1903-08-04

Mr.  F. B.@: WADE (Annapolis) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as follows :
Tuesday, August 4, 1903.
The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg leave to present the following as their second report :
In obedience to the order of reference dated 22nd July, 1903, your committee have inquired fully into the allegations therein in reference to George M. Doy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Beauharnois ; they have investigated all the circumstances connected with the acquisition by the government of Canada. of the property therein referred to, and all matters mentioned in the statement therein contained ; they have also heard the statement made under oath, by the said Geo. M. Loy, Esquire. as well as the evidence of all the witnesses who appeared before your committee, and have examined all papers, documents and exhibits produced, and beg to submit the following as the result of their inquiry, viz.:-
1.	The statements contained in the first seven paragraphs of the siaid reference have been substantially established, but your committee cannot discover that the said statements have any bearing upon the charge made against the hon. member for Beauharnois of a violation of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
2.	As to the allegation in paragraph eight that ' from the time that the said Geo. M. Loy handed his property to Archambault. up to the day of the sale of the said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of the said property,' your committee find that under the law of the province of Quebec, as applied to the circumstances proven before your committee, Mr. Loy had ceased to be the ownpr when possession was taken of the property by Mr. Archambault. under the said agreement with Mr. Foy, dated January 4th, 1898, and that the property reverted to Mr. Loy on or about the 15th of June next following.
3.	As to the further statement in the said paragraph eight that * at the time of the sale of the said property on the 20th January, 1903, the said Robert Bruce Johnston was merely

acting lor and on behalf of the said Loy, who In said manner did indirectly sell the said property to the Crown in violation of said chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes,' your committee find that the said Robert Bruce Johnston was not at any time, nor in any sense, acting for, or on behalf of. the said Loy ; but the said Johnston represented to Mr. Loy that he was purchasing the said property on his own account for commercial purposes, and Mr. Loy when he agreed to sell the said property to the said Johnston believed the said statement to be true, and he parted with the title to the said property in favour of the said Johnston without any knowledge or notice that the same was not required by the said Johnston for the purpose for which he had so represented ; and the said Johnston according to the evidence adduced, was not an officer of the government and was not aware when he made the purchase for Mr. Dandurand that the property was required for purposes of the Crown, and your committee find that there has been no violation by Mr. Loy of the said chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada ' An Act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons.'
4.	As to the statement in paragraph nine, your committee find that while the assessed value was as therein stated, the same furnished no criterion of the actual value of the property, inasmuch as it was shown that the assessments in Valleyfield are based on ratios varying from a half to two-thirds of the actual values, and your .committee find that the price paid for the property did not exceed Its real value.
5.	As to the statement contained in paragraph ten, your committee find that at the time of the said sale there was no property owned by the Crown in Valleyfield available and suitable for the purpose for which the said properly was acquired.
6.	The evidence given by Mr. Loy, under examination, was not contradicted in any particular by that of any of the other witnesses, but was supported and corroborated by the other parties who had knowledge of the transaction.
In accordance with the instructions received, your committee herewith submit the evidence taken before them, together with the exhibits and all their proceedings on the reference.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) P. B. WADE,
Chairman.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: If I am in order, I beg to move that all the evidence and all the proceedings of the committee, as well as the reports, be printed for the use of the members of this House. The evidence is considerable, covering about 250 pages of closely typewritten matter, and I presume that the House will not be able to pass judgment upon the two reports, namely, the report presented by the majority and the report of the minority, without examining the evidence. As a matter of fact, I believe that the evidence has not been read by any member of tbis House or by any member of the committee. Those who followed the proceedings of the committee very closely were not enabled to take communication of the evidence, and, a fortiori, those who have not attended the meetings of the committee will require to look at that
evidence before deciding on the reports. The matter is a very important one ; it concerns the privileges of this House, and I think I am voicing the sentiment of every member of the House who will be called upon to pronounce upon that question of privilege in making this motion, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart).


Mr. SPEAKER.: I -would wish to have tht opinion of the House with reference to rule 94 before I put the motion. Rule 94 says :
On motion for printing any paper being offered, the first shall be first submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing for report, before the question is put thereon.
According to the rule, I would be inclined to believe that the matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on Printing before a decision is made by the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, I move that the rule which you have just quoted be suspended in this case. It is a pressing matter, both for the member concerned and for the House itself, and I believe that I am conforming to the usual practice in moving in the sense in which 1 have moved.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, I take objection to the motion unless I am informed beforehand what is the necessity for printing.


Mr. WADE.: The matter of printing the evidence was considered by the committee at two or three of its meetings, and it was almost unanimously resolved that it was not necessary. The story of this transaction, as it was told by Mr. Loy, was confirmed in every particular by every witness called who had any knowledge of the transaction, and there was no dispute whatever as to the facts. It is a very simple matter. The committee were of opinion that the real question to be determined was whether the statute was violated or not upon the admitted testimony of Mr. Loy, and the opinion of the committee was that it was not. I think that any hon. gentleman discussing this question would say that the evidence agreed with the statement made by Air. Loy on tbe floor of the House.


Mr. BENNETT.: I am surprised to hear the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat make the statement that there was a unanimity of opinion in the committee as to the non-printing of the evidence.*Surely the hon. gentleman must have been awake during the proceedings of the committee, and if so. he must have noticed manifestations of opposition to the suggestion that the evidence should not be printed. Moreover, there was this striking fact, that it was before the committee got fairly launched on its work and before two-thirds of the evidence was taken, that the majority in

the committee took the ground that the evidence should not be printed.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I did not say that the committee were unanimous. I said that they were nearly unanimous. I believe three were of the other way of thinking. But the question of printing the evidence was put to the committee on three separate occasion, and the strongest possible expression of opinion was given by the committee on the line I have stated.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I can see no reason why the House should not conform to the regular usage and to the rule laid down for cases of this kind. I see no reason why we should not refer the question to the Committee on Printing in the regular way, and let that committee decide whether this evidence shall be printed or not. That is my opinion as to the proper course to pursue.


Mr. LEMIEUX :: I have followed the
sittings of the committee from the beginning, and I may say that this morning a vote was taken on the minority report presented by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and there were only two to vote for that report-my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Therefore, it seems that the committee are practically unanimous in favour of the hon. member for Beau-liarnois.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I was in the committee this morning, and there was no vote at all taken in the committee.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to call attention to the fact that the first person to move that the proceedings of this committee be printed was the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). He moved at the very beginning of the proceedings that all the evidence and proceedings should be printed for the use of the House. He was induced by some bon. gentlemen behind him to let the motion stand for further consideration; but the fact that he thought at the time that the evidence should be printed is some indication of the proper course to pursue. I presume that the minority report, as well as the report which has been presented by the committee, will be laid before the House in some form, and I do not see how this House is to decide between the two reports, or as to the facts set forth in the minority report, without seejng the evidence.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, the course of the government in declining to have this evidence printed is one of the most unusual occurrences that I have ever witnessed in this House. I have had some experience in the committees of this House, and I have never heard any such question raised before. I do not know anything about the evidence myself. Unfortunately, I was not


William Humphrey Bennett: able to attend the meetings of the committee, although I believe I am a member of it; but I can say to my right hon. friend that in the inquiry with regard to the Drummond Counties Railway there was not the slightest question raised about printing the evidence from day to day; in the inquiry about the alleged election frauds in West Huron and Brockville, the evidence was printed as a matter of course almost from day to day; in the inquiry with regard to the emergency rations, the same course was pursued; and indeed in all the cases with which I have been familiar since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, there has never been any such question raised. What is the objection to printing the evidence? Surely there cannot be any well-founded objection. The members of the House are supposed to have some knowledge of what they are voting about, and if they are to have a knowledge of the facts and to be in a position to vote intelligently one way or the other, there cannot be any objection to having the evidence in such a shape that they can read it, understand it, and come to some conclusion about it. I have not the slightest idea of the nature of the report or of the conclusion at which the committee have arrived; I know nothing about the nature of the evidence; but I do submit to my right hon. friend that this is a most unusual departure from the ordinary mode of procedure. It is not a matter that requires to be sent to the Committee on Printing; it is a matter that will have to be discussed and considered by the House; and we know as well as the Committee on Printing can tell us, that we cannot properly understand or weigh the evidence unless we have it in printed form.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Reference has been made to the motion I made at an early stage in the sittings of the committee that the evidence should be printed from day to day. I moved that purely as a routine motion, so that there would be no question about it. Then it was suggested that as there was nothing very serious in this case, as it was similar to the case we had before with reference to the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell), it might be waste of time and trouble to print the evidence. Therefore, I did not press the motion, thinking that if it should be thought necessary later on, the committee would decide the matter. I do not understand that anybody is objecting to the printing of the evidence. The question is whether it would be well to suspend the rule. My opinion is that it would be well to suspend the rule and come down to the plain question whether we ought or ought not print the evidence. The reason I suggest that is that an lion, member whom we all respect is out of his seat while we are considering whether we should print the evidence or not instead of determining the main question. My opinion is that we might as well dispense with the rule requir-

ing the Printing Committee to consider the matter, because that committee has no better light for considering it than the House has this afternoon. The Printing Committee 'will not examine the evidence to ascertain whether it is important that it shodld be printed. The hon. member for Annapolis can inform the House better than the Printing Committee. As to the main question, that comes up later on, and is another question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My reason for the attitude I have taken in this case is simply this, that I desire to act in conformity with the rules of the House. The position has invariably met the approval of the House that the report of a special committee ought to be confirmed by the House, as we presume the committee have considered the matter. In this case the question of having this evidence printed was considered by the committee more than once and the committee decided that it should not be printed. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition -the emergency rations, the Brockville and West Huron elections and some other matters-the committee itself passed resolutions to have the evidence printed and its report was adopted by the House. In this case, however, the committee did not think it advisable to have the evidence printed, after fully considering the matter, and I think we ought to adopt its report. But the matter may be referred to the committee on printing whose decision will guide the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With regard to the motion, I think it contrary, to rule 94, which I quoted a moment ago, and which provides that no motion can be made for printing documents unless on the report of the Joint Committee on Printing. The suggestion had been made that the rule be suspended. This can only be done with the unauimous; consent of the House. Is there any objection to the motion that rule 94 be suspended.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I take objection.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then I declare the motion out of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I not amend my motion and ask that reference may be made to the Joint Committee on Printing ? I understand that the Senate has adjourned for a considerable time, and it was in order to hasten the matter that I asked to have the printing ordered directly.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is moved by Mr. Monk that the report of the evidence and proceedings of the committee be referred to the Joint Committee on Printing of parliament.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would it not be more in order to reserve that motion until there has been a motion for concurrence in the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I now give notice that I intend to move that the said report be not adopted, but that the draft reports marked ' B,' drawn in the following terms, be adopted and laid on the Table of the House.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.

Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved that the House do now concur in the sixth report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official reports of the debates of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this motion to stand as the Minister of Finance is not present.


Mr. CHAMPAGNE.: There is an amendment to be proposed to a clause in the report which we might dispose of.
Motion withdrawn.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 228) for the relief of Stephen Wilson.-Mr. Wade.
Bill (No. 229) for the relief of Ellen Mc-Dermid.-Mr. Wade.

Fletcher Bath Wade: I beg to move that the second report of the select standing Committee on Privileges and Elections ba concurred in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take the point of order that this motion cannot be made the day the report is received.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Under ordinary circumstances the point of order would be well taken, but we must not forget that we are dealing with a question of privilege, and in such questions no notice is required.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is not a question of privilege but a question of concurring in the report of the committee which has just been laid on the Table. I submit that a motion to adopt that report, made five minutes after the report was laid on the Table, is out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule you have laid down, Mr. Speaker, would enable the committee to proceed without giving notice to its members. A question of privilege may be brought to the attention of the House without previous notice for the very good reason that it must be placed before the House at the earliest opportunity, but when once brought before the House then the subsequent proceeding must follow the ordinary rule. Otherwise it would be absolutely impossible to deal with the matter in the committee or in the House upon any intelligible or reasonable basis.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In matters of privilege the rules of the House are suspended, and they may be sprung on the House

without notice, but I would suggest that this motion be held over and the discussion adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Champagne, the debate was adjourned.



FISHERY RIGHTS OF DOMINION AND PROVINCES.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. I'refontaine) moved :: That an order of the House do issue for a memorandum on the status of the question of fishery rights between the federal and the provincial governments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not there is any truth in the report that has been made public in the press here in Canada that the imperial government have asked the various colonial governments, including that of Canada, for permission to make public certain proceedings before the colonial conference which have hitherto been regarded as of a private nature ? Has such a communication been received by this government, and have the government come to any conclusion as to the reply they will give to the communication ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: These are questions as to which I can give no answer until I have had communication with His Excellency the Governor General. I shall communicate with His Excellency at the earliest possible moment, and shall give my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the answers to his questions tomorrow or the day after.



IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to enact as follows :
1. The Governor in Council may authorize payment of the following bounties on the undermentioned articles manufactured in Canada from steel produced in Canada from ingredients of which not less than fifty per cent of the weight (thereof consists of pig-iron made in Canada, viz. :
(a.) On rolled, round wire rods not over three-eighths of an inch in diameter, when sold to wire manufacturers for use in making wire in their own factories in Canada, a bounty of six dollars per ton ;
(b.) On rolled angles, tees, channels, beams, joists, girders, or bridge, building or structural rolled sections, and on other rolled shapes not round, oval, square or flat, weighing not less than thirty-five pounds per lineal yard, and also on flat eye bar blanks, when sold for consumption in Canada, a bounty of three dollars per ton ;
(c.) On rolled plates not less than thirty inches in width and not less than one-quarter of an inch in thickness, when sold for consumption Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
in Canada for manufacturing purposes for which such plates are usually required and not to include plates sheared into plates of less width, a bounty of three dollars per ton.
2.	The Governor in Council may make regulations to carry out the intentions of the foregoing section.
3.	That chapter 8 of the statutes of 1899 be so amended as to provide that the bounties on steel and iron authorized by chapter 6 of the statutes of 1897 shall be continued until the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seven, and that the rates of such bounties shall be as follows :
(a.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and four, both inclusive, the bounties shall be ninety per centum of the 'amount fixed by the said chapter 6 of the statutes of 1897 ;
(b.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and four, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and five, both inclusive, the bounties shall he seventy-five per centum of the amount fixed by the said chapter;
(c.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and five, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and six, both inclusive, the bounties shall he fifty-five per centum of the amount fixed by the said chapter ;
(d.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and six, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seven, both inclusive, the bounties shall be thirty-five per centum of the amount fixed by the said chapter.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The House has had before it from time to time during the present session the question of granting some aid to the iron and steel industry. The government have come to the conclusion to propose certain legislation as set forth in the resolution now before the committee. The reasons which have led the government to prefer to grant aid in this shape rather than by making material changes in the customs tariff have been explained in previous discussions on the question of bounties. The resolutions now before the committee deal with the bounty question in two forms. First, we have certain resolutions dealing with the bounties which are already on the statute-book, and then we have a further resolution by which we propose to grant bounties for new forms of the steel industry which are not at present in operation in Canada. Dealing first with the question of the bounty as provided by existing legislation, I may remind the House that in the year 1897, the bounties were fixed at $3 per ton on steel, $3 per ton on pig-iron made from native ore, and $2 per ton on pig-iron made from imported ore. By subsequent legislation, a sliding scale of bounties was provided whereby the bounties fixed in 1897 should begin to diminish. That sliding scale took effect last year, and last year the bounties were payable on the basis of 90 per cent of the bounties as established by the Act of 1897. Provision was made that these bounties should be further decreased in the follow-

ing year to 75 per cent, then to 55 per cent, then to 35 per cent and then to 25 per cent. What is proposed in the present legislation touching bounties on pig-iron and steel is that we shall suspend for a year the operation of the sliding scale, so that, for the present year, instead of paying on the basis of 75 per cent of the bounties as at first established, we shall continue to pay for this year 90 per cent of the, bounties fixed in 1897, the same as last year. The manufacturers will thus receive for two years 90 per cent, instead of one year 90 per cent and the other 75 per cent. As a means of forming some estimate of the probable difference this will make to the steel industry in the current year


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. Finance Minister if it makes any difference whether it is manufactured entirely from Canadian ore ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE, The bounties on iron established in 1897, as I have said, were at certain fixed rates, one on native and one on imported ore ; but the reduction was on the basis of a percentage which applied to all. From a statement made a short time ago as to the amount paid in bounties in the past year, it appears that that amount was $1,098,359. This was on the basis of 90 per cent of the bounty fixed in 1897. Some accounts will probably come In later which will increase that sum, but we are speaking now entirely of the approximate estimate which I had the privilege of presenting to the House some days ago.


Mr. WILSON.: That is not the statement that appears in ' Hansard ' in answer to the question asked.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson), will find that the figures given in ' Hansard ' included some balance from the previous year. Am I not correct ?


Uriah Wilson: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am dealing with the operations of last year with a view to getting an approximate estimate of what the difference is to be. As shown in ' Hansard ' the payments are somewhat larger than I have given, and they include some bounties earned in the previous year. And it is only fair to say that there will be some later payments to add to the figures I have given for the past year. All I can give now is an approximate statement. On the assumption that the sliding scale would remain without change, and that the output would be the same, we should pay to the companies for the coming year, on the basis of 75 per cent, $915,299. But, instead of paying them on the basis of 75 per cent, we pay on the basis of 90 per cent; and, assuming that the output is substantially the same, they will receive for the present year the same as they received for last
year. If the output should increase, the amount they will receive will increase proportionately. On the basis of the figures I have given, the difference would amount to $183,059, that being the difference between paying on the basis of 90 per cent, as paid last year, and 75 per cent, as would have been paid this year had we made no change in the regulation. We do not by this resolution increase the period of bounties, but we change the percentage in the way I have described. So much then with reference to the difference it will make for the present year.


Mr. CLANCY.: Does the hon. gentleman not increase it one year by reason of repeating the 90 per cent, and then continuing the balance of the year on the sliding scale, as was formerly provided under the statute? Is there not an increase of one year by that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, not of time, there is an increase in the amount payable, because in the original arrangement the five years would end with a payment on the basis of 25 per cent ; as it stands now, by the suspension of the operation of the sliding scale for one year, in the final year they will receive a payment on 35 per cent. For the present year and for each of the succeeding years, payments will be made at a higher percentage than was contemplated by existing legislation. I have given the whole difference it will make for the current year, it will make for each of the succeeding years a difference to the extent of the variation of the percentage in each case. By moving the sliding scale forward you pay them at a higher percentage than you would pay them by adhering to the present sliding scale.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: For the subsequent years then there will be an increase of the bounty to what was proposed under the statute.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. There will be in the percentage. But while the starting period remains the same, we will this year pay them 90 per cent of the total instead of 75 per cent, as now provided ; we will next year pay them 75 per cent of the total instead of 55 per cent ; in the following year we will pay 55 per cent instead of 35 per cent ; and in the final year we will pay them 35 per cent instead of 25 per cent. The effect therefore is that you move forward the sliding scale one year. You give them, during each year, a higher rate of percentage than you would otherwise, terminating with 35 per cent instead of with 25 per cent as provided in the existing legislation.
Then, Sir, beyond that we have made some proposals with respect to articles which are not now manufactured in Canada. It was thought desirable that, if we were to grant further aid to the iron and 'steel industry, we should not only have

regard to the manufactures -which are now in progress, but we should endeavour to secure some advance in the manufacturing industry by the production of lines of goods not at present produced in Canada. We have therefore proposed to grant additional bounties to the extent set forth in these resolutions on three classes of goods, one upon wire rods, an article which is used largely in making wire, and ultimately in making wire nails and manufactures of that character ; and also on certain structural steel and steel plates. These things are not no-w made in Canada. They are consumed to a large extent, and the manufacturers have been very desirous that we should so frame our legislation as to encourage the development of these lines of industry. Therefore, instead of dealing with the tariff as already mentioned, we propose to make grants of bounties on the articles which I have named :	On
rolled round wire rods not over three-eights of an inch in diameter, when sold to wire manufacturers for use in making wire in their own factories in Canada, a bounty of $6 per ton. Then we proceed : On rolled angles and other forms of structural steel and large steel plates a bounty of $3 per ton. In the adjustment of these bounties regard is had to the existing conditions of the tariff. Whatever differences of opinion we may have as to the effect of duties, I suppose it will be generally acknowledged that the duty is an advantage to the manufacturer, and if he does not get it in the form of a duty but in the form of a bounty, he certainly receives considerable advantage. If he is already receiving a large advantage in the shape of the tariff, then there would be less reason for giving him a large advantage in the shape of bounties. In dealing with these articles we are dealing with items which are either on the free-list, as in the case of wire rods for the manufacture of wire and wire nails, or as in the case of structural steel and plates where the duty is a low one of ten per cent. We have reason to believe these grants in aid of the iron and steel industry, while they may fall short of what some manufacturers desire- for it is too much I suppose to hope that we should be able entirely to satisfy applicants who come to us in matters of this sort-we have some reason to believe that these grants will be regarded by the manufacturers as a moderately satisfactory encouragement. At all events they will serve the purpose of enabling industries whose position was somewhat in question a short time ago, to continue their operations, and not only to produce pig-iron and steel as they have been producing in the past, but als ) to make some progress in the more advanced operations by turning out these wire rods and the other Items mentioned In the resolution.
I have already indicated what the charge upon the treasury will probably be by reason


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: of the change which we are making in the bounties as respects pig-iron and steel. What the charge will be for these new bounties which we are providing, is not easy of determination. The best we can do is to call attention to the imports of these articles, and perhaps we can form some estimate of the quantity of the goods which are likely to be manufactured in Canada.


