the floor who is not a member of this House.
I can tell the hon. member that the deputy Minister of Agriculture now is Mr. George F. O'Halloran, and that he was appointed within the last year to succeed the late deputy, Mr. IV. B. Scnrth. Mr. O'Halloran is a lawyer by profession and has been practicing for many years, first of all in the eastern townships where he was born and brought up, and afterwards in the city of Montreal. He is a lawyer of repute and standing, and is specially competent, I believe, and my colleagues believe with me to deal with these matters connected with the Department of Agriculture which are not entirely agricultural in their nature. There ar-e not only the agricultural branches but a number of other branches such as patents, trade marks, designs, copyrights, statistics and various other things. The mainly agricultural matters in the department are ehiefiy in the hands of experts. Dr. Saunders, the director of the Experimental Farm. Prof. Robertson, in the dairying and agricultural branch. Dr. Rutherford, in the veterinary branch and Dr. Montizambert, in the quarantine branch, deal with the matters affecting these branches. The deputy minister lias the supervision as deputy minister of these branches, but has nothing to do with what I might call the technical or expert carrying oil of the branches. The other branches I have alluded to do require the superintendance of the deputy minister directly and personally, and therefore this gentleman was chosen particularly to look after these branches.


David Henderson: The explanation seems to be very satisfactory to the hon. gentleman hon. (Mr. Fisher). I must confess that when the minister takes long trips to Japan and the old country and is absent from his office a large portion of the year, I think that the chief executive in the department should at least have some practical knowledge of agriculture. We think it an extraordinary proceeding to choose the head of the executive Department of Agriculture from the legal profession. I do not think that is what the country expects or what the country was promised. It has been the boast of the right hon. Prime Minister in going through the country that he selected an hon. gentleman to place at the head of thu Department of Agriculture who was a practical farmer. It was only a year or two ago that we found the very important position of chief in-

spector of fruit was given to a lawyer. The minister seems to have the idea that only men learned in the law are able to administer the Department of Agriculture. Now, I think the farmers of this country have a little claim upon the government; and surely, amongst the intelligent agriculturists of this country men could be found qualified to discharge the duties of Deputy Minister of Agriculture. If the minister wants legal assistance, he has at his command at all times his friend the Minister of Justice, who I am sure is well qualified to advise him on legal questions. I do think it is a slight upon the great agricultural community of this country that the Department of Agriculture here at Ottawa should be filled up with professional men who know nothing about practical agriculture. I know nothing of the gentleman who occupies the position in question. It may be that he is reading the book which the hon. member for Hamilton referred to for the purpose of acquiring a knowledge of agriculture. If so, I think it Is a slow way of qualifying a man to discharge that duty, especially as I understand the deputy is really the man who administers the department. The minister himself is travelling all over the country taking his pleasure, and relying almost entirely on the deputy minister to administer the affairs of the department. I think that in future either the minister should give some reasonable attention to liis department or he should select a practical farmer to administer it.


James Clancy: It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture has cast a sad reflection upon the Department of Justice, because this is the first time that an intimation has been given to the House by the hon; minister that he needed a lawyer for his deputy. It is the first department, so far as I know, that has lost confidence iu the Department of Justice. It does not often fall to the lot of the opposition to defend members of the government against each other; but I must say that it is a sad reflection on the Justice Department for the hon. Minister of Agriculture gravely to tell the House that there are questions of a technical character in the Department of Agriculture which make it desirable that he should have a lawyer, and he adds what he calls a good lawyer to his department. Now, there was a pamphlet, written I believe by the Minister of Agriculture himself. in which he pronounced a eulogium upon himself.


Mr. CLARKE.: Where is it printed ?


James Clancy: I do not know whether it was printed by union labour or not; it has not the union label on it. The Minister of Labour is not in his place, and if my hon. friend will defer that question until he comes back, though it may be some time, he will no doubt get an answer. On page 137i
five of the pamphlet of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, written I believe both for by-elections and for general elections-


Andrew B. Ingram: Before or after ?


