1904-08-08

QUESTIONS.


Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	When did the contract for carrying the mail from O'Leary to West Cape expire ?
2.	Were public tenders called for ?
3.	What are the names of -the persons tendering ; and what was the amount of each tender ?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General.) This -service had been performed for several years by John Jelly who had shown himself an excellent contractor. His contract expired June 30, 1904. In the public interest the department was desirous of retaining his services as contractor, and inquired whether he would be prepared to renew the contract for another term at the former contract price, namely, $103.04 per annum. This he was unwilling to do, and accordingly the service was put up for tender when the late contractor -tendered, his price being $160, or $15 more than that of Mr. PREFONTAINE.
the lowest tenderer. It was deemed advisable, if possible, to retain Mr. Jelly's services, and he was again given an opportunity of retaining his contract, but upon condition of his performing it at the price of the lowest tenderer. This he ultimately decided to do, and accordingly the contract was awarded to him a-t the sum of $145 per annum.


POSTAL RATE.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	In what year was the postal rate on mail matter in Canada reduced from five cents to three cents per half ounce ?
2.	In what year was the weight of letters passing through the mails in Canada for three cents increased from one-half ounce to one ounce ?
3.	When was the three-cent postal rate in Canada reduced to two cents ?
4.	When were post cards first used in Canada, by order of the Post Office Department ?
5.	When was the newspaper postage removed in Canada, and when re-imposed, as now existing ?
6.	When was parcel post increased in Canada?


Hou. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	If the first part of this question has reference to postal rates on letters the reduction from five cents to three cents per half ounce was authorized by 31 Victoria, the unit of weight from one-half ounce to one ounce, 52 Victoria.
2.	The reduction in the letter rate from three cents to two cents was affected by 61 Victoria.
3.	The use of post cards in Canada was authorized by departmental order No. 7, 1871.
4.	Postage upon newspapers has never been wholly removed in Canada.
5.	There was a partial abolition of sucb postage by 45 Victoria, and a slight reimposition of such rates by 61 Victoria and III. Edward.
6.	This last question is not understood.


RAILWAY BELT LANDS.
Mr. EARLE asked :: 1.	Adverting to the amendment to the Regulations respecting Dominion Lands within the Railway Belt, in the province of British Columbia (Order in Council of July 13th, 1904), to how many individuals will the retroactive provision of' the amendment to the regulations apply ?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the individuals who have already taken out homestead entries for 80 acres or less, within the said Railway Belt ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister)
1. Fifty.

2.	List of homesteaders holding land whose area not exceeded 80 acres in British Colombia and their address.

Name.
Address.
2180
2210
2250
2260
2271
2288
2303
Malcolm McIntyre.
Win, Hounow


Thos.   J.@: A llt-n. ...


Ed.   A.@: Dalziel...
T. W. Outertridge .
R. W. Bruhn	
Kusta Ulvila	
Robt. Brown	
John Burgland	
F. S. Chubb	
Fred. Klein	
Joseph Lango	
Chas. Stofcz	
E. Person.
2306 Fred. Dean
2316
2327
2350
2356 2378 2396 2400 2414 2429 2448 2465 2481 2536 2542 2554 2591 2595 2628 2638 2656 2672 2083 2688 2765 2791 2797 2809 2818 2820 2843 2845
Dun. Mclnnis	
F.	Parry	
A. J. Colquhon .... R. W. Hodgson.... P. J. Morrow	
Samuel Mercer....
P. Lamanna , . . . D. Ford	
G.	B. Ward	
A. Johnson	
R. N. Fenton	
W. Hyndman ..
H.	E. Beedle	
G.	Genier	
J. McLean	
F. H. Baines	
Peter Stacy	
Jas. Guest


Hon.  H. R.@: Bryden. ...
Don. Gordon


Win.   C@: Veltie ...	. ...
Ah. Pak	
Jno. Brown	
H.	A. Rodgers	 W. C. L. Green . .
C.	A. Langslow. ...
W. Reid	
A. A. Mercer ....
T. J. W. Graham. .


Jos.   E.@: Jones....