Mr. BLAIN.: [DOT] Might I ask the Minister of Finance if that includes every thickness of wire and steel ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, if my hon. friend will read the resolution he will see it is very carefully drawn in that respect; it is drawn, as I have already said, with regard to existing tariff legislation. There are some forms of steel which have a considerable duty upon them, and we do not in that case propose to allow any bounties. There are others which are either on the free list or subject to quite a low duty, and it is in such eases that we are allowing these bounties. There is a difference in the matter of plates as to the size. Now, as to what the probable charge will be, the only method that we can have of forming an opinion is by taking the imports of the articles in question, and forming, if we can, some estimate as to what proportion of these articles will be made in Canada instead of being imported. I have prepared a statement of the imports of these articles which will show approximately the probable amount we might make in Canada. The imports last year of wire rods amounted to 55,182 tons ; the imports of structural iron and plates amounted to 47,512 tons. What proportion of this we might be able to manufacture in Canada is of course a matter of conjecture, it is difficult to form any understanding.


John Graham Haggart: Do steel rods include steel nails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the wire rod is the first form towards the production of nails. We pay no bounty except upon the wire rod itself.


Mr. KEMP.: May I ask the bon. Minister of Finance to give us the values as well as the tonnage of these articles imported ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The value of heavy angles, structural steel as it is generally described, imported during the year 1902 was $789,644; of plates imported, $571,291; and of wire rods imported, $1,523,792.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that I would like to ask a question. He gave us a statement of 55,182 tons which I understand applies to paragraph (a) of the resolution, and he gave us 47,512 tons, but I did not quite understand whether that applies to paragraphs (b) and <c) together or only one of them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it includes everything except rods amounting to 55,182 tons. The other item covers the remainder of the resolution..


Robert Laird Borden: You have separated (b) and (c) as to values V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I have a statement showing the values, the figures of which I have just given. If we manufacture in Canada one-third of the quantity of these articles which were imported in the year 1902 then we shall pay bounties to the extent of $150,000 a year. If we manufactured two-thirds of the amount we imported we would pay bounties to the extent of $300,000 a year. Some little time will elapse probably before the manufacturers will have their mills equipped for the manufacture of these articles and I think we are probably within the mark when we say that the current year's output will not exceed one-third of the import. That is only a matter of judgment and perhaps a matter of guess. Hon. gentlemen who have the information before them may form an opinion as to whether it is correct or not.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no period of time during which the bounties shall continue fixed by the resolution V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we " have thought it better for the present that we should not name the period and for this reason, that where you name the period of the bounty you, in a sense, create a contract with the parties entering into these operations under which you would feel that you were bound to continue these bounties for the full term of the contract so called. We have thought it better to leave the matter indefinite so that the House will be entirely free to deal with the question at any future date in connection with any revision of the tariff that may be made. On the whole we think it is better that this bounty should not be offered for a specified time because it might create something like a specific contract. Our impression is that considering that it will take the companies several months before they can get into operation to earn these new bounties we probably would not be very far astray if we were to say that they will not during the current year produce more than one-third of the quantity imported during the year, the figures for which I gave, and if that is so we will pay about $150,000 in the form of bounties on the new articles, and there would be the increase already spoken of in the bounties on pig-iron and steel. These are the leading facts of the matter and with this statement we beg to submit the resolution to the consideration of the House.


Mr.   WIBSON@: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to give us a statement of the changes made since the present government came into office in the bounty on iron
and steel and the change in the duty if any V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In 1897 therejwas an increase of the bounties on pig-iron and steel at which time there was a reduction of the duty-I cannot give the exact figures in regard to all the details- but there was a reduction from $4 to $2.50 a ton on pig-iron and of course a further reduction under the preferential tariff. The bounties at that date were increased to compensate the industry for the disturbance which otherwise would have been created by a reduction in the duties.


Uriah Wilson: Would the hou, gentleman bring down a statement of those changes V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall be glad to bring down a statement in detail showing the change made in each of these items.


Albert Edward Kemp: I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance why it was that he came to the conclusion that the items of plates, steel ingots, puddled iron bars, and pig-iron should be dealt with on the bounty basis instead of by imposing a sufficient duty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because, as I stated earlier in the session, a change in the duty on articles of this kind which are the very basis of a great many manufacturing industries, would probably involve material tariff changes and we did not deem it in the interest of the country to make such changes at present.


Albert Edward Kemp: Shall we draw the conclusion from that that later on these articles may be protected by a duty and the bounties taken off '!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter will be purposely left entirely open to the House so that it May deal with it in that way. It is quite possible, but of course, we can make no undertaking in regard to the future.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure that we can all congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on having awakened to a realization of the condition of the iron industry in this country. He did not seem to be very fully alive to it at the commencement of the session when we were told that the only difficulty in regard to all our Canadian industries was that there were not sufficient men for the purpose of carrying on the work and that the warehouses were not large enough to contain the manufactured product.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not as to all.


Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: I have a pretty vivid recollection of what the hon. gentleman stated and I do not remember any ex-

ception. If he made any exception I am sure he will be glad to correct me as he will have an opportunity of doing so. I think we may also congratulate ourselves that the right hon. leader of the government as well as the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, those redoubtable freetrader's, took occasion to leave the House while the hon. Minister of Finance was making his statement, realizing no doubt that a bounty is the most extreme form of protection and that the measure which is now being brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance is absolutely out of touch with the principles which these right hon. gentlemen up to a very late date, in fact up to the present session, have announced to the House and to the country as their political creed. Under the tariff which was established by the late government when Sir Charles Tupper was Minister of Finance, some progress was made in the iron industry and I have no doubt a very much greater development would have taken place except for the fact that the price of pig-iron fell all over the world and the development of this industry which might reasonably have been expected in Canada at that time did not take place. This government introduced its tariff in 1887 and I have already given the House the particulars of the decreases made in the iron duties at that time so that it will not be necessary to go over them again. It is sufficient to say that the decrease was very considerable in regard to many of these items. For example, on pig-iron there was a reduction of $1.50 per ton ; on scrap (cast) a reduction of $1.50 per ton ; on billets and blooms a reduction of $3 ; on scrap (wrought), a reduction of $3 ; on steel bars a reduction of $3 ; on steel bands a reduction of $3 ; on steel fish and ties plates a reduction of $2 ; on plates a reduction of $3 ; on shaftings and forgings, a very considerable reduction, and so on through all the list which I then read to the House.
Very shortly afterwards this government came to the conclusion that so serious a reduction in the duties on iron and steel was a mistake, and that that mistake might be remedied by a continuation of the bounties ; and the measure with regard to the bounties was brought down, although in proposing it the government went back on all previous professions of policy which it had preached to the country for eighteen years in regard to bounties. I need only, in that connection, refer to the language of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), both with regard to duties on iron and steel and with regard to bounties. In 1890 the Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright said to this House :
I doubt exceedingly whether among the many injurious duties which the policy of the present government has heaped on the producers of this country, there is one which is calculated to do more harm on a larger and wider scale than Mr. BORDEN (Halifax),
the enormous duties which have been placed upon iron.
Then this government, having reduced the duty on iron, proposed immediately afterwards to neutralize to some extent the advance which they made in that direction by bringing down their bounty scheme a few years ago. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on the occasion to which I refer, continued as follows :
There is just this advantage in the proposition that to a certain extent it enables the people to see more clearly than in other eases how much the exchequer has been plundered because plunder it is, and how much the people are being inpoverished by this policy.
It is pleasing to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, at the present time-I regret he is not here to-day-joins most heartily and cordially in this measure for the impoverishment of the people in placing bounties on iron and steel. The Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright continued as follows :
This is merely a concession to certain favoured individuals, or certain favoured corporations to be paid for in all human probability by contributions to election funds, just as we know that other combines are in the habit of earning the gratitude of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Well, I do not know whether any comment is required on this or not. It would be, I suppose, out of place to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance whether there is any connection between the bringing down of this measure now and the reported approach of the general elections, having special regard in that behalf to the language which I have quoted from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When it came to a question of bounties four years later, in 1894, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) thought the proposition was so absolutely absurd that he refused to discuss it at all. He said :
I am not going to raise a discussion now as to bounties on pig-iron. I disapprove ,of the whole business altogether.
And he brushed it aside with a wave of his hand, and now his colleague, the Minister of Finance, brings down this resolution with the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but happily in that right hon. gentleman's absence at the moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The late Conservative government, and particularly Sir Charles Tupper, when he was in that government, were extremely anxious that this industry should be developed in Canada ; and I have more than once referred, not in this House, but out of this House, to an incident which took place when Sir Charles Tupper was made aware that the government proposed to give bounties to this industry. I remember very well the occasion,

and I remember very well what Sir Charles Tupper said. He said he was glad that the government had done it, and he added with some emphasis : He was glad indeed that the government had done it, even though it should have the effect of giving them another five years in power. That is the aspect in which Sir Charles Tupper looked at this industry in this country, and it is not out of place at the present time to say that Sir Charles Tupper, by the stand which he took with regard to this industry at that time, both openly in this House and by means of negotiations outside of the House, contributed very largely to the establishment of these bounties, and in that way to the development of the iron and steel industry in the maritime provinces. And, as some time ago, I think at the very time these bounties were introduced, there was certain correspondence read in this House, by means of which it was sought to discredit Sir Charles Tup-per's statement as to the part which he had taken in this matter, it is not out of place now for me to read a communication addressed to Mr. Henry M. Whitney, whose name was brought into that discussion ; and addressed to him, not at the instigation of Sir Charles Tupper, but quite independently of him, by a gentleman who had very excellent means of knowing what share Sir Charles Tupper had in these negotiations- I refer to Mr. Graham Fraser, whose experience in the iron industry, and whose efforts in developing that industry in the maritime provinces are well known throughout Canada. This is the letter to which X refer :
New Glasgow, N.S.,
September 5th, 1900.
H. M. Whitney, Esq.,
95 Milk Street,
Boston, Mass.
Dear Sir,-In the Halifax ' Morning Chronicle ' of Saturday, September 1st (cutting from which I mail herewith), I notice an article referring to a discussion carried on in the Canadian parliament, Ottawa, during last session by the Hon. W. S. Fielding and Sir Charles Tupper relative to the extension of the iron bounties, &c.
Owing to my absence in Great Britain when the discussion took place, I knew nothing of it until reading the article in last Saturday's! ' Chronicle.' As my name comes up somewhat prominently in the matter, and as I think your, letter is hardly fair to Sir Charles, I consider it my duty to state the facts as I know them. *
By referring to my notebook, I find that on. November 24th, 1897, I met you at your office in Boston, when we had some conversation relative to a supply of coal for a furnace plant which the Nova Scotia Steel Company proposed to establish at Sydney or Louisburg. On November 25th I went to Philadelphia and returned on Saturday the 27th, and again met you in your office and then gave you some figures as to the cost of making iron in Cape Breton. You then suggested a larger plan than outlined in our proposal. On Monday, November 29th, I saw you again, when you spoke in a very enthusiastic way of the proposed blast furnace project, and we then arranged for 10,000 tons of Cape Breton coal for coking test at the Ferrona
works. At that interview you stated that if the test proved satisfactory and we could get the Dominion iron bounty extended for five years from the time the furnaces went into blast, you would join us in the enterprise and help us get the necessary capital. This was said in the presence of Mr. Windsor, then vice-president of the Dominion Coal Company.
The 10,000 tons of coal was shipped to Ferrona, the test proved satisfactory, and on January 25th, 1898, I again met you in Boston, when the results of the coking tests were submitted to you. You then suggested that legislation be at once got from the government of Nova Scotia incorporating a company and that in the meantime the Nova Scotia Steel Company should, through their solicitor and agents, do all they could to induce the Dominion government to extend the bounties.
We did secure from the Nova Scotia legislature an Act incorporating the company (The Nova Scotia Steel and Iron Company, Limited), but entirely failed to get during that session of the Dominion parliament any legislation extending the bounties. And on June 4, 1898, I wrote you as follows : * I regret to inform you that we did not succeed in getting the Bill through parliament extending the bounties on pig-iron ; so the matter of erecting furnaces at Sydney or Louisburg is, I suppose, off for the present.'
I heard nothing more from you until I received a telegram asking me to meet you at Syduney on the 17th of August, which I did. You then stated that you thought we had better go on with our new works as you did not believe the Dominion government would extend the bounties, and as Sir Charles Tupper was going over to England you would get him to introduce us to parties who would find the capital. In reply, I said : ' If you begin to build the large plant you are talking of, I do not believe the bounties will ever be extended. Sir Charles came in later, when you repeated to him our conversation. Sir Charles then said : ' Mr. Fraser is quite right about the bounties. You should get the Finance Minister to get an Order in Council passed extending the bounties before starting your works-it will be a great help in getting the capital. I will see that there will be no opposition to it from the Conservative party, and I will see Mr. Fielding and take up the matter personally.' When I saw Sir Charles about a month later, namely, September 16th, at the Windsor Hotel, Montreal, in the presence of yourself and Senator Mackeen, he told us that he did see Mr. Fielding at the Royal Hotel, St. John, and had a discussion with him in regard to the matter of extending the bounties.
Now, in view of the above facts you can hardly say that you were not interested in the iron and steel business at the time Sir Charles Tupper referred to, namely, August 17th, 1898. While^we personally did not visit Ottawa to interview Mr. Fielding on the bounty matter, he was approached at your suggestion by the agents of the Nova Scotia Steel Company and also, I understand, by Messrs. W. B. Ross and B. F. Pearson, of the Dominion Coal Company, but without result at that session.
I well know that you are a busy man and unlikely to recall conversations such as referred to with the dates on which they took place, but when I repeat them to you as above you will, I think, recall them and agree with me as to their accuracy, and I know that you are fair enough to give Sir Charles credit for the part he took in securing such bounty legislation as

was finally passed, although it is not as favourable as you asked for, namely, ' five years from the date at which the furnace went into blast.' as provided by the Bounty Act introduced by the late Finance Minister, Hon. George E. Foster, during the session of 1894.
The difference it would make to your company you can no doubt appreciate, as it would have been unnecessary to rush construction at excessive cost.
Don't you think that some acknowledgment should now be made to Sir Charles ?
The favour of your early reply will oblige, Your respectfully, .
(Sgd)	GRAHAM FRASER.
To that letter Mr. Whitney sent the following reply :
Boston, September 7, 1900. Graham Fraser, Esq.,
New Glasgow, N.S.
Deiar Sir,-Replying to your letter of the 6th instant, I have to say that I am well aware that Sir Charles Tupper was always friendly to the extension of the jron and steel bounties and gave to the proposed bounty legislation his hearty support.
The statement which I felt obliged to correct in my letter to Sir Charles was that Mr. Fielding was unfriendly to the matter and that I visited Ottawa with you and implored Mr. Fielding ' to extend that measure of assistance necessary to the organization of this great enterprise and that we went home utterly discouraged.'
As you yourself say this was not true of either of us ; and, so far as my expression goes, Mr. Fielding was, as I stated in my letter, ' friendly to the matter of the extension of the bounty period from the time of my first mention of the subject to him.'
Yours truly,



H. M. WHITNEY.

[Stage Direction]
I thought it was only fair to Sir Charles Tupper that this letter, written not at his instigation, written entirely without his knowledge, should he brought to the attention of the House, as other correspondence from Mr. Whitney was at the time introduced into this House for the purpose of somewhat contradicting Sir Charles Tupper as to the share he had taken in the legislation at that time.
Now, coming to the proposal of the government, I regard it as a mere makeshift, a mere temporary expedient. I believe the iron industry of Canada can never be put upon a permanent basis until the duties are so revised as to give the home market, to a large extent at least, to our own people. That the government's present proposal will not do. The effect of a bounty and the effect of customs duties are very distinct. If by means of customs duties you can give the home market to our own people and in that way build up the production of iron and steel in Canada, the result will be that the competition thus stimulated in our own country will reduce the prices of the products to a fair and reasonable basis, and eventually there will be no burden on the people at all, because they will get their iron and steel manufactures and goods in Canada as cheaply as they Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
can get them in any other country. But the' effect of bounties is precisely the opposite. The more you develop the industry by means of a bounty, the greater burden you impose on the people. If you increase the production four-fold by means of a bounty, you increase the burden of the people four-fold. Now, there is good reason, it seems to me, for endeavouring to give our people the home market in respect to this great industry. I do not disguise from *myself, nor does the hon. Minister of Finance disguise from t,he House, the necessity, in case the duties on iron and steel are revised, of revising the duties on other articles which are intimately associated with the use or the production of iron a'nd steel. But is our home market worth anything ? It is estimated that we used during the past year more than 800,000 tons of iron and steel, of which we imported 544,547 tons direct products of blast furnaces and rolling mills of other countries. Surely there should be some opportunity for our own manufacturers to acquire the control of a market like that. We imported last year $33,681,625 worth of iron and steel and manufactures thereof. A considerable portion of those goods could be and ought to be manufactured in Canada. But I submit to the House, and particularly to the Minister of Finance, that it is impossible to give to our manufacturers the home market by a simple system of bounties such as that which he is proposing at the present time. My hon. friend has referred to a possible revision of the tariff in the future. Indeed, he has put these resolutions in such a form as, coupled with his remarks, to suggest that possibly he may be looking forward to a revision of the tariff at an early date. I would have thought, as I suggested at an early part of the session, that it would have been better to make a revision of the tariff at once, and not resort to this mere makeshift and temporary expedient, which will have to be abandoned if the iron and steel industry of Canada is to be put on a permanent basis. If that result is achieved, it can only be done by a very thorough revision of the tariff on these articles. I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Finance has any understanding with the manufacturers of iron and steel with regard to that. The way in which he has dealt with the matter in the House would seem to give colour to that supposition. While I am glad that these resolutions have been brought down and that this small measure of protection has been given for the purpose of aiding and developing this great industry, nevertheless I regret that my hon. friend has not seen fit to adopt the only means by which in my opinion this industry can be put upon a permanent basis in this country, that is, a revision of the customs tariff in such a way and to such an extent that the Canadian producers will enjoy the Can-

adian market. I still trust that the government will take the very earliest opportunity -I am afraid they will not have any opportunity if they do not begin very soon- to give adequate assistance to the iron and steel industry in the way I have mentioned.
Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Mr. Chairman, once more we are not doing the right thing. The Minister of Finance is asking this side of the House to place at his disposal a large amount of money, so that he may pay that money into the hands of manufacturers of iron and steel. The hon. gentleman has come to the conclusion, not because, I suppose, he is convinced that protection is good policy, but because some of our industries had very nearly gone to the wall. In other words, he gives relief once more to some industries when lie cannot help himself. Public opinion has forced my hon. friends on the treasury benches to do what they had made up their minds not to do at the beginning of the session. I am very glad that public opinion has forced my hon. friend to do something, but he has not done the right thing. His policy is a policy by piece-meal. It is a retail policy, and I suppose that should some other industries, before the end of the session, be threatened with destruction, my hon. friends on the treasury benches wiil come again to the House and ask for bounties. I share the views of the hon. the leader of the opposition.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Of course.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend from Victoria says, of course. I do not know what views my hon. friend holds on this subject. He interrupts us very often when we address the House on questions which we believe we know as well as he does and toi which we have given as much study, if not more, and his interruptions he is unable to substantiate by any arguments. I am glad to share the views which the hon. lead-of the opposition has just expressed when he congratulated the hon. the Minister of Finance on doing something. I happened in September last year to have read an article published in the 'Weekly Sun,' which claims to be one of the organs of the farmers of Ontario. In this article comparisons were made between the prices of wire in this country and the United States. I addressed myself to one of the largest manufacturers of iron and wire in this country, and I shall take the liberty of reading the statement which he then sent me. I think it will convince even my venerable and hon. friend from Victoria, because the figures are there and the statement is as clear as the sun on a bright day :
The determination of the Canadians' price of wire is to Canadians a mystery. If a Canadian should want information with regard fo the constitution of the wire market, he must address himself to the American Steel and Wire Trust, who, by reason of the discrepancy in the Canadian tariff which allows barb wire and Nos. 9, 12, 13 galvanized wire to come into this country free, has complete control of the Canadian market.
The American trust has complete control because we have no tariff on those articles.
Last year Canada imported 31,324 tons of wire. Of this 27,908 tons came from the United States] of the remainder about 3,500 tons was made in Canada by the Canadian firm under privilege of the American Steel and Wire Trust. Every year the emissaries of the trust come to Canada and determine the prices which will rule the season in the Canadian market, and even at which wholesale dealers will sell. All wire sold in Canada is sold f.o.b. at Cleveland whether it comes from a Canadian factory or wholesale house.
This is a fine state of affairs. No doubt the free traders in this House are pleased with it. The American trust not only controls the prices of wire, but insists that Canadian wire is sold as Cleveland. Is not that a fine policy ?
Under the free trade tariff the Canadian wire trade is under the complete control and manipulation of the American trust, and the money of the Canadian farmer goes to swell the dividends of the American millionaires. Before the duty was removed, Canadian trade was being supplied by thirteen Canadian factories. The Canadian wire manufacturers have engaged themselves if given due protection to sell their products not above the ruling United States price plus the freight.
This would give the Canadian farmer his wire at as low if not a lower rate than he is getting it now. It would be made by Canadian workmen and it would develop a Canadian market for wire rods which our steel companies should soon be able to manufacture, filling up the gap that now prevents the Canadian farmer from getting his wire from Canadian ore.
After having readi this statement, let me compare the prices here and in the United States of some articles which are protected to a reasonable degree by our tariff. Bar iron is protected by our tariff of 1897 to the extent of $7 per ton. The current prices in the United States are given at $2.25. A Canadian paper gives it at $1.95 to $2_ in Montreal and in Toronto. These were the quotations in September 1st. On iron pipe we have a duty of 35 per cent to pay, is it possible that free traders will stand by a government which imposes a duty of 35 per cent ? Is it logical on their part ? They are free traders, yet they support a government-and I was part of it when this good bit of business was done-which imposes a duty on certain articles a duty of 35 per cent. Our free trade friends are mighty glad when there is no duty and when the Americans slaughter our Canadian market they cheer, but when there is a duty of 35 per cent they cheer again. How do the prices compare in the case of iron pipe, on which there is a duty of 35 per cent ?