James Clancy: Weil, this is to be taken both before and after, but this is how it looks after. On page five it says :
The Laurier government and agriculture. What Hon. Mr. Fisher has acomplished for the improvement of the agricultural class. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party promised rhe electors during the election of 1896 that he would work for the improvement of the condition of the agricultural class. The first act of the Prime Minister, on assuming the administration of the country, was to call to the Department of Agriculture a practical farmer. Under the last administration, there were at the head of the Department of Agriculture lawyers, doctors, brewers or other persons having neither technical nor practical knowledge of agriculture.	*	*
Tbe bon. gentleman has told the House that be selected a lawyer to have tecbuical knowledge, and yet in this pamphlet be named the lawyers and the doctors and others as being unfit to take that department. I a*k him now if he is willing to retract that. Will he be able to reconcile his statement now with bis pamphlet, circulating in tbe province of Quebec and elsewhere, declaring it a crime on tbe part of the Conservative party to select such men ? I will await the hon. gentleman's explanation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Very simple.


James Clancy: If it is very simple, it will not take the hon. gentleman long to explain it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not long.


Samuel Barker: The explanation possibly is that tbe minister was anxious that he should know a little more about agriculture than his deputy, and therefore he appointed a lawyer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend from Bothwell may take that explanation.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman accepts the explanation of the hon. member from Hamilton. I need not complain, but it would be well perhaps for me to go a little further Mr. Laurier,

	-
That was before the right bon. gentleman received his knighthood

-deemed that under his administration it should be otherwise, and called to the Department of Agriculture, Hon. Sydney Fisher, a farmer of more than twenty years experience, and one knowing full well the needs of those who, like himiself, were engaged in the development of the soil of Canada. The results of this wise policy-


Samuel Hughes: Who wrote that?
4S59


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman who declares this to be a wise policy wrote it, i I believe.
The result of this wise policy-
Wliat was it ? To select the hon. gentle- ' man who presides over the department now? These hon. gentlemen do not usually have a policy, but there was a policy involved in selecting the hon. gentleman who so ably presides over that department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They must have a policy, for they never give it away.


James Clancy: The results of this wise policy are being felt that throughout the whole country, Mr. Fisher, while practicing in the internal administration of his department at Ottawa the strictest economy, while reducing the number of employees of his department and the total amount paid to them in salaries, has succeeded in rendering the administrative work more effective and more useful to the agricultural class.
The hon. gentleman is now asking for additional assistance. He has more clerks now than he had then. He has constantly told us in the past, with regard to the Patent Department, that he took in young men of ability and training to do precisely the work which he now declares he must employ a lawyer to do. These were the reasons he urged in the past for overriding Hie Civil Service Act and paying high salaries to certain men employed to do technical work. If he employed those men to do technical work, why does he select a lawyer as deputy minister of Agriculture for the same purpose ? Is there any question affecting patents of any seriousness that would not be referred to the Department of Justice ? There is not one. What particular reason can be given why a lawyer should be selected as deputy minister of Agriculture, which might not be urged in every other department ? I quite agree with the hon. member for Halton that public confidence is not apt to be increased by the appointment of a lawyer as deputy minister of Agriculture, notwithstanding his legal ability. If he has succeeded in becoming a good lawyer, he has done about as much as any one man can succeed in doing. If a man can make a success in one line, that is about all he can, on an average, accomplish in this world, and Mr. O'Halloran has succeeded in becoming a good lawyer he could not have had much time to devote to agriculture. If the hon. minister had selected the deputy minister of Agriculture purely for his knowledge of law, it is well the country should understand it. The committee is entitled to some explanation of this item, and particularly to some explanation why the hon. minister selected a lawyer to be his deputy ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that I can add much to the explanation I have already given. I do not


Samuel Hughes: think that I said that I chose Mr. O'Halloran because he was a lawyer. I selected him because I considered him to be eminently fitted for the position and also because as deputy minister of Agriculture lie is commissioner of patents as well, in which position his legal training would be of great advantage. The agricultural portion of the work does not come specially under his particular supervision, but is under the supervision of the well known agricultural experts who have always given such satisfaction, even before I came to the department.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: May I ask the hon. minister what the business for to-morrow will be ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Railway Bill will be taken up in the afternoon, and supply later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 10, 1903.