Geo.   W.@: Harwood..
F. J. Gorle	
A. Topham	
D.	Wix	
Notch Hill, B.C. Tapping Siding, B.C. Glenora, B.C.
New Westminster, B.C. Vernon, B.C.
Malakwa, B.C.
Salmon Arm, B.C.
Notch Hill, B.C.
Revelstoke Station, B.C. Tp. 2 W. Coast Mer. Revelstoke Station, B.C. Craigalliche, B.C.
Notch Hill, B.C.
Mara, B.C.
Port Moody, B.C.
Kault, B.C.
Savonna, B.C.
Sumass, B.C.
Revelstoke Station, B.C. Tp. 40 E. Coast Mer.
No address.
Tp. 18 E. Coast.
Mission City, B.C. Craigellachie, B.C.
Dead wood, B.C. Enderby. B.C.
Salmon Arm, B.C. Kamloops, B.C.
Tp. 40 E. Coast Mer. Enderby, B.C. Revelstoke Station, B.C. Tnpping Siding, B.C. Langlv Prairie, B.C. Kamloops, B.C.
Monte Creek, B.C. Revelstoke Station, B.C. Sea Bird Island.
Mud Bay, B.C.
Kault, B.C.
Kamloops, B.C.
Kault, B.C.
Salmon Arm, B.C. Hazelmere, B.C.
Monte Creek, B.C.
Kault, B.C.
Winnipeg, Man. Vancouver City, B.C. Hazelmere, B.C. * 1


MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE INSURANCE.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that in the case of Foster vs. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York, an appeal to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal in England, which has decided that the company must make restitution-must pay back to the insured principal and interest at 4 per cent, and at the same time pay all charges ? That the House of Lords has given judgment against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York ?
2.	If so, what steps will be taken by the Insurance Department to protect policy-holders who may take action to recover by recision all the premiums paid by them, with interest ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We have no information on the subject ; no communication has reached us.


SALES OF PUBLIC LANDS.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Has the government, or the Department of the Interior, sold any public lands during the two last years ending the 30th June, 1904 ?
2.	If so, what lands have been sold ?
3.	What amount of land, and for what price has it been sold in each of the afore-mentioned years ?


Rt.   H@: The first part of the inquiry, of course, can be answered, that we have sold, as we do every year, more or less lands. The total area sold in 1903 was 137,270 acres. Outside of this the department is quite unable to give the information, as all tlie land records must be gone over in order to answer such a question and this will take a number of days to do.


COTTON MILLS AT VALLEYFIELD.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Has the government, or any of its members, received communication of the following documents :-
Valleyfield, 21st March, 1904.
To His- Honour the Mayor and the Councillors of the town of De Salaberry de Valleyfield.
The petition of the undersigned ratepayers of the said town respectfully repre'sents :
That for some months back the cotton company has not given the working people of this town the work that they have a right to expect;
That the company has decreased considerably the number of its working people ;
That those who are still employed lose one or more days every fortnight, which is a source of considerable uneasiness in the town ;
That as the town, since the establishment of the manufactory in Valleyfield, has given the said company, either in the form of bonuses or in that of exemptions from and commutations of taxes, a sum amounting to two or three hundred thousand dollars, and probably over that amount, it is important that the council sees that the said company fulfils its obligations ;
That this state of things causes an uneasiness in the towm, and that the causes of or reasons for such a state of affairs are unknown ;
The petitioners beg of the council to kindly take their present petition into serious consideration and to see that the measures to be taken under tho circumstances be adopted without delay.
(Signed)
L. J. H. Langevin, Ferdinand Laniel, Dr. M. Lefebvre,
J. M. Guindon,
S. Fortier J. H. Leboeuf Joseph Morand,
Eusdbe Dion,
D. Dion,
O. P. Prieur,
N. A. Ostingy, Emile Soly, Arthur Belanger, J. F. SSvigny,

Wilfrid Beaudry, Charles Morrier, Jos. Cardinal Leandro Gendron, T. Patenaude, Alfred Gobeil,
N. S. Martin,
A. H. Besner,
J. Gilbert Chasles,
D. A. Daignault,
Jos. Arthur Gauthier, J. C. Choquette, Edouard Denis,
J. F. Beique,
S.	W. Vebert,
Albert Deguire,
W. Bourdon,	..
Louis Barrette.
Valleyfield, March 31, 1904.
To His Worship the Mayor and Council of the town of S. de Valleyfield.
Gentlemen,-I am in receipt of your esteemed favour of the 21st instant, inclosing a resolution passed by your council at the request of a number of citizens of your town, asking to know the reason why this company have considerably reduced the number of their employees, and also why they are running short time, and in reply would say that I have placed this matter in the hands of our manager, Mr. Fred. Lacey, who will inform yourself and council fully re this matter in a day or two.
Yours truly,
For the Montreal Cotton Company,