Canadian price. American price. Per 100 feet. Per 100 feet.
J-inch	
J-inch	
1	inch	
lj-inch ..	..
lj-inch ..	..
2	inch

7	35
8	95 12 55

4	02
5	77 7 87 9 45
12 60
In all that list of prices, the Canadian manufacturer is the lowest, and that is due to the protective duty of 35 per cent. The result has been, as the leader of the opposition has just pointed out, that competition has been keen between Canadian producers, and so we have the reduction of prices to the Canadian consumer. Now, let us look at another article. Take the item horse-shoes, on which we have a duty of 30 per cent. As a consequence, all the horseshoes used in this country are made within our own territory. They are sold from the factory at $3.35 per hundred pounds, while, if we had free trade or a lower tariff, the American firms would first slaughter our Canadian market and then we should have to pay the American price, which, at the date when this memorandum was placed in my hands, was $3.85. The same is true of horse nails. The cheapest No. 7 in Canada cost $6.90, against $8 to $9 in the United States ; or $11.98 for the best No. 7, against $14 in the United States. What is true of these articles is true of everything else. In other words, if we had a tariff which would protect the industries that could be worked out successfully here, we should have competition and lower prices. Now, the Minister of Finance has told us that last year we paid over $1,000,000 to the manufacturers of iron. If, instead of that system of bounties, we had adopted a protectionist tariff, let us sav of 35 per cent, we should not have been obliged to pay that amount of money. And, instead of importing over $30,000,000 worth of iron manufactures, we should have imported not more than half that quantity. We should have circulated from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 in this country to the benefit of our farmers, our working men, our merchants, our railways-everybody. In the face of the facts that I have given, in face of the prices I have quoted- and which are not the only ones I could quote-how is it possible to explain the refusal of the government of this country to come to a reasonable and Canadian policy ? Yes, a Canadian policy ; for a policy that allows American manufacturers to cross the line and dictate to our manufacturers, and even our merchants, the prices at which they shall sell, is not a Canadian policy,- it is a Yankee policy and nothing else. If there is another name for it, I am quite ready to accept it; but I cannot find any other name for a policy-I say it again- which allows American manufacturers and American combines to tell our people : You shall not sell for less prices than those we fix for you. I say it is a policy I cannot


Joseph Israël Tarte: understand, a policy I cannot explain-and a policy I cannot support, of course. The Minister of Finance is coming to the rescue of an industry which deserves every consideration at our hands. The nations that possess iron ores are happy nations indeed. We have the advantage of possessing ores and everything else that would lead to a large production of this important staple ; and we have only to adopt the right policy to see this great industry developed as it should have developed long ago. I repeat what I said the other day,-that, being unable to secure the duties, we are obliged to accept the bounties. At the same time, we know that these bounties will not serve the purpose as the duties would have done. From some of the people interested in the iron industries I have learned that, since the Minister of Finance has submitted the bounty policy, that they are in the same position that I am in to-day ; being unable to obtain what they know to be right, they have to accept what is given to them. But, of course, they will not invest a great deal of money. They know that the bounty system cannot be a permanent policy. They know that my hon. friends on the treasury benches give relief to industries only when they cannot help themselves. Consequently those industries that are helped to-day by the system of bounties will simply live from hand to mouth ; they will not develop ; they will not do what they would do if they were certain of the home market. Not being able to do better, I content myself with offering my protest against the policy which is being adopted now, because it is not the policy that ought to be adopted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. Tarte's) figures respecting prices are very interesting, and assuming-as I have no doubt I have the right to assume-they are accurate, very valuable. I understand my hon. friend to quote a number of leading articles in which the prices, notwithstanding the changes made in the tariff, are higher in the United States than here.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Articles protected by 35 per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, articles on which we levy a duty of 35 per cent, and which we are getting cheaper than the consumer in the United States can buy them. And my hon. friend has told us repeatedly that the American tariff is higher than ours. What, then, becomes of the argument that if you have a sufficiently high tariff, you will have a measure of home competition which will bring down the price of the goods ? My hon. friend has simply proved that high tariff means high prices. Prices of the goods he has ref erred to are higher in the United States than in Canada, and the reason is not that there is a lack of industrial development, or a lack of competition in the United States, but simply and solely

that their tariff is higher than ours. Their tariff is high and their prices are high. Our tariff is somewhat lower and our prices are somewhat lower accordingly.
Now, just a word, if the hon. leader of the opposition (Hr. Borden, Halifax) will permit me, in relation to the four-year-old letter he has read in relation to the part played by Sir Charles Tupper in connection with the iron and steel industry. Sir Charles Tupper is out of politics now, and nothing was further from my thought than that I should endeavour to discredit any part he has had in public affairs. As he has retired I would rather-as would all Canadians- seek the good things he has done than seek opportunity to find fault with him. Let us attack those who are in the battle, not those who have passed out of it. I regret that the hon. gentleman has conveyed the impression that I have, in some way, tried to discredit the part played by Sir Charles Tupper in the matter of the iron industry. There is no foundation for that idea. I have sent for ' Hansard ' but have not yet received it that 1 may refer to the passage. But with the help of the quotation the hon. gentleman has given, I can recollect the facts. Sir Charles Tupper, in a discussion which took place, I think in 1890, was not content to claim whatever credit he might fairly claim in connection with the policy of developing the iron and steel industry, but he went further and was ungenerous enough to state that I had been opposed to granting these bounties, that Mr. Whitney had come to me at Ottawa, and that I had sent him away telling him that I would do nothing. I asked Sir Charles for his authority at that time, and he stated that Mr. Henry M. Whitney was his authority. I said nothing on the subject, but I wrote to Mr. Whitney calling his attention to Sir Charles' statement. Mr. Whitney wrote a letter in reply in which he said that Sir Charles Tupper was mistaken, and he used the words which my hon. friend has used, the words in the letter to Mr. Graham Fraser, that in all negotiations in the matter with me he received every courtesy and consideration, and found every manifestation of a desire' to assist him. These were the facts connected with the discussion which took place in the year 1900. However, 1 only allude to it now to show that neither then nor now was it my desire to make any reflection upon the part played by Sir Charles Tupper. He has passed off the stage of active political life, and I am the last man who would say anything which would deny him any fair share of credit which he may deserve in relation to this or any other matter in the history of Canada, during the long period that he was connected with public affairs.


Robert Laird Borden: I read the letter because it indicated that the view which had been expressed in the letter of Mr. Whitney read in this House by my hon.
friend, was a view which did not commend itself, in some respects at least, to the recollection of Mr. Fraser, who was as intimately connected with these negotiations as was Mr. Whitney. The letter itself shows that on the first occasion when application was made to the government during 1898,
I think, the efforts of Mr. Ross and some other gentleman to prevail upon the government to adopt the system of bounties, were absolutely unsuccessful.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think the letter showed that, and it could not show it for such was not the fact.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) When the hon. member for the division of St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was speaking, he mentioned that he was going to support the views of the leader of the opposition, and I, in my innocence, just remarked in a kindly spirit,
' of course you do.' Well, the hon. member turned on me rather unkindly for that expression. I may say to the House and to him that it would be well for him if his political life had been as consistent as mine, if it had, he would not be in the position he is in to-day. Now let us review his position. When he was a member of the government there was nothing that could be said about bim by the opposition which was not said. They did not say that he had committed murder, or seduction, or anything of that kind; but there was scarcely a sin you could think of that he was not charged with by the opposition. He turned against his own government, and then the opposition with open arms were willing to receive him. Well, they are welcome to him, so far as the Liberal party is concerned. His position, Mr. Chairman, puts me in mind of a certain species of snake. When they find that the animal is rather too large for them to swallow, they slime him all over and then they can swallow him. That is what the opposition have done with the hon. member for St. Mary's, and they are now welcome to have him to assist them in every way they wish. But coming to the question under consideration, I am not so sure but it would have been well if the iron industry in this country had been allowed to go into liquidation, and that other people had built on its ruins. But we are told by very good political economists that these are infant industries, and since they are, I am willing to sacrifice some of my own principles to support them-not so much on behalf of the men who have invested their capital in them, as on behalf of other industries that are at stake all over the Dominion of Canada, in Prince Edward Island, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Montreal, in Quebec, in Toronto, and I may say in every other place in Canada. But there is one thing about this industry that I must menr tion. I am speaking now of other interests in Cape Breton. They are without a manager, and I fear they will never succeed

until they have a proper manager. We had some experience with the sugar refinery that was started in Halifax. A large amount of capital was paid into that enterprise, and they got a manager from Brooklyn, and he landed them $70,000 in debt the first year of his engagement. Now, I have a rather kind regard for Scotchmen generally, and I think if these iron and steel people had sense enough to correct their errors the same as was done in Halifax, by sending to Scotland and getting a manager, they would probably have succeeded. There was any amount of extravagance committed in connection with this enterprise in the Island of Cape Breton. Columns and columns, and pages and pages, were written about the profits that were going to be made; you would think that half the iron industries of the United States were to be closed up by this one industry alone, and they induced, or seduced, innocent people to take stock in the company, who are to-day to a large extent ruined. It puts me in mind of a story of the Duke of Breadalbane. I do not know that a good story has been told in this House for a long time. The Duke of Breadalbane, like all noblemen of Scotland at that time, had a highland piper. One day the clergyman, in going around, regretted to find that the piper did not have much knowledge of Scripture, and he asked him if there was any part of Scripture that impressed him. Yes, says the piper, that golden image on the plain of Dura. When the order was given that at the sound of the harp, the sackbut, the cornet, the flute, the psaltery, the dulcimer and all sorts of musical instruments, they should all fall down and worship the image, if they had had a highland piper there none of that nonsense would have happened, because, instead of being down on their knees, they would all have been dancing. So in this instance, if the people down in Cape Breton had a prudent Scotchman to manage their affairs they would be successful to-day, as was the case with the sugar refineries in Halifax under the management of a Scotchman; they succeeded and are succeeding to this day. One of the greatest difficulties that I see in connection with assisting these iron and steel industries is that they are without a proper manager to look after their affairs. Now let me read from the St. John ' Telegraph ' of an interview with Mr. Buell.
Mr. Buell said the facts were that three months ago he made a proposition to James Ross, president of the company, who was then in Europe. The proposition, if accepted, would have brought the business to a better condition than it is to-day. He decided that he would not remain there subject to the conditions then existing, and he proposed that he administer the business, and he felt sure he could bring about better results. As an alternative, he said that if his proposition were not accepted, he would resign his position, to take effect in three months. It was not accepted, and so he did


William Ross: resign and gave up his position this week. Mr. Buell says the natural basis for a big successful business is still there as good as when Mr. Whitney started the works ; there is the location, the materials necessary in the manufacture, all good, but it is the human factor of management of the enterprise which did not bring success for, said he, the people of Canada don't have to be told that the business is not a success. Were his proposition entertained, he felt sure there would have been different results.
There was one observation that my hon. friend from St. Mary's made, that nations that could produce iron and ore were all happy. I think that Spain is the largest exporter of iron ore of any country that we know of and I do not know that the condition of Spain is much happier than that of any other country in Europe.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I feel great sympathy for the clergyman mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross). He regretted that the piper of the Earl of Bredalbane was not more familiar with the scriptures. I have a similar regret that the government of this country are not better acquainted with the Holy Scriptures. I feel that if the government were, and especially if the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) were, considering his conduct towards the iron industry of this country, instead of making the speech that he did this afternoon, he should have arisen and humbly followed the splendid example of the psalmist who declared,
' I acknowledge my transgressions and my sin is ever before me.' I feel assured, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. Minister of Finance had done that, the Liberal-Conservative party would have been prepared to give him that generous forgiveness that Ezekiel promised to the whole world when he said,
' When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed and doeth that which is lawful and right he shall save his soul alive.' If the hon. Minister of Finance wants to save his political soul alive, he must turn away from the sins he has committed and which he has committed especially in regard to the iron Industry. I am deeply concerned in the iron industry of this country. I am more concerned in those industries which prosper and give character to Canada than in any political success that may arise oat of the matter. I am deeply concerned that Canada shall be a great manufacturing country, and that this country shall acquire the wealth which springs especially from the iron industry. It is well known that the success and wealth of any country are based upon the manufacture of iron, for iron calls into its production the mining of coal and the mining of other minerals all of which industries give character to the country. In my own county we had an iron industry at Londonderry called the Steel Company of Canada. That industry flourished under great difficulties for twenty-five years and it gave to the county of Col-

Chester great prosperity. Farmers within a radius of twenty or thirty miles found a splendid market in consequence of it, and farms that had been uncultivated, farmhouses, and barns that were mean and unsightly gave way to the beautiful homes and fine outbuildings that grace the countryside. Any person who drove through that country could not but see that some magic was at work, and that magic was the successful working of the iron industry there. The Conservative party, opposed as they were by these gentlemen opposite, were cowardly to have listened to their arguments at that time, they should have felt themselves to be more assured of the ground upon which they stood and they should not have hesitated before the carping criticism of these hon. gentlemen. They never gave the iron industry that powerful support which they should have given it. However, they came forward and by the aid of bounties and by encouragement in the shape of tariff legislation, they gave it the lease of life which it previously enjoyed. In reference to the price of goods in a protected. country, I must say that I thought the doctrine that duties increased the price had been exploded long ago. I really felt sorry for Nova Scotia that the hon. Minister of Finance, with whom I have no quarrel and of whom I have always spoken kindly, should seek to lower the intelligence of the distinguished province, of Nova Scotia by the adoption of that argument which I thought had been given up by intelligent men twenty or thirty years ago. If the hon. gentleman had been addressing some audience in Timbuctoo or some audience in Algiers, or in some undiscovered territory in Africa, if there is any undiscovered territory in Africa, I could understand him repeating the argument that a high tariff makes dear goods. The hon. gentleman should be familiar with the history of Canada when cotton and sugar were protected in this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite wasted days and weeks of the valuable time of this parliament in asserting that cotton and sugar would be dear just in proportion to the duties imposed upon these articles. Yet, in four or five years you could buy cotton and sugar cheaper than it had ever been known to be in the history of Canada. What happened in the United States ? They protected steel rails by imposing a duty of $22 a ton. There is one thing about the people of the United States which we cannot help but admire, while not admiring many things characteristic of their system of government, diplomacy, or public life, and it is the splendid courage that they display when they attempt to deal with a question such as this. They make up their minds, and after having made up their minds, they fear the opposition, neither of their own citizens nor of any nation abroad. They wanted to manufacture steel rails. They were building railways all over
the United States, until a few years ago they were sending millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to-the old country and draining their own country. They imposed a small duty for a little while, but they found it did not avail. At last they put on a duty of $22 a ton on steel rails while steel rails were selling at $27 or $28 aj ton in England. They put on by way of duty almost the entire value of the rails and in five or six years rails were selling in the United States at $18 per ton, or $4 less than the duty imposed. How could the duty be added to the price in this case ? This question was threshed out all through the United States by the most competent and logical minds in the United States, men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, men possessing the most astute and cultivated minds, men with syllogistic minds, whose reason could not be satisfied with a non-sequiter. These men, having threshed it out from the beginning to end settled the question for ever that there was no connection between duties and prices, but the question was regulated by competition. I thought the hon. Minister of Finance would not have introduced into the House of Commons an ad captandum argument which would only be fit for a public meeting and a public meeting of very ill-informed men at that. I always listen to the hon. member from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) with great pleasure, because he has convictions. What we want in Canada are men of convictions, men, who having convictions, will stand by them at whatever hazard and not only stand by them, but seek to impress them upon their fellow-Canadians, feeling that if their convictions are honest and right, they should dominate the whole public opinion of the country and determine the policy of the whole of Canada. I have come to the conclusion, after watching the hon. gentleman's course in this House, that he is sincere and thorough Canadian, although I told the House a few days ago that I had a different opinon a year and a half or two years ago when the hon. gentleman made those unpatriotic speeches in the great city of Paris. I want to tell the hon. member from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) that it is not wroug for a man to change his mind. Only very little and very narrow men pretend that they never change their minds. If I am wrong in the morning I will change my mind fifty times to get right by noon, and if I am wrong at noon, I will change my mind fifty times to be right at night. I would change my mind every hour of the day to be right, until I could lie down at night feeling in my heart that I was at last right. Instead of it being a criticism against a public man that he has changed his mind if his motives are right, it should be a credit to him. Hon. gentlemen opposite boast that they will not change their minds, although they have changed their policy.

7947
The trouble with you gentlemen is that you are in a continuous state of mental hypocrisy. When you gentlemen were in opposition, you permitted your leaders to force you into a false position. You should have stood up like men and said to your leaders : In tills new country these old fogey notions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) can have no place, and you must adopt a policy consonant with the building up of Canada. If the younger men and the stronger men of the Liberal party had not permitted Mr. Blake and Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Fielding and men of that kind to dictate a policy that they must have known was unsuitable to the conditions of Canada, you gentlemen opposite would not 'be in the pitiable position to-day of constantly trimming your sails to meet every adventitious wind' but instead you would present yourselves to the country as a strong government with a strong policy. I am opposed utterly to this bonusing, except as a temporary measure. I suppose that when you have your head in the bear's mouth you have to take any kind of treatment the bear gives you, but if I had my head out of the bear's mouth in connection with the iron industry I would say that this bounty system is a most unscientific and ungracious way of treating the iron industry of this country. We have before us the splendid example of the United States in dealing with the iron industry. In 30 years the United States have sprung into competition with the greatest manufacturing countries in the world, until to-day they are challenging the mother of manufacturing in the products of steel. Yet, in face of this splendid example, this government is foreswearing the -whole experience of this continent, and running amuck against the experience of every able and accomplished man, in attempting to assert this bounty doctrine of theirs. Gentlemen, when your Finance Minister proposed this bounty in your caucus, there should have been some of you strong enough to have said :	We are wearing false colours, we
are driven to the wall by the arguments of the iron manufaucturers of this country, let us be honest and say that the course we have pursued for 20 years in denouncing protection, is a. wrong course, and instead of adopting this makeshift policy of bounties, which is only an attempt to square ourselves with the policy of protection, let us give that industry the ample protection it needs. Gentlemen on the other side know very well that a policy of protection would really benefit the steel industry, and would not take the taxes out of the people as this bounty system does. By imposing this bounty system you are not giving the iron industry of Canada one-tithe the assistance that a scientific policy of protection would lend it. You have in the United States a tariff on iron and steel scientifically arranged; it was made by


Seymour Eugene Gourley: experts from France and Germany, and other countries who assembled at Washington and framed it on scientific principles. With that American tariff scaled down and adapted to the wants and needs of Canada, you would place Canada in a very short time in a proud position, and enable her to cope not only with the United States, but with England and Germany as well. Look at what a mean and miserable policy this government has pursued. When they made up their minds to encourage the iron industry in this country, why did they not grapple with it in a straight forward and honest way, and not in the niggardly fashion which has given a staggering blow to the investment of foreign capital in Canada ? Enormous quantities of capital have been lost in Nova Scotia and in Canada by this makeshift policy. If we had been bold and strong a few years ago, to-day we would have had an iron industry in Canada that would have given character and wealth and power to this country, and would have made us known the world over. In 1894 we commenced by giving a bonus of $2 upon puddled iron and steel ingots made in Canada. That went on till 1897, when the bounty was increased to .83, and then in 1899 this sliding scale was introduced. Just as our iron industry was getting on its feet and gaining strength, the Minister of Finance, as if he were angry that the iron industry was progressing, introduced a sliding scale by which 10 cents were cut off the bounty the first year, 15 cents the next year, 25 cents the next year, and in five years the bounty was to disappear altogether. Whether the Minister of Finance understood it or not, it was the most malicious attack upon the iron industry of Canada that could be conceived by mortal man. I am in a position to say that so soon as this policy was introduced the Canada Steel Company, of Nova Scotia, gave up the struggle. They struggled on for 20 years, hoping that the government and the people of this country would grow up to a strong scientific policy for the protection of the iron industry, but so soon as this policy was proposed, the Canada Steel Company went into liquidation, and that great industry which had spent some $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 of English money in Colchester county became inoperative, and last fall the Drummonds of Montreal came down and bought for $300,000 that property which had cost the Englishmen some $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. How can we hope to encourage capital to come to this country when all that the shareholders get out of an investment of $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 is scarcely enough to pay the costs of winding up the concern ? Is it any wonder that they leave Canada damning the country, and protesting that they will not invest another dollar in it or permit any friend to invest a dollar in a country that pursues such a vacillating policy.' That was the condition of affairs

wlien the Drummonds came down to Nova Scotia and bought that property, and now they are endeavouring to work it up. 1 know that these gentlemen were here since they have acquired the property, endeavouring to induce the government to enter upon a policy of protection. 1 have no warrant to speak for them, but I know that they do not want bounties, because I feel that the bounties are little good to the iron company of Londonderry. It may be some good to the Sydney people, although judging from the quotation of their stock and their financial difficulties, it is not much good to them either. It was thought that the announcement of these iron bounties would strengthen the financial position of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, but instead of that it seemed to injure the company, and now the coal company has been divorced from the steel company, I fancy preparatory to some further ill-luck happening to the steel company. Now, Sir, I do not wish anything to happen to that steel company, because it would be of untold misfortune to the iron industry of Canada. It would publish to the world that there is something unsuitable in the conditions of Canada for the manufacture of iron and steel, and besidesit would give to that imfamous cad, Carnegie, an opportunity of boasting that he had sized up the iron conditions in Canada better than any other. I call him a cad advisedly, because I do not fancy the fellow can either read or write or has the slightest training, for if he had, he would not be guilty of the low and offensive remarks he made with reference to Canada.
When these bounties were announced some days ago, I thought they were adopted to improve the condition of the iron industry of Sydney. I understood that they would not assist the iron industry of Londonderry to any considerable extent which is not engaged in the manufacture of the particular class of iron protected by theses bounties. But these indstries do not want bounties. Why do we indulge in that unscientific way of helping industries ? I find that last year we imported from the United States $25,000,000 worth of the manufactured products of iron. What the iron industries of Londonderry and Sydney want is to be making and selling those products in Canada and getting that $25,000,000 which we now send to the United States. After depriving the manufacturers of this country of the home market, with which no other market is ^comparable, these hon. gentlemen tell them to go and compete with the foreign manufacturer in the markets of the United States or England or Germany. That is a poor compensation for the loss of their market at home. It must be an aggravating thing for a man who manufactures in this country to go to Montreal or Toronto to sell his goods, and find there some Yankee stealing away the markets of his country, which he
has helped to make. It is one of the basest betrayals a government was ever guilty of to force the manufacturers of this country to see their own markets stolen from them, and then to tell them to go and see what chance they have in foreign markets. Well, we have to take this dribble, and I take it without thanks ; I take it as not worthy of thanks. But I suppose that until * a great wholesome sentiment is created in this country, strong enough to sweep away these gentlemen, we will not do better.	But if I judge
the signs aright, I warn these gentlemen that the deluge is at hand, and that the whole manufacturing interests of Canada are not going to be imperilled to give these fourteen or fifteen gentlemen high offices. I would rather let them get out, and give my share to maintain them all their lives with splendid pensions and put in a government that will advance the interests of Canada. I fancied that the day was gone when a minister could call on his supporters to sustain him, no matter what liis principles were, and no matter how much he was injuring the great interests of the country. The Finance Minister should have said : ' I have been wrong in my political teaching ; in my early days I was a pupil of Alfred Jones, of Halifax, one of the narrowest men who has ever lived in the Dominion, or in any other part of the world ; my young mind was moulded by this man before it was able to stand alone, and I should not be judged for my errors, because they are an inheritance.' If the hon. gentleman would say that, I would say to him : ' If you Intend in future to do right, accept absolution, not only from myself, but from the Liberal-Conservative party, which has always been generous in forgiving its bitterest foes.' 1 saw in a Montreal paper the other day the statement by some gentleman that he had the assurance from the government of Canada-he did not say from whom-that in the near future a tariff would be submitted that would amply and sufficiently protect the iron industries of this country- I do not know whether that statement was made with authority or not; but I saw it, and was glad to see it, because I thought in some way it was inspired. But if the Minister of Finance will get up and say : ' We have sinned, but we intend to do better-because it is human to err, and it is God-like to reform and get on a higher platform-and we will give you the bounties to-day as a temporary measure, but before next session we will seek the assistance of experts and will give ample protection to the great iron industry of Canada, which will give this country character and wealth in the coming years.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. Minister of Finance has answered the statement I made in a very peculiar way. I quoted the prices of articles which are protected in this country to the extent of 30 or 35 per cent. I have

shown by those prices that the theory which we hear so often that when there is a high tariff prices are high, is false. My hon. friend answers me :by calling my attention to the fact that in the United States these articles, which are protected there to about the same extent, sell at a little higher price. My hon. friend knows the condition of things in the United States ; he knows that wages are higher, the prices of farm products are higher, so much so that during the last five years they have increased in value 49 per cent, and everything else is higher. But that does not prove the contrary of my statement. When an article is sufficiently protected, there is enough competition to ensure reasonable prices. I expected somewhat the answer my hon. friend has given me, and I was prepared for it ; I know his trend of thought. My hon. friend would perhaps like to know what happens when there is no duty at all. I have proved that when we have sufficiently protected our manufacturers they are able to sell cheaper than their American competitors. Now, let me quote the prices during the past year of No. 9, No. 12 and No. 13 wire, which are free of duty. They are not manufactured here ; we do not manufacture a pound of them. What was the result ? It was very clear, because all the wire consumed in Canada is manufactured and sold by the Americans. They have two prices, one for their own citizens and another for Canadians. The price of No. 9 was $2.G0 in the United States and $2.85 in Canada ; No. 12 was $2.75 in the United States and $3 in Canada ; and No. 13 was $2.85 in the United States and $3.10 in Canada. In other words, when they have slaughtered one of our industries, they charge our people more than they do their own citizens. And we are pleased with that state of affairs ; and because I happen to share the views of those who do not believe in a policy which has that result, venerable men like my hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Boss) lecture me. He invites me to remember that some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House were some time ago saying a lot of hard things about me. A lot of things have been said about me during the last thirty years that I have been a newspaper man. I was not killed by those weapons, I am still alive, and I do not care much what is said about me, when I am sure I do not deserve any censure. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has alluded once more to what he calls my Paris speeches. He read them in the English language. I am sorry he is not a French scholar.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I will read them in French.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I invite him to read them in French and not in distorted reports in English, and I say without hesitation that they might have been made by any English citizen sitting in parliament. This little Hon. Mr. TARTE.
incident being closed, let me say only one word more. When there is a sufficient Canadian tariff, we are able to compete with our American friends and neighbours. We are able to sell to our own customers as cheap as, if not cheaper than they sell to their citizens. The reasons are obvious. They have a condition of affairs which does not exist here. There, wages are higher and the cost of living higher. We have everything here necessary to build up large industries, to develop our cities, to furnish home markets to our farmers, and we are doing none of these things. When my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was asking me to believe that a high tariff increases prices, I was very nearly getting up and begging the hon. Minister of Customs to come to my rescue without any delay, because he has allowed-and I am equally responsible with him-an increase in the duties on several things. Let us take cement, he has increased the duty on cement. What has been the result ? Several new factories have sprung up and we are manufacturing first-class cement. We are manufacturing it more and more. What is true of cement is true of everything else.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend gave us some interesting figures a few moments ago, which seemed to bring out very clearly some important facts showing the effect of a high tariff. He has now added to that information something equally important. He has quoted facts in connection with the wire industry, and has shown that the manufacturers of wire in the United States are charging excessively high prices for that article. He has thus proved that in an industry probably protected to the extent of fifty per cent or sixty per cent or seventy per cent, in the United States, the manufacturers are able, through the operation of a high tariff, to create monopolies, trusts and combines, which enable them to dictate prices to their customers.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend knows political history better than that. He cannot ignore that there are more monopolies in free trade England than in the United States. When a free trader is put to the wall by a sound argument, he is able to do anything.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: What is desired is to give immediate relief to the iron industry, and the question for us to consider is whether this bounty is more likely to be of immediate benefit to that industry than would be an increased duty. The point to decide is whether an equal amount of bounty in money will assist the manufacturers as well as an equal amount derived from a protective duty. Let us suppose that the manufacturer makes his iron or steel as cheaply as he can, he will have in addition a bounty which will enable him to compete with any other producer. On the other hand, if I

understood my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, he said that a duty would create greater competition and consequently reduce prices. But our object is to give the manufacturers a higher price or more money; and if you reduce the price at which he sells his article, he is losing money. What then must he do V He cannot reduce the prices of the raw material or the machinery, and he will have to fall back on his unfortunate labourers and reduce the wages paid them. That is one of the effects of the custom system. The bounty gives immediate relief to the manufacturer, and behind that is the question which will benefit the customer the most. But as the question before us now is the giving of immediate aid to the manufacturers, that aid will be most readily given through the bounty system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As there are iron industries of importance right in my county, I am not disposed to warmly congratulate the government oh the assistance given this particular industry, although I am glad for the parties concerned that their important industry has been saved from distress. I do not think however that the system adopted by the present government will have any effect in the way of protecting, as should be done, the great iron industry, which is the basic industry of this country. If we wish to preserve that very important industry in our midst, we will have to follow the example of the countries which have created it among themselves. We will have to follow the example of Germany, Belgium and the United States, whose tariff has been prepared with the greatest care-with such care in fact that it enables that country to dominate us completely in the production of iron. My hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has referred to the wire industry. We in the county of Jacques Cartier, before the elections of 1896, had an excellent manufactory which produced numbers nine, twelve and thirteen wire. These three were drawn and were excellent wire, and moreover, that important manufactory produced nearly the whole barb wire required in this country. What happened ? My hon. friends, in conformity with what they preached on every hustings before 1896, when they declared that we were paying exorbitant prices for barb wire and that the duties should be abolished, carried out their policy in the tariff of 1897.
The consequence was that we became dependent on American producers for products of iron and steel. The barbed wire factory at Lachine had to give up the manufacture of barbed wire, and for No. 9, No. 12 and No. 13 wire, we became dependent upon the Americans. As a result, we have dearer barbed wire since, and wire of inferior quality, as everybody knows and we are entirely under the control of the
American industrials for that wire. It is humiliating to hear it mentioned in this House that 26,000 tons of wire were imported into this country last year. It is humiliating to think that over $30,000,000 of iron products were brought into this country last year. As a matter of fact it is well known the Americans import from here steel and iron ingots upon which they pay $6 a ton duty, and, after they have manufactured them into all sorts of articles, they sell them tack to us. The manufacture of these ingots is carried on in bond, and the manufacturers get a rebate of $5.99 per ton when the material is sent back to this country in a manufactured state. That is the condition of affairs in my own county ; and, without having had occasion to consult these very important manufacturers who have invested millions in this industry, that they have developed in the county of Jacques Cartier, I question very much whether in the case of the great factory that used to manufacture wire and barbed wire and has been obliged to confine its operation to the manufacture of steel nails, depending entirely upon the American manufacturers for wire, this resolution will benefit them in any way. The fact is that it is generally claimed by those well acquainted with this industry that what we require is a remodelling of our duties in such a way as to protect every line of production, because new lines have arisen in the past ten years. If we wish to make that industry our own and not be dependent on the Americans-who would never for a single instant be dependent upon us for such a production-we must remodel the duties from end to end. Only then shall we become, in respect to this industry, a really independent people. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has spoken of the higher prices in the United States. It is well known that the reason of that is the existence in the United States of these immense trusts, combinations that, not content to control the prices in the United States, tyrannize over us in Canada in regard to these prices. We are the slaves, in respect to certain articles, of these gigantic trusts of the United States. As an example-and many others might be given- it is sufficient to point out what condition our tobacco growers and our tobacco merchants are reduced to at the present time through the dominating influence of the American trust. In the province of Quebec that trust is doing incalculable harm to the manufacturers, who cannot resist its influence, and even to the tobacco growers. Anybody who wishes to convince himself of the truth of what I have -said has only to read the report of Judge MacTavish, who was charged by the government with the duty of investigating this subject. It has become necessary for the government, in order to protect the tobacco growers of our province and of the province of Ontario, actual-

ly to introduce an amendment .to the Criminal law, to free us to a certain extent, from the domination of these American invaders of our country. What has been never explained to me, and what I can never understand, is why, in the matter of bounty-to my mind, though a convinced protectionist, a most disastrous system of protection-a difference is made between the producers of iron and those engaged in other lines of industry. Why is it, for instance that the cotton manufacttirers, who are afflicted with the British preference, are not aided at the present juncture in the same way as the iron producers are aided ? Why is it that the woollen manufacturers, who have suffered great injury by the present state of the tariff, and particularly by the British preference, they who have been, in many instances known to horn members in this House, forced to close their manufactories, are not assisted ? Why is it, for instance, I would ask the Minister of Finance, that the producers of paper in this country are not assisted in this way ? If it is impossible to come to their relief by changes in the paper duty, by which we could not only give to these producers the markets of this country, but give them great influence in the markets of the world, why is it that they are not assisted by bounties, since we are obliged to resort to the pis-aller in the way of assistance to certain producers ? Throughout the province of Quebec-X do not speak of Ontario, though 1 believe that there analogous conditions exist-we have untold wealth of pulp wood. But through the treacherous policy of our provincial government our pulp wood lauds are depleted, and our pulp wood is sent to the United States to be manufactured into paper and sold back to us, the whole profit going to American workmen and to American capitalists. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, if I mistake not, less than a year ago reduced the duty on certain classes of paper, thereby giving still greater advantage to the American industrials. We are the laughing stock of the great American industrials in this respect. Has my hon. friend the Minister of Finance read the very able exposition of his case by Mr. McGibbon, manager, I believe, of the great pulp mills of Shawinigau ? The conclusion at which he arrives, and which is absolutely irrefutable, is that if we had a proper policy with regard to that line of industry, befoi'e ten years the Americans would- construct over $100,000,000 worth of factories throughout Canada, and would be paying more than $4,000,000 a year- in wages" to our Canadian workmen, instead of the whole profit of that industry being taken by American capitalists and American workmen. And so convinced are our American neighbours that eventually we will realize our position and carry out a more patriotic policy in this respect that, as Mr. McGibbon points out, they are purchasing


Frederick Debartzch Monk: our best water-powers. They are preparing for the time, which they feel wall come before long, when, if they want to manufacture, deprived as they are of pulp wood in their own country, they can come into Canada and establish the factories which Mr. McGibbon tells us they would already establish if a wise policy were carried out by our government.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. Minister of Finance referred to the trusts of the United States, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has also spoken of these great combinations. The bounty system of the European continental nations, such as Germany, Belgium, and France applied to the item of sugar has wiped out the sugar refineries of Great Britain. The manufacturers of this country, a great proportion of them at least, are just as thoroughly under the influence of the great American trusts-and will he more so as time goes on-as the British sugar refiners were under the Influence of the bounty fed sugar of continental Europe. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier referred to a certain industry in his constituency which got its raw material in the shape of wire for the manufacture of wire nails from the American trust. I should not he surprised, nor, I suppose, would the proprietor of that institution-though I am not more familiar with the circumstances of the case than I have learned from my hon. friend-If that proprietor were to find on his desk some morning a letter from the trust in the United States, who are supplying him 'with wire, to say that the trust had made up their mind to advance the price of wire, or, even, in the future, themselves to supply the Canadian trade with wire nails.
I have myself seen letters of that kind from these American trusts, and I wish to say in this House that there is no body of men, not Including the government of the United States, that are so tyrannical in their methods of operation and so selfish as the United States trusts. It will he necessary for the government of this country, whether Liberal or Conservative, so to arrange our tariff that they will he able to defeat the objects of these wealthy and enormous United States trusts. I fancy that a good deal of pressure must have been brought to bear on the Finance Minister in regard to these iron and steel bounties. I cannot understand what different pressure . could have been brought to hear upon him than that which was brought to bear upon him from other industries in this country, .some of which have been mentioned. From the remarks of the hon. gentleman the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) I should take it for granted that so far as he was concerned he expected that the government in future would deal with the tariff on the bounty basis. If that Is the case, I do not see how they are going to carry out any

such policy. I believe, as others have said, that it is a piecemeal policy ; more than that, it is uncertain and indefinite. We want an adequate protective tariff in this country, a stable tariff, so that people will know what thev have to calculate against so far as European and United States competition are concerned.
What I have to complain about more especially is the indefinite position of the government in regard to this bounty question. In 1897, the Minister of Finance, in introducing his budget, and in changing the tariff to some extent, gave his views in regard to fiscal questions, and he laid down certain principles upon which we expected that he intended to be guided in the future.
It seems to me, as it must appear to every member of this House, that he does not entertain the same views in the year 1903 that he did in 1897, and I hope for the good of the country that he will continue to entertain different views from those of 1897. He was very severe upon the manufacturers of this country. Who are the manufacturers of this country ? Where does the money come from that the manufacturing industries are carried on with ? I have heard it stated on good authority, on the authority of a supporter of the hon. gentleman opposite, who is a manufacturer and well posted, that three-quarters of the capital invested in manufacturing industries in this country is borrowed capital. The manufacturer is there to defend his calling, to pay 100 cents on the dollar, and to pay his banker, or whoever he borrows the money from, a proper rate of interest. Now, upon this bounty question the Minister of Finance appears to have had, the session before last, entirely different ideas from those he has to-day. In 1901 he did not appear to be under the impression that this government would in future adopt an extension of the bounty system. Let us call the attention of the committee to a debate which took place in 1901, introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison). That hon, gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said this :
What I wish to draw the attention of the government to is this, that the Dominion of Canada stands !fco pay out a very large amount of money in the way of bounties, and I would like to know whether it is too late for the government to take such steps as may, while not invading any vested rights, at the same time prevent further vested interests growing up under the Act.
The Finance Minister in the course of his answer, said :
There is that comfort to us in the first place. There is the further comfort that even if this system should result in the payment of large sums of money, that payment will speedily come to an end, because at the very time we provided the scale of bounties, we stated that it was regarded by us as of vital importance that the bounties should be gradually reduced by tihe terms of the Act itself ; so that after a term
of five years, beginning on the 1st of July next, the bounties will cease to exist. If, therefore, for a short time we should be called upon to pay even a large sum for the development of these industries, we would have the comfort of knowing in the meantime that as a result of that experiment there must grow up a vast amount of business in tihe Dominion which would not probably have grown up except for that development ; and that If the bounty should he large, it can only continue for five years, when it will be wiped off the statute-book.
Now, it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government are not only uncertain in regard to the tariff, but they are uncertain in regard to the bounties, and in regard to tlie whole fiscal question. The government this session have dealt with specific items in tlie tariff, with binder twine, lead and steel, and in regard to all these they have dealt witli them upon a bounty basis. I have watched with some interest the remarks of the Finance Minister when dealing with these questions ; and I do not know whether other hon. gentlemen have noticed it or not, but I have noticed that he is very careful bow be uses the word ' protection.' In fact he scarcely ever uses that word. I noticed that in referring to the steel rail question, or the protection on steel rails which the Governor in Council was empowered to make, he referred to that, not as protecting the steel rail industry, but be called it tariff encouragement. .Tust think of having to use two words to express one word. Protection is an old, well known word, but he would not use the word ' proiection.' He uses tlie phrase tariff encouragement enjoyed by other industries. The hon. gentleman also, in apologizing for protection, used the words : ' Approach the subject with moderation;' ' approach the subject with caution;'
' the government desire to avoid extremes;'
* they wish stability in the tariff.' Now all this is intended no doubt to appeal to the electorate. But that does not meet tlie situation which exists to-day, and which is bound to exist in the future. Have we not arrived at the time when we must have an adequate protective policy in this country? The Minister of Finance, in introducing his budget this year, said that we must watch how our opponents played the game. It did seem to me that he was just then balancing himself, uncertain whether lie ought to become a protectionist or remain as lie was in the past, a sort of free-trade-protectionist- I do not know what not. Now I would like to draw Ills attention to this fact, that our opponents are practically playing the game to-day the same as they have played it for many years past. They are playing it to-day the same as they were playing it in 1897, and it is the false theories of lion, gentlemen opposite that have been knocked out. Our opponents are playing the same game in regard to the tariff that they have played for many years past. Now, Mr. Chairman, I I would "like to say that I do not think this

bonus or bounty system is tile proper one, I do not think any one can defend it. Here we are trying to give a bonus to all these different articles :
Angles, tees, channels, beams, joists, girders cr bridge, building or structural rolled sections, and on other rolled shapes not round, oval, square or flat, -weighing not less than thirty-five pounds per lineal yard and also on flat eye bar blanks, when sold for consumption in Canada a bounty ot $3 per ton.
It seems to me that we cannot follow up this thing, that the government are going to become a sort of partners, or agents to investigate the business of these people, and it is a wrong principle. What I plead for is a. decided policy on the part of the government. It is necessary at present in order that every one may know what it is, and that any one may safely go into an industry knowing that it is adequately protected. Belore I resume my seat I wish to say that in the absence of adequate protection on these iron and steel products I approve of these bounties which have been granted to the steel industry. They will be of use to them, and will assist to some extent in maintaining their operations and building up the iron industry which we must maintain at all hazards.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: By granting these bounties a certain specified object is accomplished, and I therefore can-aot agree with ^ lion, gentlemen opposite in the view that it is an unwise proceeding. They say that they -would have proceeded by way of a revision of the tariff. By granting these bounties "we will give encouragement, if I may use that word, to this industry, we will secure the manufacture of those goods in this country which heretofore we have not produced. I think that we have the proof that it will bring about that end, and therefore, instead of viewing these propositions as ineffective, I think they will prove amply effective and more effective than if it had been done by way of a tariff revision. The works, as I understand it, that are to produce, these articles are about to expend $1,500,000 for machinery and plant for that purpose. That expenditure made, the articles will without doubt be produced in this country and they will be for sale in this country and afford as tliey will the raw material of numbers of manufacturers employing in the aggregate I venture to say, many times over the number of men that will be employed in this concern, and these manufacturers will not be burdened in the production of goods thalj they are now producing and confer a benefit upon the workingmen, and confer a benefit upon the whole country. This [DOT]we are accomplishing in this wire rod business, for instance. When the tariff was revised it was considered wise as these rods were not produced in this country and as they were the raw material of other


Albert Edward Kemp: manufacturers employing a great number of men, to place them on the free list, with the result that the farmer who formerly paid $1 a keg duty upon his wire nails, now gets them at 60 cents a keg duty, or a 40 per cent reduction upon nails. Wire rods will be made in this country by the aid of the bounty, which will not increase the price of the wire rod by one cent to the wire drawer or to the manufacturer of nails. Whatever may he said in reference to whether it would be better to aid this industry by way of a bonus or tariff the question under consideration now is : Is this a wise step that we are taking? Are we going to get results from it ? I think hon. gentlemen opposite know from what they can gather from the newspapers that we shall have an established manufacture of these lines of goods of which there were large importations, that we will effect the manufacture of them in this country and that we will not burden the scores if not hundreds of other manufacturers employing not only thousands, but tens of thousands of men who use these products as their raw material and without burdening by one iota the consumer, who will get his goods just as cheaply as before. That is the proposition that is before us. I do not intend to enter into an argument as to the relative merits of protection or free trade.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Who pays the bounty ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The community in general pay the bounty. There is no doubt about that. I shall not enter into that argument. I only want to ask hon. gentlemen opposite who are adopting a pessimistic tone that is calculated to affect the stability and spirit that is in our people : What industries are there in the country that are not thriving at the present time ? What industries are languishing ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Woollens.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Woollens are not languishing. The hon. gentleman must not hold the government policy responsible for keeping every manufacturing industry on its feet. Because some industries in certain lines do not pay you cannot hold us responsible. If there are other industries and other men employed in producing the same line of goods making money and paying large dividends, the failure of one industry is not due to the tariff, but must be due to some other cause. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to point me out a single manufacturing line In Canada in which some men are not making goods-and making them at a profit to themselves ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 
Mr. OLIVER.: I do not wish to oppose these resolutions, but in view of a great deal that has been said to-day, I do not think it would be fair to the interests which I represent if I allowed the discussion to end without giving expression to the opinions which I hold, and which I believe are held by a very large proportion of the people of this country in rgard to the subject under' discussion. In presenting these views, it is desirable to place certain facts which do not seem to be generally known before the House and before the country. The discussion that has taken place in regard to the iron industry to-day and on previous occasions in the House, has proceeded under the assumption that the industry of producing iron and the separate industry of manufacturing iron are practically without the protection of import duties in Canada at the present time. It will surprise some people to know that to-day scrap iron pays a duty of one dollar a ton, pig-iron $2.50 a ton and steel ingots $2 a ton. That is the duty, truly it is only a revenue duty, but it gives the industry of producing iron that measure of protection. Then, after the iron has been produced ; in the first stage of its manufacture, which merely consists of plain casting or the production of malleable iron in some form, I find that rolled iron not less than 35 pounds weight per yard has a protective duty-we can only call it a protective duty-of $7 a ton ; bar iron or steel less than 8 inches wide and less than one-half inch thick has a duty of $7 per ton ; iron or steel plates less than 30 inches wide, $7 a ton ; railway fish plates, $8 a ton ; steel rails other than the rails of steam railways, 30 per cent; cast iron pipes, $8 per ton ; switches, frogs, &c., for railways, 30 per cent; steel castings in the rough, 25 per cent; stove plates, surely not an article that requires any great amount of labour in their production-25 per cent; cart or wagon skeins-a plain casting-30 per cent. I would like to know what that part of the industry which relates to the production of iron, and much more that part of the industry which relates to the manufacture of iron in its cruder form-I would like to know what these industries want. If they are not satisfied with the duty that is levied on the production of iron and the bounty that is given in addition to that duty, then certainly there must be something wrong with the iron industry in this country. It must then be the wrong country in which to enter into this industry, and it is better for the country at large, better for the manufacturing industry which depends on cheap iron, better for the agricultural industry, which depends very largely on cheap iron, better for the transportation industry, both on land and water, which essentially depends on
cheap iron ; it is better for these industries and for the country at large that the iron required for these industries should be imported rather than be manufactured in Canada. This is the wrong place for an iron industry, if that iron industry cannot thrive under the conditions which prevail at the present time. I have said before in this House, and I take the liberty of repeating it, that in Canada cheap iron is as essential to the welfare and the prosperity of the country as is cheap food to the manufacturing industries of England. AVe must have cheap iron or we cannot do business. On that point-just referring for a moment to the fancy picture drawn by the member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) as to what would be the result if we increased the cost of raw iron to our agricultural, manufacturing and transportation interests ; and the tide of prosperity that would flow over this country-let me refer the House to the condition of affairs in this country when there was so-called adequate protection to this very iron industry. Where was the flood of prosperity at that time ? What was the actual and absolute and necessary and unquestioned result of these high duties on iron at that time ? It was the paraliza-tion practically of the greater part of our manufacturing industry, even though it also had high protective duties. If this were merely a matter of theory, if it were something that was in prospect, we might admit the arguments that have been put forward to-day ; but when we have had a sad experience of these high iron duties, I cannot understand the propriety of the arguments that are put forward in favour of repeating the mistake that was made in those past years.
As to the question of bounties, and as to the difference between bounties and duties, some of our friends object to bounties because they are merely an expedient. My objection to the resolution now before the House is not because it is a bounty, or because as a bounty it is an expedient, but because it is not an expedient but a policy if carried to its legitimate and logical conclusion, according to the statements that have been made here to-day by the Minister of Finance, by the member for St. Mary's and by other speakers. Let me point out the difference between bounties as applied to the production of iron, and bounties as applied to the manufacture of . iron. A bounty given for the production of iron is in itself an expedient; it is supported because it is an expedient and only because it is an expedient. Our condition in this country is that we have vast quantities of iron ore and vast quantities of coal. It must be evident then that if we can bring the iron and the coal together under such conditions as will permit us to produce raw iron profitably, a vast industry will be created in this country to the benefit of every one in the country. The con-

ditions are not, however, absolutely favourable. The coal is in one place and the iron is in another, and the experiment of bringing them together can only be undertaken at very considerable expense, and with a chance of very considerable loss. It is an experiment which capitalists may be slow to undertake. The government then comes forward and says : We will take an interest in this experiment, we will provide a system of bounties which will help to enable you to undertake this experiment; we will stand part of the loss. If the experiment proves that in Canada we can bring together profitably the iron and the coal in order to produce raw iron on the merits of the enterprise itself, then our money has been well expended and your industry may go on and thrive on its own merits. That is the principle as 1 understand it underlying the granting of bounties on the production of raw iron, and those bounties are scaled down from year to year so that after the experiment has had reasonable opportunities, if it turns out to be a success the bounties cease, and also if it turns out a failure the bounties cease. The capitalists who desired to invest in that industry are having their opportunity, and are having their' assistance, and if success is attained, so much the better. There is nothing wrong in this principle. It is a common sense principle. It has nothing whatever to do with the principle of protection in connection with the tariff, and it will be observed that essentially and above everything it is an experiment ; it is an expedient.
But the system of bounties which we have at present, and which the present resolutions propose to extend for a short time, and very properly so possibly under the circumstances, is different altogether in principle and ultimate conclusion from the other feature which it is proposed to introduce, that is to say, a bounty for the manufacture of iron in the country after it has been produced. None of the reasons which apply to the bringing together of the coal and the ore to produce the iron apply to the manufacture of iron into its coarser and rawer forms after it has been once produced. Either we have skill and enterprise and capital which will enable us to install machinery and to run that machinery to work up this iron after we produce it, or we have not that skill, enterprise and capital. If we have not got it, then we cannot afford to buy it at the price of paying more for that iron than it is actually worth. We need too much iron in this country, we need it for too many essential purposes, to afford the price which it is apparently supposed that this iron is going to cost us. For my part, I claim that there is nothing in the conditions or the facts, as we know them, to warrant the conclusion that we cannot manufacture the iron in this country once it has been produced, at any rate, under a reasonable and moderate revenue tariff such as we have to-day. If we can Mr. OLIVER.
produce manufactured articles of the highest grade and quality, into which skill and industry and capital very largely enter, under the moderate protection of a revenue tariff, we certainly ought to be able to manufacture tlie coarser forms into which skill and energy do not enter nearly so largely as mere capital.
My view of this feature of the resolutions is this. We propose to give a bounty for the manufacture of steel wire, of heavy plates and of heavy structural iron. We import these articles very largely ; we need them very largely ; we must have them, or we cannot progress ; and I think the government are doing very wisely in not putting a duty upon these articles higher than the present duty. The one is free and the others are under the very moderate duty of 10 per cent. But the government's proposition, as it is placed before the House, is to give a bounty on the manufacture of these articles. There is no proposition to reduce that bounty from year to year, as in the case of the bounty ou the production of iron, so that it will pass out of existence by process of time. As the proposition stands, to my mind it is this. The offer is held out to manufacturers of iron to undertake the manufacture of these lines under the promise of the payment of a certain bounty. There is no indication that the bounty will at any future time be withdrawn. If those people purchase machinery and invest the capital necessary to enter upon these enterprises on the basis of the bounty that is given, I for one do not see very well how it would be fair or right to withdraw the bounty. Once we begin to pay it we must continue to pay it, or we are accused of unfairness to this investment of capital. So long as our manufacture of iron is small in proportion to our imports, it certainly pays better to give the bounty than to pay a higher duty. But so soon as our manufacture of iron increases till we are manufacturing more than we import, then it will be better for us to have a duty than to pay the bounty. It seems to me that is the natural and logical conclusion of the proposition now placed before the House. If it is right and proper to pay bounties and ultimately to pay duties on the manufacture of these classes of iron, of which I think it was stated that Canada now imports over $2,000,000 a year, there is no ground that I can see for not taking the same position in regard to other productions of iron ; and I feel the duty and responsibility resting upon me, as a representative in parliament, to say to the government and the House that I do not believe that that policy can be pursued to its legitimate conclusion without the greatest possible damage to the best interests of this country.
It appears to me, from the figures which I have taken from the blue-books, that this proposition involves a sort of double bounty in addition to the duty which we also pay

on the iron. We pay now, I believe, a bounty of $2.70 a ton on pig-iron, and there is besides a duty upon it of $2.50 a ton ; so that our producers of iron have an advantage over their competitors, exclusive of freight rates, of some $5.20 per ton on pig-iron and $4.70 on steel. Then, when this steel is turned into wire rods, and they acquire the additional bounty of $6 per ton, they are winners to the extent of $10.70 per ton on steel wire rods as against their competitors from other countries. That is to say, we are paying something like $10 a ton more for these steel rods than we can buy them for elsewhere. On the heavy plates and structural steel the duty and the bounty are the same as on the production of the iron, and the additional proposed bounty is $3 per ton.
That is $7.70 per ton of an advantage on heavy structural iron and heavy steel plates, that is to say, on steel bridges and the plates which go to the building of vessels and locomotives. It is a tax then on the transportation of the country in the matter of steel bridges and in the building of steamboats and locomotives. I consider that the necessities of this country with regard to transportation are such as do not warrant our imposing any such tax on those industries. The same remark applies to the manufacturing industry at large, into which iron and steel enter so largely.
I just want to say a word with regard to the subject of bounties for the production of iron. I 'consider that these bounties are based on sound principles. They are not excessive. It does not matter to us whether they are extended a year or two or shortened a year or two, if we can bring about the result we desire, namely, make Canada an iron producing country. But I find, on looking over the returns, that so far from the bounties we are paying having the effect of building up an iron producing industry in Canada and developing our own iron and coal mines, for every dollar of bounty we paid during the past year for the production of iron from Canadian ore, we paid $2 for the production of iron from foreign ore. Out of every $3 that we pay in bounties for the production of iron supposedly for the building up of an iron producing industry from our own ore in our own country, we pay $2 for the production of iron from ore which comes from a foreign country. We are, therefore, paying this money out to no purpose, so far as the building up of an iron producing industry in our own country is concerned. Here are the figures for the past year of the bounties paid respectively on Canadian ore and on foreign ore to the various smelters :
	Canadian Ore,	Foreign Ore.
*Midland	. .. $ 56,036	$ 24,109Radnor	. .. 15,580	2,722Deseronto.. .	. .. 611	21,920Sidney	347,436Hamilton..	39,795New Glasgow	.. .. 19,290	42,065$211,860	$478,047
That was for the year ending 30th June, 1902. For the year just closed, _the total bounties paid amounted to $1,245,382. I submit that while we should do our share in the attempt to produce iron in Canada from Canadian ore with Canadian coal, it is not a business proposition on our part to bonus to such a degree the production of the iron mines of foreign countries. If this is the sort of home industry which the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and lion, gentlemen opposite are so anxious to promote, I cannot see eye to eye with them. I do not think it is good policy to spend our money in such a way.
I am out for the development of the legitimate industries and natural resources of this country, and I do not care what you call the means you take to produce that development. You can call it protection or free trade, high tariff or bounty, but I want to see that when we spend our money we get the desired result. I want to see that when we pay out one and a quarter million dollars to build! up a Canadian iron industry, the money goes to build up that industry and not to the production of iron from foreign ores.
I do not know that it is necessary to say anything with regard to the fervid patriotism indulged in by the hon. member for St. Mary's division and other hon. members when endorsing a prospective policy of high duties. Canada for the Canadians is their motto. It is also mine. But I believe in Canada for all Canadians and not for only a section of them. That is the difference between their policy and mine. I believe in a policy that will build up legitimate, natural industres in this country, but not in a policy designed to make possible artificially, industries whch are not naturally possible. Such a policy is not a national policy, but a system of unjust taxation, unfair to the majority of the people and bound to result in any thing but the well-being of the country.


Mr. LENNOX.: I want to say a word or two on this matter. Some hon. gentlemen on this side have expressed the hope that this is a measure which in the end will lead up to a legitimate measure of protection. If I entertained that view, I would probably take a somewhat different position from that which I propose to do. Had I any doubt about the matter, an incident of this afternoon would dispel it. I had the pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) read the hon. member the ex-Minister of Pubic Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) out of the ranks of the Liberal party. That, to my mind, is a very significant point at this time in the course of the warfare between the Conservative and Liberal parties as to the tariff that we shall have in Canada. For we must bear in mind that the only point of difference between the government today and the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, so far as we know, at all events,

is the question of protection or no adequate protection to our industries. I do not think we can assume that so venerable, so experienced a gentleman as the hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia, and a gentleman in such close touch with the cabinet could take such a step without having instructions from the ministers of the crown as to the attitude he should take. It, therefore, seems perfectly plain to me, and I think the country will not be slow to take the intimation that although the government would like, perhaps, to have it go to the country for the time being, at least to certain sections, that they are going to stand by a policy of free trade, and to other sections, which interviewed them from time to time by deputations and otherwise, that they propose to introduce such amendments to the tariff as will afford adequate and reasonable protection to the industries of Canada, yet those who have been promised a fair and adequate measure of protection have no reason to hope that such promise will be implemented by the action of the government. I therefore think that those who have indulged the hope have given the government credit for too great a degree of sincerity; and, so far as their action in connection with the tariff and the policy they have enunciated from time to time lias enabled us to judge, I think we are not wise in coming to the conclusion that the country can expect any adequate relief so long as hon. gentlemen who at present administer the affairs of Canada are left in control. Now, the iron and steel industry is a most important industry to Canada, and I believe that the conditions of this country with regard to the quantity of raw material, the means of obtaining it, and the quality of that material when obtained, are such as to promise that we can develop a large and prosperous industry in this line of manufacture. Whatever will make for the success of that industry along legitimate lines, I am. perfectly prepared to support. But, as regard bounties, I do not feel that this is the means by which we can give encouragement to the iron industry along legitimate lines. The iron industry should be developed side by side with the other industries of the country. One should not profit at the expense of the other. And, when I venture to oppose, as I intend to oppose in toto, the resolution introduced this afternoon, I shall do so with the full knowledge that, more than any other single cause, Great Britain owes the proud position she occupies to-day to the development of her iron industry. I recognize too, that, for the time being, it looks as if supremacy in the iron trade had passed across the Atlantic and remained for the present with the United States. But I look to the time when the centre of gravity will change again, and when in this Dominion, with its vast re- 1 sources, with its energetic people and enor-1 Mr. LENNOX.
; mous territory, we shall develop an in-
[DOT]	dustry in iron and steel second to none in
[DOT]	the world. But, whilst I recognize this, I * am opposed to bounties on principle. In saying this, I have the sanction and approval of
; many prominent gentlemen on the government side of the House. I remember very 1 well how eloquent they were in denunciation of protection, but not so eloquent as they were in denuciation of bounties, describing bounties-or subventions as some called them-as the most odious form of protection. I do not think that we can, by means of bounties, develop the country upon the lines of protection as understood by the Conservative party. I believe bounties are necessarily unequal in their operation. If, for instance all our industries were bounty fed, none would be bounty fed. It is seen at a glance, if you commence to analyze the question, the' only conclusion that can be reached is that to give a bounty to every industry would be to tax every industry to raise that bounty, and so all would be on the same basis as before. But, to give bounties to some and not to others, must be detrimental to those that are not bounty fed. In other words, it is a means of robbing certain parties to give encouragement to the others. I submit, it is not a policy that we can safely or properly pursue in this country. It is more than this-it is a development of one section of the country at the expense of the others. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) referred to the question of bounties on raw material. I cannot at the moment recall the case of any industry which I would recommend the government to bonus. We had a question not long ago before this parliament of giving a bounty for the raising of the sugar beet. Perhaps, if there is any instance in which a bounty is justifiable, it could be better contended for in the case of a bounty which will lead to the production of raw material, because that is an enrichment to the country. If you delve into the bowels of the earth and bring up useful minerals of which the people previously knew nothing, you add so much to the wealth of the country. And, if that raw material cannot possibly be obtained except by the expenditure of some of the public money, perhaps there can be a reasonable argument advanced in support of the expenditure. And that argument applies with great force when the farmers of the country are approaching an experiment which it is hoped will lead to an industry for the benefit of the people as a whole. In such a case, there might be good excuse for considering and responding to their petition. But we find that the government refused to give them any relief at all. giving a miserable fraction of a cent, not to the farmers, not to the producers, not to those who made the raw material, but those who were in the case secondary parties in the transaction, the manufacturers.
I have heard it said this afternoon

that the bounty was a form of protection. I know that, speaking in a general way, without regard to exactness, perhaps even a Conservative might speak of bounty as a form of protection. I know that supporters of the government have been in the habit of speaking of it in that way. But I claim that a bounty is not in any reasonable sense protection of any kind. A bounty is merely the means of making a present to the manufacturer at the expense of the people at large. It creates no wealth in the country. It is a means of transferring money from the pocket of one man to the pocket of another ; it is a means of compelling the people generally to enhance the profits of the manufacturer, to put into his pocket money that he never earned. A bounty therefore is a means of impoverishing the country as a whole. Protection, on the other hand, is but a legitimate form of self defence, a means by which we may secure the home market for the people of Canada, a means by which we may build up industries and make ourselves self-sus-taiuing, a means by which we may increase the tangible wealth of the country and build up varied industries from one end of it to the other. If you want to ascertain whether a subvention or bonus does anything to add to the wealth of the country, take this illus-[DOT] tration. Let there be a bounty of $1,000,000 distributed among the various manufacturers, a bounty of $1,000,000 a year distributed for 100 years, and what is the result ? The result is that you have paid out $100,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada, and I ask you, although you have made millionaires of some manufacturers, have you added one dollar to the wealth of the country ? Is the country at the end of a period of 50 or 100 years in any better position of self defence, in any better position to maintain its industries against the aggression of outside nations, than it was at the beginning of that period ? Take away the bonus at the end of 50 years, take away the bonus at the end of 100 years and you are just where you were at the time that you began, with this difference, that the people are just so many millions worse off than they were at the beginning of that period.
I am not going to enter into the large question of protection at this time, but I want to make it perfectly clear the aim of this bounty, treating it in the abstract; and having regard too to the actual facts of the case. I would be very sorry to have it understood by the great agricultural classes of this country, I was in favour of bounties in any shape or form. I am not in favour of them, because I recognize that the system is unfair to the great agricultural class of this country. I recognize, as I say, the importance of the great iron and steel industry. But I recognize as of still more importance that the manufacturers should understand from 250
whom their bread and butter is to come. I want these manufacturers to understand that they cannot play fast and loose with the Conservative party. I want them to recollect that it is the Conservative party to whom they are indebted for the measure of prosperity they are enjoying in this country to-day. I do not think that in the past they have shown that gratitude they should have shown. Be that as it may, I believe that the way to bring about a remedy for the state of things we have at the present time, the way to bring about an adequate system of protection in this country, which I believe is all important to our continued prosperity, is to let the manufacturers and merchants, and agriculturists all understand that there will be no special preference given to any one ; that we are going to mete out equal justice to all ; that we are going to recognize that no one industry Stands by itself, and that whenever one industry has to be kept up at the permanent expense of another. there is something wrong. The great principle enunciated by the Conservative party in the past and by the Conservative party of the present, is that all industries shall work together, each one assisting the other ; and that in this way, the only safe position we can take, the only safe position any man can take who believes that a protective system, reasonably high, is necessary in this country, is to say : You gentlemen want special favours, and although we would be glad to assist you, we cannot assist you unless you join with us in developing one great system upon general lines that will be fair to all the industries of the coup-try.	.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. This resolution which says, ' from steel produced in Canada from ingredients of which not less than fifty per cent of the weight thereof consists of pig-iron made in Canada '-what kind of ore must that.be, Canadian ore or American ore ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is in the manufacture of steel ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: While the question of ore enters into the manufacture of pig-iron, after the pig-iron is made in Canada there is no question of the ore as respects the bounty on steel. The question of native or foreign ore arises entirely as respects the manufacture of pig-iron.


William Humphrey Bennett: But as the bounty is paid in respect of productions made from the steel, I think you should prefer the pig-iron that is made entirely from Canadian ore. That opens up this question :	You may
have smelters in Canada using Canadian ore and you may have them using American ore. Now if they use Canadian ore, that gives work for Canadian vessels in carrying that



ore from Michipicoten-which is practically the only point in Canada where we have iron at present on the great lakes ; but, if you use American ore, that gives work to American vessels. In a concern where they produce both steel and iron as well, they would decidedly prefer to use Canadian ore if the preference was given to steel manufactured from Canadian ore by way of bounty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If they use foreign ore they suffer for it, if I may so speak, by reason of the lesser bounty they would get on pig-iron. It is at that stage of the process that the distinction is made. They will not get the same bounty on that pig-iron as they would if it were made from native ore.


William Humphrey Bennett: But if this bounty was paid only on pig-iron that was made exclusively of Canadian ore, that would1 give a great impetus I contend to Canadian ore. It would result in the employment in Canada of a great many men in mining ore and as I before pointed .out it would result in giving employment to Canadian vessels. The fact of the matter is that at the present time the Canadian shipping trade is greatly hampered owing to the fact that it cannot engage in the American ore trade which is one of the biggest interests that the American vessels have. The grain trade being at an end the American vessels can go into the ore carrying trade, carrying the ore from different points on the American side to points on Lake Erie. Canadian vessels, by reason of the coasting laws, are estopped from participating in that trade and they can only have recourse in a limited way to the ore trade in carrying ore from Michipicoten to Midland or from Michipicoten to Hamilton. I think this clause should be limited to pig-iron manufactured entirely from Canadian ore.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be an entire departure from the principle which has governed these steel bounties from the beginning. The only distinction we have made between imported and native ore is in regard to the manufacture of pig-iron and not in regard to the manufacture of steel, and that has been done from the beginning.


William Humphrey Bennett: Whether it was right or wrong at the beginning I submit that this measure should be framed in such a way as to foster Canadian trade. If the bounties were made payable only on steel manufactured from Canadian pig-iron it will be to the interest of the manufacturer to use Canadian ores exclusively, but if a free market is given to American ore the result is very different. I grant that this may appeal strongly to the interests of the Sydney concern because the ore used there is known as foreign ore.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is from Newfoundland.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Humphrey Bennett: That is classed, I assume, as foreign ore. In that case we are discriminating practically against the balance of the Dominion or against the iron industries that are operating in other parts of the Dominion and against the ores of the upper lakes.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I find in the Act of 1894 that the bounty is confined entirely to pig-iron manufactured from Canadian ore. Then in 1897 I find that the bounty is given to pig-iron manufactured from 50 per cent of Canadian ore. What led the government to make this discrimination ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My impression is that the distinction between native and foreign ore was made earlier than that. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Gour-ley) may be correct.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have looked at the Acts this evening.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend has looked at the Acts I am quite content to accept his statement. I remember at the time the bounties were dealt with that the only point of difference was that some hon. gentlemen thought that we should class Newfoundland ore as Canadian and treat it as our own ore.


Mr. KENDALL.: Has the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) a case in his mind to illustrate the point ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, in Midland and also in Hamilton where they have smelters they use large quantities of the now celebrated Michipicoten ore which is brought from Lake Superior. Under this resolution it is immaterial whether the ore comes from Michipicoten or from Two Harbours or from any point on the American side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there is no distinction as regards pig-iron.


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly, but once done with pig-iron we come to the question of steel and the point is! this : The bounty is payable in respect of steel produced from pig-iron. If that pig-iron is altogether made of Canadian ores you will give Canadian ores the advantage, but, on the other hand, if the pig-iron is made from American ore you are giving the American ore to that extent an advantage, because, I think I am correct in saying that the American ore is brought in free of duty. I say, in the first place, that if you were to state in your resolution that all pig-iron that enters into the constitution or make-up of steel must be made of Canadian ore, you are giving a premium on Canadian pig-iron, and you are going to encourage the mining of ore at Michipicoten! and the development of other Canadian mines on the shore of Lake Superior which can be developed. By this resolution you are giving the Americans the benefit of our bounty system, and we are

now in this position on the upper lakes that Canadian bottoms can get very little to do. The grain season being at an end they are not allowed to participate in the American coasting trade by carrying ore, and the result is that Canadian vessels are to-day practically carrying for nothing to meet expenses. It is a well known fact that to-day Canadian bottoms are carrying grain from Fort William to Montreal at four cents a bushel, a rate which at one time was looked upon as being simply ridiculous. There are one or two courses open to them- either to tie these vessels up at the dock or to carry at these ruinous rates as they regard them. If we had these bounties on pig-iron produced from the ore found on the shores of Lake Superior we should develop the production of ore there as much as possible. Canadian vessels are not alone in carrying of this ore from Michipicoten to United States ports, for the reason that it is not a contravention of the coasting laws, but American vessels may indulge in that trade. In the first place you hamper Canadian bottoms by leaving this wide open to American as well as Canadian ore, and in the next place you prevent a larger user of Canadian ore by not providing that the pig-iron going into the steel to which the bounty applies shall be exclusively Canadian. I think that is a question that the minister might fairly consider and see if this cannot be done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), if he wants to present that view, ought to deal with the manufacture of pig iron and not with steel ; whatever force there is in his argument is against the use of imported ore for making pig-iron.


William Humphrey Bennett: I admit that we get the benefit of the manufacture of pig-iron, but I say we should go a step further and provide that the steel that is to earn this bounty shall be the product exclusively of Canadian ore and in that way you would increase the user of Canadian ore and give employment to Canadian vessels.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In so far as the use of Canadian products are required at all this requirement applies to Canadian pig-iron. The iron is made in Canada with Canadian labour at Canadian furnaces, and no matter what the source of the ore is it then becomes Canadian product. When you come to the next process, to the manufacture of steel, the pig-iron made in Canada, in Canadian furnaces and with Canadian labour, becomes to all intents and purposes a Canadian product, and must be so treated in the next stage. The argument of my hon. friend seems to be that in the manufacture of pig-iron we should either forbid the use of imported ore or make a larger discrimination than we are making.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me illustrate the point. At Collingwood I think at a verv 2501
early date a steel concern is to be under way. Assuming that they wish to earn this bounty and assuming that the law should say that they should only use pig-iron which was composed exclusively of Canadian ores to entitle them to the bounty on steel and that if they use in the manufacture of that steel product any American ore, they would be estopped from earning any portion of the bounty, that ore would go either to the smelter at Midland or to the smelter at Hamilton, and they would say : We cannot earn the bounty on steel unless we use exclusively Canadian produced pig-iron ; in other words pig-iron made from Canadian' ores, the result would be that they would only buy pig-iron made from Canadian ore, but if it is left open as it is, it is immaterial to these producers of steel whether they buy pig-iron made of American ore or Canadian ore.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If it were necessary to mix it in order to make steel.


William Humphrey Bennett: That opens up another field, and if there is to be a blending of ores then the bounty should be paid in respect to the Canadian ore only and not the American ore. But it might be possible to produce the steel from iron that was made exclusively from Canadian ore.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They are not doing it.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is on account of the uses they put it to.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I wish to ask the minister a question with reference to the amount of duty all told that would be paid on -wire rods three-eighths of an inch in diameter. I understand that we did pay $3 bounty for the production of the iron, and $3 more for the production of the steel. Will these rods be made from this steel which has already received a bounty of practically $6 a ton? If so, the entire 'bounty on these wire rods would be $12.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend's calculation is quite correct except with regard to the first process. He has taken the bounty on the pig-iron at $3, but of course if it were made from imported ore it would be only $2. Subject to that correction, my hon. friend is substantially correct. Of course, the persons who produce these things are not the same in all cases.	*


William Humphrey Bennett: If this is intended to give a preference to the Canadian ore entering into the production of pig-iron, why should' it not be equally so in regard to the steel \


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is some point in the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), but it is so radical a departure from the conditions in the past,

that if we adopted such a policy it might have a very serious effect on some of the furnaces. I am inclined to think that, the Ontario furnaces would not use entirely Canadian ore, and we know that two of the large concerns in Nova Scotia depend wholly upon Newfoundland ore, and to say that they should be'shut out entirely from the bounty on steel because they imported Newfoundland ore would be a serious proposition. Although my hou. friend may think there is some reason.for it, yet the effect of it would be to close them up.


William Humphrey Bennett: Conceding for the sake of argument that there must of necessity be a blending of American ore with Canadian ore to produce pig-iron, that would make steel, then there should be a higher bounty paid on the Canadian ore than on the American ore. The proportion of the bounty should be higher on the Canadian ore going into the manufacture than upon the American or foreign ore.


Mr. HEYD.: What would be the effect of the, application of that principle if we were to apply it to the coal that is used in the production of this iron? It is found in Cape Breton that they must import some portion of their raw material from Newfoundland, and they have gone as far as Spain and Norway for it. In the western part of Canada they get the iron ore from the Lake Superior region, but they get their coal from the United States. If you apply the principle that because a portion of the ore in eastern Canada is imported it should not be entitled to this concession, then it might be said that the iron masters in western Canada are not entitled to the concession because they import American coal for the purpose of manufacturing. I fancy that the object we have in view is to develop the manufacture of iron ore in Canada, and, the place whence the ore comes is a matter of comparative unimportance, because the cost of the ore is a very small factor in the cost of production. Besides, we are not in possession of the expert evidence that was presented when this particular kind of legislation was first introduced into this House. The policy was adopted after most mature consideration, and after consultation with men who thoroughly understood the fluxing and manufacture of ores. I would look with considerable doubt upon any attempt to change a plan that was adopted after most mature consideration.


Mr. BELL.: I think that possibly the discussion to-night has taken a much wider range than was expected by the Minister of Finance when he moved this resolution. No doubt, that is an indication of the general interest felt to-day in the wider question of protection. It would appear to me that the manner in which on every occasion when the opportunity arises, the discussion, beginning no matter where it may, always


William Stevens Fielding: 
Arthur Samuel Kendall: Except for some diseases.


John William Bell: Medical men as a rule hold that specifics should be avoided as much as possible, and that general treatment is preferable.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some very good citizens sell them.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And recommend them.


John William Bell: It is better to avoid their use, however, and therefore I believe that in this case the action of the government would be more satisfactory to the company

and to the country generally if they avoided what they describe themselves as specific treatment and resorted to good general practice. To my mind the hon. Minister of Customs has made a most complete and sudden volte-face. He turned a summersault of a most extraordinary character when, in justifying the course of the government in coming to the rescue of this particular industry and resorting to a specific treatment for the cure of a specific ailment, he declared, without a shadow of evidence, that so far as a great many other industries are concerned, which are complaining, their position was due to no fault on thetpart of the government or tariff, but entirely to their own lack of good management. Why did he not apply that rule to the specific case with which we are dealing ? In this case he did not attribute any fault to the management, so that we may conclude that if other industries could make out an equally strong case, the government would not press against them this charge of mismanagement or lack of ability, but would provide a specific remedy to meet each specific case. The result would be that this government would stand prepared, in every case in which this tariff is proved ineffective, to come to the rescue of the particular industry in distress. If so, I would like to know how much further this government has to go in order to establish itself fully in the position of being in favour of protection to Canadian industry and the development to the utmost possible extent of such industries-in fact of going to the utmost length to which the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is prepared to go in doing everything possible in order that Canadians may supply exclusively the manufactured products we require.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But this is a new industry in the country. These articles are not yet introduced in the country.


John William Bell: These particular articles that are now being introduced-but how does that help the hon. gentleman ? If he is prepared, in order to introduce into a manufacturing industry of this country, some new articles, to come to the assistance of that industry, is he not a protectionist up to the hilt V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I only mention that because the hon. gentleman was saying that other industries in existence, which were suffering, might as well come forward and be similarly dealt with. 1 point out that this is not a manufactory of certain goods, which .has been in existence for years and is suffering, but it is an industry which is bringing into existence a new line of manufactured product.


John William Bell: This industry is simply producing a particular form of article which has not hitherto been made in this country, Mr. BELL.
but it is not a new industry. If the hon. gentleman were to make in his establishment a new kind of biscuit or confectionary, he might just as well claim that he was establishing a new industry. This steel company is turning out steel billets, but these particular billets, to which this exceptional protection is to be given, are simply to be rolled to a rather smaller size, or, in the case of plates, they are rolled to a greater width and are a little more weighty. It is not a new industry we are assisting, but only varied products of an industry already established. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman has been rather unfortunate in his interruption.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Does it. not bring into this country an entirely new class of machinery, which is not in existence at present V


John William Bell: No, it does not.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, it does.	.


John William Bell: It simply means that whereas the company have been rolling their steel to a size of four inches square, they are about to take that four inch square billet and reduce it to a size of three-quarter inch round. That is all it means. And, instead of the billets being four inches square, they are to be passed through smaller rollers until they are reduced" to a diameter of three-quarters of an inch. They have been producing iron of that size at New Glasgow. They have not been producing wire rods, and the only difference between the rod and the steel billet is that the rod is rolled a little longer to a smaller diameter. To pretend that it is a new product, one might as well say that a new pattern of calico produced in a cotton mill is a new product. It is merely a slight change from what the manufacturer has been making all the time. But the great point is this. AYhy does the government hesitate ? Is it possible that the government hopes to deceive that great class of voters, the consumers, to whom they played during eighteen years of opposition V Is it possible that by refusing to change their tariff but effecting exactly the same purpose by means of a bounty they hope to delude the people into the belief that this government, so ready to go to the assistance of a suffering industry, is really a free trade government. To my mind it is impossible to find any other reason for their action in this matter. And while I am glad indeed, for the sake of an industry in my own province, which is of the very highest importance, and which both sides of this House will admit is one of the fundamental industries of any country that is going to develop manufacturing ascendency, that the government has adopted this course, but I would be much better pleased if it would do it in such a frank fashion as would rank it in the safe,

strong, defensible position of being openly and avowedly prepared to assist tlie industries of Canada, and enable Canada to develop from a mere producer of raw materials into a centre of varied manufacturing industries embracing every achievement in that direction possible to our natural resources and people. The criticism of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) condemning the government because it is treating this iron and steel industry in a friendly manner, and describing it as an industry which is not legitimate to Canada., is most amazing. In what country could the iron industry be more legitimate than Canada Y We have every one of the raw materials which enter into the production of iron. We have a suitable climate, a people unexcelled in their adaptability to all industrial processes, and a climate that is favourable to severe labour. In fact we have an ideal country in which to produce iron. We are alongside a country which is leading in iron trade in the world, and' has yet no greater facilities for that trade than we have. There is this one difference between the United States and Canada, and that is that in the one case, undiscouraged by the failures that attend its earliest years, the government of the United States went from one stage of protection to another, and by showing itself in favour of protection and pressing that remedy home to the last requirements of the industry, succeeded in establishing it in the unrivalled position in which it is to-day. There is no other difference between the two countries.
And there can be no question that if we stand as loyally, firmly and believingly at the back of the iron industry of this country as they did in the United States, we may hope at an early day to see Canada become what, so far as natural resources are concerned, she is calculated to become, one of the great iron producing countries in the world. No doubt, at the back of that, progress, will follow exactly what is being hoped for by the government in this matter. Here the government is helping not only the production of raw material, but also-a distinction properly drawn by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver)-the second industry of producing wire and nails from that iron. The government is not only offering assistance to the great company producing foundation article, the iron, but is also seeking to add another industry to the working outfit of this country, employing labour, adding new centres of population, increasing the home market for the farmers, adding to the imports, swelling the trade of this country. By this action unquestionably, if they stand loyally at the back of this industry and do it frankly as protectionists, they will add one industry to another until they will have added enormously to the productive powers and population of Canada, and we will have wiped out what, to my mind, is a reproach
to Canada that, in an article which she could produce, she is dependent upon the United States. The government has entered upon a good work; let them go forward in that work. And I would suggest that it would be better, in the interest of the manufacturers, in the interest of the country, and better in order to establish that confidence which will attract foreign capital to come freely into this country and bring the necessary population with it. that the government should enter upon this course in such a fashion as shall convince all that their action is not merely temporary, not a mere specific for a special case of illness, but a carefully thought out policy which it is not only prepared to apply for the moment, but to guarantee interested parties in this country or out of it that it is ready and determined to continue as long it remains in power as a government.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that you have had the painful experience of seeing the Finance Minister standing face to face with the consequence of his own blunders. Nor is it the first time we have seen the Finance Minister asking the authority of parliament to pass the hat to recoup by bounties industries that have been injured by his policy. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), whom I see smiling as he always does, challenged this side of the House to point out an industry in Canada that was not prosperous. Any hon. gentleman might make that challenge. But let me remind him that, if our industries generally are prosperous, it is because he and his friends had not the courage to take away the protection that has been given to those industries by a previous government. But there are some exceptions to our prosperity, and those exceptions can be traced in every instance to the removal of protection by this government. I challenge the hon. gentleman to controvert that statement. I say that there is not an industry in which they have taken away substantial protection which is not suffering materially, or which is not coming here and asking for protection. But instead of giving the protection which his policy has taken away, he is asking the people to put their hands in their pockets and recoup those industries by bounties. The hon. gentleman said we must have protection or bounties. I would ask him how he would like to have protection taken away from the business that he has made a great success, partly by his ability as a business man and partly by the protection given to that industry, and an allowance of bounties made that would assist him temporarily and for the renewal of which he would be obliged to come and ask from time to time. If he would not consent to that, how can he approve of the proposition made by the Finance Minister to-day? The hon. gentleman tried to

draw a fine distinction based upon tlie idea that this is a new industry. But the government are giving bounties not merely to the new industries that are mentioned, but also to production of iron, which is an old industry in this country. There is absolutely no difference for practical purposes whether it is an industry which is being expanded and extended or a new industry that is to be built up. The hon. gentleman recognizes that, for he proposes to treat them alike. I do not know anything more at variance with the hon. gentleman's own experience as a business man than the policy of bounties. I do not know anything more at variance with the experience of every practical man. Of course, we make some allowance for hon. gentlemen brought up in what I may, without offence, call the narrow school. None doubt the sincerity of the Finance Minister. But many doubt his theories. The industries of the country have good reason to doubt his theories. He was brought up in a school whose chief idea was to worry and harass every industry in the country, to look with distorted eye, almost with a bloodshot eye, on every industry that received a particle of protection. Now, however, he finds himself face to face with the great responsibilities of the high position of Minister of Finance. He must deal with great practical questions. But he never moves from conviction, nor will he unbend any of the things he has learned. He moves under pressure. He still thinks that every particle of protection is an evil. The only thing that causes him to recede from his position is the strong pressure of the business interests of the country, whose dissatisfaction, he fears, will cost him some votes. Now, what would be an ideal man for Minister of Finance? If I were selecting a Minister of Finance, I should not select one different physically or intellectually from the one we have. But I would select one who would unlearn everything the hon. gentleman has learned. I would select one who would1 act from conviction, and who would be moved by the broad spirit of protection that pervades this country. That it does pervade the country we can see by the attitude of the hon. gentleman's own followers. We had, for instance, the example of wabbling of the hon. gentleman from Alberta (Mr. Oliver). He found fault with everything and condemned everything, yet he was able to support the government. He told us that we must have cheap iron. The government some time ago took the duties off iron, one of the great errors they are trying to repair. And I would ask the hon. member for Alberta to point out a single instance where we have had cheaper goods as a result of the lowering of duty. I- challenge the hon. gentleman to say that there has been a single article purchased cheaper by reason of the government having lowered Mr. CLANCY.
the duties on iron. But the government have considerably crippled this industry. And what does the Finance Minister think will happen at the end of four years when these bounties shall cease ? The hon. gentleman will have to mend his ways between now and then, if he is still Finance Minister. But if he does not mend his ways and the people will still be deceived, >what will be the position of these industries? They must come back, every one of them, and ask for additional bounties. They cannot maintain themselves. They have lost their own market, and as a compensation we have to give them bounties instead of giving them protection, which would result, in a large measure, in supporting them at the expense of the foreigner. Now, what is the position of the workingman in this country ? Under a proper system of protection he has a day's work, whereas under the present system it means that he is deprived of that day's work because he has lost the field, and he must put his hand into his pocket and contribute something to help his neighbour.
Now, I do not propose to offer any opposition to this measure, because I think it is necessary under the circumstances. At the same time, I do not think it is a wise policy, I think it an extremely unwise policy. It is merely a policy of shifting, merely a policy of expediency ; an hon. friend near me says it is wabbling. It is not even respectable wabbling. However, I welcome anything that will for the time being give relief to this industry that the hon. gentlemen have in a sense destroyed. They have come down and have to some extent repaired the harm they had done, but at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. They did the same thing with respect to the binder twine industry. The duty was taken off the binder twine altogether, and after the hon. gentlemen had ruined that industry practically, they passed the hat around to help the manufacturers of binder twine. They are now passing the hat around again to help the iron industry. But this bounty system will not give them the home market. The American producer will still come in and sell alongside of them, as he does in respect to the binder twine industry. It is simply taxing our own people for the support of these industries instead of taxing the foreign manufacturer. It is about time, it seems to me, that we should shift the burden. I have only to repeat what I said at the outset, that I do not know of any more unwelcome spectacle than to see ministers sitting on that side of the House who came in seven years ago with a great flourish of trumpets, promising to reform the tariff, and they have not made a single reform. I challenge them now to point to a single substantial reform, a single change they have made in the tariff to compensate those from whom they took away protection. I am going to support the boun-

ty, not because I believe it is a wise principle, but because I tbink it is necessary to do something to keep this iron and steel industry on its feet.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I understand that these bounties are given in order to stimulate the industry of iron and steel, I do not understand that they are given for protection. I understand that the people who started this industry are not able to purchase the machinery and to carry it on successfully without some assistance from the country. In other words, this bounty is given as an encouragement to them in their work. Now, it seems to me that unless we have the raw material in our country, unless we have sufficient iron and coal in proximity, it is only a waste of money to give bounties to stimulate that industry. After you have encouraged this steel and iron industry by a bounty, after you have got it to work and it is then still unable to stand up on its own merits permanently, what is the use of giving the bounty ? As I say, in order that the industry may be permanently successful it must have the raw material, the coal and iron in proximity to each other. If you have to import the raw material you cannot be successful. I heard thejion. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) complaining that they are paying duties on iron made from ore brought from the United States. Now, if you are going to bring ore from the United States and coal from the United States, you had better let the United States manufacture the iron, because you are only throwing away your money by giving it bounties.
An lion. MEMBER. What about the cotton industry in England ?


Jabel Robinson: They can get the raw material cheaper than any other country because they have got the shipping to bring it in cheaper than any other country ; that is why the cotton industry succeeds in England. The iron industry succeeds there because they have both the coal and the iron. But it is no use for us under any circumstances to try to bolster up manufacturers of raw material of which we do not possess within our own borders. I heard the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) say a few minutes ago that they had the grandest country under heaven for the manufacture of iron. If they have, then they must lack men of enterprise and intelligence to carry on the industry. If you have got the raw material and if you have got the right kind of men, you do not need any protection. I do not like the bonusing system, either in this or in any other industry. If you have got the right kind of men with any snap about them, they ought to make the industry a success without the assistance of bounties. Still, in this case, if these men are suffering, if they feel obliged to give up the enterprise and to take their money out of the country unless we help to
set them on their feet, I am willing to help them, but all the same I say it is a wrong principle.


Uriah Wilson: I want to ask the Finance Minister a few questions. I would like to know how much of the ore that is manufactured or smelted in Deseronto is imported into this country. They make a different kind of iron to what is made in Nova Scotia, it is called charcoal iron. I would like to know how much ore they imported. I would like to know whether the increased amount of bounties you are proposing to give will be sufficient to tide the companies that are supposed to be in financial difficulty over the trouble they haVe got into. I think the Finance Minister ought to give us some information with respect to the reasons why he brought this up at so late a date. I have no doubt he has had interviews with the company, discussion and correspondence, and I think the House is entitled to that information. I presume it is not necessary to say anything with reference to the position of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, the Finance Minister is perfectly familiar with it. It is said they are in the best place in the world to manufacture iron. The town of Sydney gave the company 500 acres of land fronting on the harbour. The bounties they expected to receive would be sufficient to pay for the plant and to set them going in a successful manner. Now, if these things are true, if Cape Breton is the best place in the world to manufacture iron, there must have been great mismanagement in this matter. If there has been mismanagement in it why should the people be taxed to make right the mistakes that have been made by a particular company ? I differ entirely from my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), I am not in favour of bounties.


James Clancy: Neither am I.


Uriah Wilson: You may not be in favour of them, but you are going to support them, and it looks as if you were in favour of them.


James Clancy: I did not say whether I was in favour of bounties or not. I say that on general principles I am opposed to bounties, but if lion.' gentlemen opposite have destroyed industries by taking away their protection, I am willing to give bounties or anything else to help them out.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. gentleman only does it as the 'best thing possible, and not because he likes it. He is in favour of a fair measure of protection which I think is by far the better policy. I see that the president of the Consolidated Lake Superior Company has issued a circular letter which appeared in the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' of the 28th July, in which he says that unless the stockholders of the company take up the bonds amounting to 812,500,000 the

property 'will fall into the hands of the creditors. That seems to me to be a very strange condition of affairs. I would like the hon. Minister of Finance to tell us whe-there these bounties are going to be sufficient to tide these people over their difficulties. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company last year, according to the answer given by the hon. Minister of Finance, to a question asked in this House, received bounties to the amount of $885,903, and the total bounties paid last year on iron and steel were $1,245,382. It does seem to me that if we cannot manufacture iron and steel under such bounties as these it is folly for us to increase them, and if it is because of the bad management of these companies that they have had such poor success then I think they ought to be allowed to go to the wall and let other men take hold of the business who would be able to conduct it in a more successful way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the first question my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) asked was in reference to the operation of a charcoal iron furnace at Deser-onto. I understand the ore is imported almost wholly from the United States.


Uriah Wilson: What bounty do they get per ton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Two dollars per ton on the imported ore and on any portion they make from native or6 they, of course, get a higher bounty. In regard to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, I have had frequent communications with representatives of that company. I am not authorized to say that they will regard this as entirely satisfactory. I think it will enable them to continue their operations at present, and that they will regaM this as meeting their difficulties for the time being.


Uriah Wilson: What proportion of the enterprise is in operation now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not had any very recent communication with them, but I have seen what appeared in the press. I understand that the other day they stopped a portion of the work, and I saw by a subsequent telegram that it was stated that they had resumed it, but I have no information upon that point other than what I saw in the public press. In regard to the operations at Sault Ste. Marie, there have been no representations made to us lately on this subject. The condition of the industry was presented to us at the beginning of the session, and a proposal was made in regard to steel rails, and the arrangement then announced respecting duty on rails was based on representations so made, although, of course, it applies as well to any other mill in Canada which may make steel rails. As far as I am aware, the mill at Sault Ste. Marie is the only Mr. WILSON.
mill which intends to make steel rails. I have had no communication from them lately, and I am not in a position to give any further information upon that point.


Uriah Wilson: Have they carried out their contract for the supply of steel rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, they failed to carry out their contract for the supply of steel rails during the time specified. They did supply a quantity later oil, but they did not supply the quantity that the contract mentioned. They, however, supplied a smaller quantity. I am not able to say anything as to their future operations.
Resolution reported, read the first and second times, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 238) respecting bounties bn iron and steel.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton), moved the second reading of Bill (No. 232) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900.
Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sit-ton) make some statement as to the Bill before.it is read a second time ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When introducing this Bill I made a general statement in regard to its purport, and I think perhaps a detailed explanation would be more intelligible in taking the clauses up in committee. I may say in a general way that the Bill is a result of the experience of the last year or two in connection with the difficulties of handling grain in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. There has been a 'great deal of difficulty in connection with the transportation question for some years, and a condition under which practically the men who were in the elevator and warehouse business were enabled to compel the producers of grain to sell their grain to them directly, because of the fact that they were unable to procure cars for shipment themselves. An amendment was introduced a year ago, chapter 19 of the statutes of 1902, which was designed to meet that condition of affairs by permitting farmers to ship directly, giving them power to order their cars directly, and compelling railway companies to furnish. cars directly to them. In addition to that a number of other changes were made concerning the regulation of the shipping business as originally provided in the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900. The Act of 1902 was largely experimental and it was known to be experimental at the time, because it was known that it would bring

about considerable changes in the shipping of grain, and it was not known until actual experience had demonstrated how the provisions of the law would work.
I may say that the provisions of the law of 1902 have given great satisfaction to the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I do not mean that the Act has been regarded by the farmers as being perfect by any means, but it has' been regarded as being a vast improvement upon the legislation as it stood upon the statute-book-before. The privilege which this Act gave to the farmers of ordering their cars directly and shipping directly is considered by them to be an extremely valuable privilege. The grain-growers of Manitoba and the North-west have formed an association and they have discussed this question of the shipment of grain at great length, and at the different meetings which they have held the representatives of the railway companies have been invited to meet them and the subject has been discussed very fully. During the present session of parliament the grain-growers sent a deputation to Ottawa and the grain-dealers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories also sent a deputation and they met here and fully discussed the proposed changes in the law. A short time ago they submitted to me a Bill which was practically the result of their deliberations and was in the nature of an arrangement which was agreed to by all parties. The railway companies have also been consulted in regard to the provisions of the Bill, and while the Bill does not absolutely meet the views of any of the conflicting interests, yet I am satisfied from the information at our disposal that it may be regarded as a satisfactory measure. The principal provisions of the Bill are :	In section 3
to provide for the appointment of deputy warehouse commissioners. The original Act provided for the appointment of a warehouse commissioner and it has been found that owing to the duties that have devolved upon him and the enormous increase of the business of shipping grain due to the increased production, he has been unable to find sufficient time for the discharge of all his duties. It is certain that we shall require to appoint one or more deputy commissioners under this clause. The effect of the 4th section is to bring track buyers of grain under the provisions of the law which require licenses to be taken out by persons dealing in grain. The 5th section provides by an amendment to section 10 that the weighmasters and their! assistants, in addition to the other information which they are required to report, shall report as to whether or not the cars which they examine are in bad order. Section 6 deals with the making of returns by the warehouse men owning or operating terminal elevators as required by section 24 of the Act. Section 7 gives the commissioner power to deal with disputes in regard to applications for sites for
elevators and warehouses. The effect of section 8 is to require persons operating country elevators or country warehouses to receive as a matter of duty under the law the first six standard grades of wheat established and described in the general Inspection Act. Section 9 makes provision to exempt the elevator owner from receiving grain when he has not sufficient accommodation for that purpose. Section 10 makes provision which deals with the duty of the elevator man in regard to the shipments of grain when the owner desires it shall be shipped. The provision in the existing law was found to create a difficulty by reason of the fact that when a person who owned an elevator was unable to secure shipping facilities he was still compelled to keep the grain without making any charge for it. Section 11 provides for the amendment to section 34 of the original Act by adding a subsection the effect of which I will explain when we reach the committee stage. The effect of section 12 is to make an amendment to section 35 which provides for the giving of notice in case that grain goes out of condition in the elevator. Section 13 makes a change in section 39, the effect of which can only be shown by comparison and there are some verbal changes which I shall explain in the committee. Section 14 makes provision for the erection of flat warehouses which is substantially the same as in the Act of 1902, but the section is required because the repeal of the Act of 1902 does not bring into effect legislation which was repealed by that Act itself, so that we have to re-enact. Section 15 is new and it is simply to prevent a person getting a warehouse site from the railway company and allowing it to stand	without proceeding	with the
work. Section 16 provides in detail for the construction of loading platforms. Section 17 deals with the duties of grain commission merchants. When they sell on commission, they are required to in a certain specified time report the quantity sold and render a statement to the consignor. One section deals with the necessity of their taking out a license. Section 18 is the same as the section dealing with the same subject in the Act of 1902. Section 19 amends section 50 of the original Act, and requires the chief inspector, in addition to making a report to the railway officials, to make a return to the commissioner. Section 20 deals with penalties. Section 21 makes provision with reference to the distribution of cars. This is the most important feature of the Act. Section 61 is new. It provides that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to grain which is shipped westward of the British Columbia boundary. It was found in actual practice that the result of the Act making provision respecting the distribution of cars was to prevent the railway companies, on shipping on British Columbia orders or on orders for the

orient, to supply the cars, because the law would not permit them to do so except in a certain way; and it has been agreed by all concerned that the Act shall be amended] so that it shall not apply to the shipment of grain when it is consigned to any point west of the boundary line between British Columbia and the North-west Territories. The Bill as drawn says the Pacific coast, but I propose to have that amended by changing it to the boundary line of British Columbia. Section 62 deals with the licensing of track buyers. Sections 22 and 23 amend the forms of storage receipts in the schedule in compliance with the amendments to the Act in other places.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. MACLEAN.: Will the minister make a short statement as to the actual condition of affairs in the North-west to-day-whether the car famine has been largely overcome, whether there has been an increase of elevators, and whether generally the grievances which formerly existed in connection with this matter have been ameliorated to any extent.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My information is that at the present time there is no difficulty in regard to the shipment of grain, because practically the whole of last year's crop is shipped out. The difficulty as to car shortage will of course not arise again until the new wheat comes in, and what we are trying to do in this legislation is to provide a- satisfactory method for the distribution of cars. This legislation will not provide any more cars or increase the quantity of rolling stock, but I think it will result in a far more satisfactory distribution of cars.


William Findlay Maclean: Do the railway companies show a disposition to provide an increased number of cars for the trade V Has the situation been improved in that respect V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. My information is that the railway companies have shown a disposition to put on all the rolling stock they could get. That question was gone into very fully during the early part of last winter, at the time the car shortage was very acute, and I think everybody who had anything to do with the railway companies was satisfied that they were doing their best, although they were seriously to blame for not forseeing what was to come, and making adequate provision for it. Since that time they have been making every effort to provide adequate rolling stock and prevent a shortage in the future. Whether they will have sufficient [DOT]cars to move the next crop it is difficult to say at present. That depends to some extent on the deliveries to the cars and to , Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
some extent on Providence as to the amount of wheat there will be to be shipped out. No one can form any very definite idea as to that until practically the last week of the harvest. My observation in Manitoba and the North-west Territories is that people have very little idea of how much wheat they are going to have until a few days before the wheat is ready to be cut. The climatic condition of the last two weeks practically decides whether the crop will be a phenomenal one or an average one. The present indications are that in the North-west Territories it will be very good, in some parts of Manitoba it will be very good, and in other parts somewhat light. On the whole it is not to be expected that it well be as large as the crops of the last three years.


William Findlay Maclean: Has there been any improvement in regard to elevators and storehouses V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There has been an enormous increase in the amount of elevator accommodation. Elevators are being constructed rapidly all over the country, andi the accommodation will be vastly greater than it was last year.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I might point out also that a good deal of the trouble during the last two years was due to the increased acreage sown. Many of the farmers had no granaries, and as soon as they threshed their wheat they were anxious to put it in cars or in an elevator. In other words, they wished the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to furnish them with granary and warehouse accommodation at a moment's notice. That will of course largely improve itself as time goes on. Not only have a great many elevators been built by the grain companies at the railway stations, and the railway companies have increased their elevator accommodation, but many farmers have built granaries. At the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Montreal Transportation Company report that they are carrying cargoes westward, and are coming east light, because all the grain is out.
On section 3,


Mr. BOYD.: Is it the intention to have those commissioners located at AVinnipeg or to place them at other imints throughout the province ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They will have to be located at outlying points. The difficulty which arises with the commissioner at AVinnipeg is that he is liable to get demands from different parts of the country at the same time, which necessitate a very large amount of travel and delay. They will have to be located at points whence they can get readily to places where complaints arise. The commissioner at AVinnipeg will have general supervision over their duties.

On section 9,


Nathaniel Boyd: Wouid the hon. minister please explain this section ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The law as it stood made some provision requiring the elevator men to take in wheat whenever it was offered. They claimed that they were liable-they were advised that they were liable-if they did not take the grain when it was offered, even if their elevators were full and they could not get cars to ship. This provides that they shall not he required to take the grain in when they have not room for it.
On section 10,


Mr. DAYIS.: As I read this clause, only the farmer who has a full car load of grain can take advantage of this provision of the Act. Now, there are a great many people living at a distance from the railway who are entirely left out of the benefits of this clause. A man living within ten or twelve miles of a railway station can call for a car and load it. But the man living at a distance must use the elevator. Now, there are many new settlers coming into this country who have not 1,000 or 1,500 bushels of wheat to ship the first year. But if two or three farmers together have enough wheat of a certain grade in the elevator to make up a carload, why' should they not be allowed to combine and order a car ? If this is not allowed, the elevator people, knowing that these small growers cannot get cars, will have them completely at their mercy, and will buy their wheat at what they choose to give for it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I suppose that what my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) means is that if say three farmers, none of whom have enough grain to make a carload, could, by combining their warehouse receipts, make up a carload, they should be allowed to order a car to take the grain out.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is exactly what I mean.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, I may explain that, as the matter stood under the Act of 1902, we had given the farmer the privilege of ordering a ear to a loading platform or into the yard. But we did not give him the privilege of ordering a car to the elevator, even though he had his grain there. This is to cover that defect, and to enable a farmer who has his grain stored to order a car to the elevator and ship it himself and sell it direct. I do not know that there would be any objection to the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), but I would like to hear what the other members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories have to say about it before it is agreed to.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: I would remind the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) that the parties to whom he refers are still able to combine, as many did during last season, and fill their car at a loading platform. But, as the hon. minister has stated, the defect of the Bill last year was that no farmer could compel the railway company to place a car for him at the elevator. The railway companies refused to place cars at the elevators, consequently elevators were not used in that way. This section has been introduced into the Bill to overcome that difficulty.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would point out to the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) that a man living twenty-five miles from the railway station is not in a position to load a car from a platform, as is a man living near the railway station. When he brings his grain he has to put it in an elevator. If he is given the privilege of combining with others to ship it, I cannot see that anybody would be injured. And these are the people that require to be provided for. Very often, the first year, they have not large crops or large means. If the law can be so amended so as to secure for them three cents or four cents per bushel that they would not otherwise receive, it ought to be given them.	.


Mr. SCOTT.: This matter was given very serious consideration by the delegates both from the Grain Dealers' Association and the Grain Growers' Association who have visited Ottawa since the commencement of this session, and who spent not only hours, but days considering the various points coming up under these amendments, and who are largely responsible for the shape in which these amendments now appear. The point raised by the hon. member for Saskatchewan was given the utmost consideration. As has been explained by the minister, an additional privilege is being given by this section. Under the amendments adopted last year the farmers did not have the privilege of ordering a car to be spotted at the elevator to be loaded direct there, but were limited, so far as direct loading is concerned, to the platforms and flat warehouses. The difficulty found in making the provision my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) suggests is this : It was recognized that this extra privilege that is being given to the farmers of loading through the elevators will open a pretty wide door for-I suppose we will have to use the word ' fraud,' through perhaps that is an extreme term-a prettywide door for fraud on the part of managers of elevators. These men may easily make arrangements with certain farmers or other people to order cars to elevators-perhaps people who do not own grain at all-simply to get for these managers more cars to load than they are entitled to. In later provisions of this Bill, it will be seen that very strict regulation is made with regard to the

distribution of cars. The principle of first come first served is endeavoured to be followed in this amendment, as in the case of the amendments adopted last year. My hon. friend was at some of the meetings, with myself and other North-west members, that were held in this city by the delegates I speak of. Personally I quite appreciate the disadvantage accruing to these farmers who do not grow as much grain as a carload, and f would be pleased if some reasonable suggestion could be made to their advantage. But up to the present time I have been unable, and the delegates were unable to agree upon any suggestion to give to the farmers the additional advantage, those of them who do not grow as much as a carload of wheat, without leaving the door open for an abuse of the privilege which is being granted to other farmers who do grow more than a carload of wheat, and who will be able to take advantage of the amendment.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I do not understand the arguments of the hon. gentleman. He says the door has been opened to a certain extent by allowing farmers the right to ship from the elevator. If you are opening the door by allowing a man who has a carload of wheat to come in and ship out of the elevator, what difference is it going to make if you let three men put their wheat together, and to ship it as a carload ? Where will you draw the line ? If the object is to shut off fraud by not allowing elevator men to get more cars than they are entitled to, you give them as much opportunity for fraud when you give the right to get a car for one man who has a carload of wheat as for three men combined who have a carload. The only difference is that you are protecting the poor man as against the elevator man.


Thomas Walter Scott: The elevator men do not put any farmer in that position, because he still has the safeguard of the flat warehouse and the loading platform.


Thomas Osborne Davis: As a matter of fact, the principle was introduced of allowing grain to be shipped through elevators in order to protect people a. long distance from the railway. As the Act stood before, the only people that could take advantage of it were those living within 10 or 12 miles of the railway There are many people in the North-west who live 15, 20 or 30 miles away from a railway, and as the Act stood, these people could not take advantage of it. It is' impossible for a man who has to get a car and hold it for 24 hours, to bring in his wheat 30 miles and hold that car. This was done to allow men at a distance to take advantage of this Act. The North-west Grain Growers' Association themselves proposed to give the elevators 25 per cent of the cars,, or something to that effect, on account of their having to handle grain from a distance. This was introduced to meet Mr. SCOTT.
that difficulty, but I want it to go so far as that the poor man can take * advantage of it just as well as the wholesale man who has a carload of wheat.


Nathaniel Boyd: I had not the advantage of meeting the grain growers and the grain dealers in agreeing upon the amendments that have been proposed to this Act, but 1 do know that last grain season attempts were made, and in some cases succeeded, whereby the grain dealers were able to get men to have cars placed at the elevators for them, in cases where they merely held the grain a day or two. As I understand it, this clause is put in to prevent that sort of thing. I see later on there is a provision made for prosecuting any person that attempts to take advantage of the Act in that way. I understand that the dealers, or rather the farmers who have elevators of their own, or who were interested in farmers' elevators, wished that cars should be placed at the elevator. While I appreciate what the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) says in regard to the poor man, it is not very often that a man having three or four hundred bushels of wheat asks to have it stored, he usually sells it. It is the man that has a carload of grain that seeks to ship it himself, and if he lias not enough for a carload, it is customary for him to get enough of his neighbours to combine with him to make up a carload. Now in order to do what the hon. member fo- Saskatchewan suggests, you will need to be very careful so that a man owning an elevator will not do as some did last year, and as many would like to do, that is, to get men who possibly have sold him 200 or 300 bushels of wheat to say, I have wheat at that elevator, and for that reason I want a car. The elevator nmn believes that, and he is enabled to get cars that he would possibly not be entitled to under the provisions of the Act.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If he was going to do anything like that it would be easier for him to get one man to do it than to get three. What is the difference ? Supposing three men owned 500 bushels of wheat each, a car holds 1,500 bushels, and what is the difference whether one man has 1,500 bushels or three men, if it is all shipped out of the same car, if they are willing to put their wheat into the same car and ship it together ? One man orders the car and I do not see any objection to that. If three men who have so much grain in the elevator-and they put it together and ship it, they are open to prosecution if they want to go together and produce their receipts, why should they not be allowed to do so ? If you do not do that you are simply putting these men, who have a small quantity of wheat at the mercy of the grain dealer or the speculator. They know he cannot take advantage of the' Grain Act to get the car. The man who has a

carload can get two or three cents more fof it, and the poor man who has not got so much will get a lower price.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 understand that my hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr Douglas) agrees with the views expressed by my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), while for myself, of course, I only desire that the clause shall be satisfactory to the producers more especially. I can see that a difficulty might arise in the way suggested by the member for Macdonald. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) says that no difficulty can arise about three farmers who own wheat combining to make up a carload. No difficulty can arise when it is honestly done. If there are three bona fide farmers who have wheat in an elevator and they combine and order a car in good faith, no harm arises. That would happen in my judgment very seldom. I think, as the member for Macdonald has said that the case of a farmer who has less than a carload of wheat and puts it in an elevator is a very rare case, and it would not be likely to occur so often as to make a practical measure of relief necessary. Under any possible legislation we might provide there would be some cases which will not be adequately met. What we have to aim at in making these amendments is how best to enable the farmer to have complete freedom in shipping his grain. I confess that either way some difficulty may arise. But the cases in which the farmer would have so small a quantity of grain as less than a carload, and would have it stored in an elevator, would seem to be so few that it would be hardly necessary to make provision to meet such a case.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am willing to admit that if a farmer knows he cannot takejidvantage of the Act he is not going to store his grain in an elevator, and he will sell his grain for whatever he can get for it.


Thomas Walter Scott: If there is a fiat warehouse he is not at the mercy of the elevator.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I do not know how a farmer is going to be able to ship his grain from a flat warehouse.


Thomas Walter Scott: We are talking about communities of farmers.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If a farmer knows he cannot ship it in that way he will sell it, but it does not follow that if he can use the privilege in such a way that he can take advantage of it, although if two or three were able to store their grain together they might take advantage of the Act and get a higher price for their wheat.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to know whether the storage capacity has been increased since last year ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, I think it has been to a considerable extent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am sure the committee would like to know in what proportion, if some of our hon. friends from the west were in a position to tell us.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have a very casual knowledge, but I should think possibly 20 per cent would represent the increase that has been made in the elevator capacity.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There has been a very large increase at Port Arthur during the last year.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand that the Canadian Pacific terminal elevator capacity will be almost doubled this fall as compared with last fall.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I am not mistaken the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Cah-adian Northern will have a capacity of 15,000,000 bushels this year.


Mr. McEWEN.: I do not see any reason why, if three farmers have a carload of grain and they have three different certificates for that amount, two of them cannot assign their certificates to one of them and he cannot ship the grain.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Is there any legislation that prevents that ?	.


Thomas Walter Scott: The trouble is that it would create a greater difficulty in preventing the irregular dealings that have been described by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). That difficulty is going to be serious enough as the section stands, and in the event of, the adoption of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) it would be simply impossible to procure conviction and punishment of this sort of violation of the law. I say that even as the section stands the difficulty will perhaps be great, and the delegates fully recognized the fact, but they deemed the provision necessary for the reason that without it the farmers' elevators are put out of business altogether. What are known as farmers' elevators are elevators put up by communities of farmers to enable them to ship their own grain from these elevators, and under the law as it stood last year they were not able to do business. The grain-growers while deeming this a proper provision, recognized that they were opening a door to irregular dealing, to the putting up of jobs whereby an elevator manager might enter into collusion with farmers outside to get more cars than he was entitled to in the car distribution. The case of the farmers' elevators was deemed by the delegates to be so important that they considered it necessary to put in such a provision, but although they gave the fullest possible consideration to the claims of the farmers for whom the hon. member for Saskatchewan speaks, and although these

farmers had the entire sympathy of the delegates, they were not able, nor were any of the members of parliament or senators who attended the meetings of the delegates, able to suggest such a provision as would not leave the door too wide open and make it absolutely impossible to prevent irregular dealing on the part of elevator owners.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It appears that there is a good deal in what the h.on. member for Huron (Mr. McEwen) has said that if three farmers had a certain amount of wheat) in an elevator and two of them sold it to the third one, he should have a right to ship it. But, where would he come in under this Bill as you have it now ? If three men have a carload of wheat and two sell it to the third man, would the third man have the right to ship it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I think so.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I beg to move an amendment to section 11, as follows :
Provided that this subsection shall not be held to limit or curtail the rights of any applicant where such applicant has any grain stored or binned as above stated.
When this Bill was drawn it was suggested that the reading of section 11 along with section 58, which provides for the distribution of cars, might be held to imply an interpretation of the rights of applicants which is not intended. I am asking for this amendment simply to make it absolutely clear that section 58 is not intended to control the interpretation of section 11, which deals with the rights of applicants.
Section, as amended, agreed to.>
On section 12,	t


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR moved :: That after the words ' in the ' in the second line the words ' where the same first occurs ' be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I move to strike out the words ' one month ' in the 28th line and substitute therefor ' ten days.' When notice is given by the warehouse man that the grain is out of condition the law requires that it shall be removed by the owner within one month, but that is considered an unreasonably long time to keep the grain, and so ten days has been substituted.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 14,


Thomas Osborne Davis: Can two or more parties use that warehouse and still order cars to it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. I movie that the words ' of not less than 3,000 bushels capacity ' be inserted Mr. SCOTT.
after the word 'warehouse.' That was in the old Act, and after full consideration it seems to me that it is not good policy to permit warehouses of less than 3,000 bushels capacity. Every member of the House whom I have spoken to on the subject agraes to that view.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am bound to say that I do not approve of this suggestion. I do not think that we ought to commence travelling backwards in the way of restrictions, and last year it was the opinion of the North-west members and a very large majority of the people who advised them, that the old restriction with regard to the size of the flat warehouses should be removed. It was removed, and for my part I certainly do not approve of reenacting it. So far as I know, there is no person in a position to make a complaint of the operation of last year's Act with that restriction removed. The question, of granaries was raised by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to-night, and it is a question that is very generally mentioned when we are dealing with grain blockades or any matter connected with the grain trade. I have before pointed out in this House that a farmer in the prairie country who is going to do his business to the best advantage cannot afford to have his granary on his farm, if his farm is far removed from the railway. He is bound to have his storage space right beside the railway in order that he may be at the best advantage. The provision for the flat warehouses as the Act was amended last year enabled any farmer, no matter what his output, to store his grain on the railway track, and those farmers, who were championed by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) to-night, are those who are chiefly affected by this amendment. A farmer who grows 1,500 or 2,000 bushels of grain was permitted by the Act of last year to build his granary beside the railway, and that privilege enabled him to do his business most advantageously.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Do you know of any flat warehouses that have been erected of less than 3,000 bushels capacity ?
Mi-. SCOTT. Not that I am aware of.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am quite certain that I never saw one and I am quite sure that my hon. friend (ill-. Scott) will never see one whether this law is changed or not. It seems to me that to give authority by an Act of parliament to require a railway company to give a site for a warehouse to hold grain of less than 3,000 bushels capacity, is an absurdity Suppose they started to erect small granaries of 1,000 bushels capacity, these would string out along the railway and fill up the sidings, and while it might be convenient for the farmers who happened to get in

first, it would be a great inconvenience to c the general public, and would impede the < shipment of grain and generally congest [DOT] the business. The best proof that this is a sound view is that although under last year's Act there was no restriction, these small warehouses were not put up, because it would not pay, under the circumstances, to erect them. It may not be absolutely essential that there should be a limit, but it seems to hie that the limit suggested is a reasonable one, and that it would be wise to insert such a provision.


Thomas Walter Scott: When I come to think of it, X believe I can give the hon. minister instances of warehouses that have been erected of less than 3,000 bushels capacity'. In Balgonie, McLean, Qu'Appelle, Indian Head, Sintaluta, and other points, there were last year and the year before scores of granaries put up by farmers for the purpose of getting their grain stored beside the railway track while the roads were passable. While I am not positive about the size of these granaries, I am pretty certain that scores of them put up at these towns were of a capacity of less than 3.000 bushels. My impression is that the average was 1,200 or 1,500 bushels capacity, and some of them -were put right on tlid railway company's premises alongside of the track to save the necessity of more frequent handling than would otherwise be required.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I noticed myself in the riding of my hon. friend from Bast Assini-boia some of these so-called warehouses stretched out along the track and built something like a box car with a little round roof. If you are going to allow' every man in the country to build one of these things on the railw'ay premises around the station, I do not know how people are going to do business. The law requires them to cover them w'ith metal, and that I suppose prevented them from building on the railyvay premises before. If a man wants to build a flat warehouse, if it is not going to hold 3,000 bushels of grain, he should not be allow'ed to build it on the railroad.


James Moffat Douglas: I think the hon. member for West Assiniboia forgets that most of these temporary warehouses in my constituency are on sidings. This section requires them to be on a siding or on some sw'itch in connection with the railway. Most of these temporary granaries may be on the railway property, but they are not on the track or on a sw'itch. I should not oppose the utmost freedom. In the Bill of last year everything in the shape of a restriction was removed, and very largely at my suggestion ; but I dislike very much to' compel a railway company to provide such a number of sites on a common switch as might be in requisition. A building holding 3,000 bushels is a small building. I know that from personal experience, having built temporary granaries, and having shift-251
ed them from one part of the farm to another. Did I contemplate building a flat warehouse and asking that a site on a sw'itch should be furnished by the railw'ay'^ company, I w'ould not for a moment think of putting up a building that would] hold less than 3,000 bushels. Some phraseology might be adopted leaving it largely to the discretion of the grain commissioner to determine the size of the building.


Thomas Walter Scott: My own impression is that the railway company has very little to fear so long as we leave the restriction, w'hich was the only one left last year, providing that the flat warehouse must be covered w'ith metal. So far as I know', no complaint has been made on the part of the railway company that any person has built a flat warehouse and covered it with metal, of less than 3,000 bushels capacity. It is well known that a majority of these warehouses were not on the railway, simply because of that restriction. It would be a great advantage to those farmers who are compelled to haul their grain or leave it .on the farm until the road breaks up in the spring, to have the granaries on the sidings. It would save them an extra haul.
Amendment of Minister of the Interior withdrawn, and section agreed to.
On section 17,


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I w'ish to move to amend this clause so as to provide that the platform shall be eight feet wide and 54 feet long. The object of the change is to specify the size of the platform in the Act, which was requested by the railw'ay companies, and I think it is reasonable. The height is left to be decided by the commissioner, because that is important with respect to loading. I also wish to amend the latter part of the section so as to! provide that no loading platform shall be erected at sidings for crossings only.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Would that cover sidings outside of where there is a station yard ? It is well known that on some portions of the lines running through new portions of the country there is a station every twenty-five miles, with a siding between from w'hich the farmers ship their wheat. Would this cover that case ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I should think that if shipments of any class of merchandise are made at such a crossing, it could not be called a crossing siding, and the company w'ould be compelled to erect a platform.


Thomas Osborne Davis: But it is only for the purpose of shipping grain at that season of the year. In my own district there are four or five of those sidings, and I w'ould ! like to have it understood that these can be used.
; The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR. - The point of my hon. friend is this : That



where stations are distant some twenty miles from each other and the companies have a siding between the two stations, we should provide that the sidings may be used. I have no objection to that, and I would move that the clause be amended by inserting the words ' Or upon a siding where there is no station ' between the words ' yards ' and ' at.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 58, subsection 13,


Thomas Osborne Davis: Before that is passed, I would ask the minister if that would take in the sidings I mentioned a while ago V The agent in my town has a couple of sidings outside the town under his control. Does this section provide for orders for cars being left at these sidings V As the section reads, I do not think it does.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I will look up that point and speak about it later on.	-
On section 58, subsection 4,


Thomas Osborne Davis: This section provides that a person failing to notify the agent has to pay car rental at the rate of 25 cents per hour for each hour the car is held for him.
I think that is rather a heavy fine. A poor man may happen to be four hours late and there is a fine of a dollar, and a dollar is a good deal to a settler who is not well oft.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: A man cannot expect to have a car put on the siding for him and allow it to stand.


Thomas Osborne Davis: No, but the fine might be so much a day.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: This is to impose a penalty for delay which may be injurious to other people. I move that in subsection 13, after the word ' loading platform ' the words ' or at any siding ' be inserted. That will cover the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nathaniel Boyd: What is the meaning of this subsection 2
Applicants may make order according to their requirements, and where an applicant requires two or more cars, he shall make two or more applications as the case may be.
When may he order two cars or how ? The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR. He can order as many as he likes, but under a subsequent provision, he can only get one until all others are given at least one. My hon. friend will see that section 59 covers the point he has raised.
On section 61,


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I move to strike out the words ' on the Pacific coast,' and insert the words ' west of the I Hon. Mr SIFTON.
boundary between British Columbia and the North-west Territories.' This is to enable a railway company to fill orders for grain west of British Columbia boundary line which they cannot do under the Act as it stands at present. It has happened during the last season that railway companies have received large orders for shipments from persons in Manitoba and the North-west Territories to some parts of British Columbia or the Pacific coast. Under the law as it was they were unable to fill those orders because they had to be shipped in large specified quantities, and they could not get cars all at the same time to any elevator or warehouse, and the result was that they could not take the orders at ail. The railway companies were under a penalty if they furnished cars which they brought to the station in any other way than as provided by this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 62,
Nathaniel Boyd: I want to move another clause, and I think this is the proper place to propose it. I will read it :
These commissioners .shall semi-daily, as soon as possible after nine o'clock in the morning and twelve o'clock noon, on every day between the 31st day of August in each year and the first day of April t'he following year communicate by telegraph to the railway station agent at places in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories where grain elevators are situated, the price of No. 1 Manitoba hard wheat and of No. 1 Northern wheat at Fort William, at the said respective hours, and each such agent shall immediately after the receipt of such telegram publish the same by writing it legibly on a blacboard in a convenient place accessible to the public at such station.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that if this was done, I think, it would to a great extent do away with much of this trouble that we have had as regards the loading of cars and the loading platforms.
I understand that such a provision prevails in certain states of the union, and it has worked very acceptably. It is true there will be some difficulty in carrying it out, but there should be none, for the reason that in several of the towns In Manitoba and the North-west Territories the price of grain in Minneapolis and Chicago is telegraphed every half hour. Now if the farmer could go to the station and ascertain the price of these grades of wheat at Fort William, at nine o'clock in the morning and at one o'clock in the afternoon, he would know exactly what price he is receiving for his wheat, and what rate the elevator pan or the track buyer is allowing him for it and what profit he is receiving. Then if he is satisfied with the profit that the grain dealer is allowing him he can sell him his wheat, if he is not satisfied with it he can ask for a car and ship it. I think if this system was adopted it would to a great extent do away with a great deal of trouble

we have had in the past with regard to this phase of the question. I brought this matter up before the minister last year and he requested me not to press it. I was not aware this matter was being brought up tonight, and in order to give him notice of it, I handed this motion to the clerk.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think there is something to be said in favour of the suggestion that the hon. gentleman has made. The difficulty is in carrying it out. If I remember aright, the objection which obtained in my mind to this proposition when it was made before, was in regard to the commissioner taking the responsibility of deciding what the prices were and sending them out, because the probability is that the community at large would regard the commissioner as being responsible for these prices, and in cases of dispute as to accuracy, no doubt the department would be held responsible. There may be some way to work out the plan which my hon. friend has suggested. I have not given the subject any special consideration since the matter was before the House on a former occasion. But there is this to be said against it, that while the matter has been discussed and while every conceivable phase of the Grain Act has been discussed during the last year very fully by the grain growers who certainly do not lack full knowledge of the situation and the difficulties that they have encountered up to the present time, I believe none of them have suggested that this particular provision should be inserted in the Act. However, I am quite willing that it should receive proper consideration and I will allow the matter to stand over, if my hon. friend agrees to that view. I will leave the Bill in committee, think it over in the course of the next three or four days and get such information as I can upon the subject. I will ask the opinion of the commissioner as to whether he thinks it practicable or not and bring it before the committee again at a later day.


Robert Laird Borden: I was endeavouring to assist my hon. friend from Macdonald in regard to drafting something that would cover the case, but I do not know whether it is in proper form, as it has been done very hastily. There may be some difficulty in this matter if the commissioner is not at some particular point all the time. Is the commissioner stationed in any particular point, or does he move around the country ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, he is not at any particular point, but that difficulty could be got over in this way: He has an office in Winnipeg, and he has an assistant there, and, of course, the prices are quoted there every hour of the day. There would be no difficulty from that standpoint, because his assistant could send out the prices as well as he could himself.
251J


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty that the hon. minister speaks of as regards the question of liability would be a very serious one, and if the proposition of my hon. friend from Macdonald were adopted it would be very desirable to add, to the clause which has been drafted, some provision to the effect that neither the commissioner nor the government should be in any way responsible for mistakes, because mistakes sometimes occur in the transmission of messages. There will be no possibility of any wilful mistake, but it might occur, as the hon. minister says, in the transmission of the message or from wrong information received by the commissioner.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think there is a very serious practical difficulty, with all due deference to my hon. friend from Macdonald. Some years ago, undoubtedly, farmers did suffer from lack of knowledge as to what was the price of grain, but I do not think it can be said at the present time that they have any difficulty in finding out what grain is selling for. When they come into town or come to a station, they have no difficulty in finding out what grain is selling for. The railway station agent is there and he gets the information, and there is nearly always more than one buyer. Still, I will go into it and see what can be done, if anything, to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think the hon. minister is mistaken in regard to that, because I know that there are times when as much as 10 cents a bushel was made by grain men in handling wheat. If the farmers knew what the price of wheat was, knowing the freight to Fort William, they would get cars under circumstances of that Kind, ship themselves, and the dealers could not treat them in that way. The hon. minister says that farmers have no difficulty in ascertaining the price. The dealers themselves know the price. They get it from their houses every morning and every day at noon, and if the dealers can get that information there is no reason why the farmers should not have it from the commissioner. I have thought a great deal upon the subject, and I believe it would be a great benefit to the people of the North-west Territories, and I think if the hon. minister gives it as much attention as I have he will see that it is possible to provide for it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If it is such a benefit as the hon. member for Macdonald says, how is it that the delegates of the Grain Grower's' Association sent down here by the farmers did not advocate it ? They never made any suggestion in that direction, and 1 think they can be pretty well trusted to look after the interests of the farmers in a matter of that kind.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do no think that all the wisdom in the North-west Territories was

confined to the three or four grain growers who were sent down here. I have had opportunities of discussing this question with a great many farmers in the west, and they have expressed a desire to have such a provision as I have suggested.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The Grain Growers' Association represents the farmers of all parts of the North-west Territories. All the amendments to the Act that they desired were discussed, and when the delegates came down here representing the farmers, if they had required this amendment they would have asked for it.


Nathaniel Boyd: Probably if I had had an opportunity of discussing the question with them, that no doubt, the hon. member for Saskatchewan had, this amendment might have been engrafted on the Bill.


Thomas Osborne Davis: They were here for a week.


Nathaniel Boyd: I was not invited to take part in their meetings.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Neither was I.


David Henderson: I was going to suggest that the hon. member for Macdonald probably had not an opportunity of bringing this before the representatives of the association, and that the hon. member for Saskatchewan, knowing that the hon. member for Macdonald had brought the matter up last year, in all probability overlooked or intentionally neglected to bring it to the attention of the delegates. I remember that this question was discussed here last year, and I "thought the idea put forward by tlie hon. member for Macdonald an excellent one. It seems to me to be a grand thing that the farmers in the North-west should be able to get information not only once a day, but at all hours of the day as to the price at which grain is selling at Fort William or Winnipeg, or at leading points, so that he will know that he is not; being taken advantage of. I am quite sure that the hon. minister can make provision for this, and I think the people of the North-west will be very much indebted to the hon. member for Macdonald for bringing this matter up.
Mr. SCOTT If my recollection is right this is not the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Macdonald last year. I think he suggested last year that the railway companies should be compelled to 'furnish this information at every shipping point. This is a point that was not overlooked by the delegates from the Grain Growers' Association. It was discussed by them at various meetings, but was not pressed. They appeared to take the view that it was an unnecessary provision to add to the Act. I do not know what the custom, or practice, or system, may be which is prevailing in Manitoba, but in my own section of the North-west Territories the farmers themselves have taken steps to possess themselves daily of the information from Winnipeg or Fort William. As a matter of fact, the information comes from Winnipeg. They have certain arrangements made by which they are advised from time to time, sometimes more than once a day, when changes take place in the price. These delegates did not appear to wish that such a provision should be added to the Bill.
Section allowed to stand.
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business shall be taken to-morrow?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections is set down for to-morrow. For the government business, we shall have the resolutions and Bills which stand in the name of the Minister of Justice, and it may be that we shall be able to take the lead resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 5, 1903.