S. H. EWING,

[Stage Direction]
President.
Valleyfield, April 6, 1904.
To His Worship the Mayor and Councillors of the town of Salaberry de Valleyfield.
Dear Sir and Gentlemen,-Mr. Ewing, the president of this company, has placed in my hands the petition which you forwarded to him. I regret very much that any action of this sort was taken by our townspeople, as no one interested in the welfare of the town can take the present condition more seriously than the management of this company.
Since the preferential tariff came into force, we have been much affected by it, and as the preference gradually increased, the effect became greater. This, in addition to the crisis which now exists in the manufacture of cotton goods all over the world, has proved a serious blow to all of our Canadian cotton industries. I do not doubt that all the signers of the petition, as well as yourself and your honourable council, are well aware of the conditions existing in the cotton trade to-day.
With regard to the cotton itself, we have little to worry about in this respect in Valley-field, as we are well supplied with this commodity. Our goods, on the basis of the value of the raw material, are being offered at low prices, and all we can hope for is a change in the conditions mentioned, so that we may be able to run our mills full time. I fully believe that if we enjoyed a tariff equal to the present tariff without the preference, our mills at Valleyfield would be fully employed ; but under the present tariff with the preference, we are obliged to suffer with others.
The imports of cotton goods for last year, as shown by the blue-book, will be ample evidence of the effect of the preferential tariff on our Canadian cotton industries.
English mills are running forty hours or less per week, and1 many of the finest American mills are running short time, in addition to having made a reduction of wages, which the work people were obliged to accept.
Mr. LEONARD.: With this explanation of the matter contained in the petition, which I now have before me,
I have the honour to be,
Yours truly,
' (Sgd.) FRED. LACEY.
At a regular meeting of the council of the town of De Salaberry de Valleyfield, held in the Town Hall, Wednesday, the thirteenth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and four, at seven o'clock in the evening, following the adjournment of the last meeting according to the provisions of the charter of that town,
At which meeting were present
His Honour the Mayor, George Henri Thi-bault, and the following Concillors :-Joseph E. St. Onge, J. A. Napoleon Bourassa, Octave Cosette, Theophile Lasniel, Frangois-Xavler Le-compte, Donat Leboeuf and James A. Robb, forming a quorum of the said council, under the presidency of His Honour the Mayor.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read, found to be correct and approved.
The citizens' petition, concerning the cotton company, that had been left again on the table at the last meeting, was once more considered.
A letter from Mr. Fred. Lacey, the cotton company's agent, was immediately read to the council. Mr. Lacey, who had received instructions from Mr. Ewing, the president of the company, to write that letter in answer to the above petition and to the resolution of the council in connection therewith, therein explained that the Canadian cotton industry and manufacturers had been considerably affected by the preferential tariff, and that it was for that reason that the cotton factory was obliged to discharge some employees and to considerably reduce the number in certain departments, and -that, if the present tariff were to be maintained, without any preference, the company's factories might be entirely put in operation.
Moved by Mr. O. Cossette,
Seconded by Mr. T. Lasniel :
That copies of the citizens' petition, concerning the cotton company, as well as of the letters from Messrs. S. H. Ewing and Fred. Lacey, president and agent of the said company, in answer to the petition, be sent to Mr. Geo. M. Loy, member of*the Federal Parliament for the the county.
Adopted unanimously.
True copy (extract from) of the minutes of the Council of the Town of De Salaberry de Valleyfield.
C. A. LAVIMbDIERE,
Sec.-Treas.
2.	If so, has the government come to any decision regarding this question ?
3.	What decision has it come to on the subject ?


William Stevens Fielding: The information referred to was communicated to the government. The cause of the difficulties which has occurred in the cotton trade throughout the world, is probably a matter of debate and we are ret prepared to discuss it in answer to the hon. gentleman's question.



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS-REBATES OF DUTIES.

Mr. BOYD asked :: 1.	What is the amount of the rebates of duties paid to the manufacturers of agricultural implements, since 1896 ?
2.	What manufacturers have received such rebates, and what is the amount so paid to each manufacturer ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The rebates paid to manufacturers of agricultural implements prior to July 1, 1903, will be found in the Auditor General's Reports.
The drawback of customs duty paid to manufacturers of agricultural implements during the year ended June 30, 1904, amounted to $113,474.62, received by the undermentioned manufacturers, viz. :
Name.	Amount.
J. W. Mann Mfg. Co.. . -	$	704 13
The Verity Plough Co	 10,748 27
The Massey Harris Co	 89,380 70
David Maxwell & Sons	 2,454 63
The Noxon & Co., Limited	 4,128 63
The iCockshutt Plough Co	 5,696 62
Talt.on Bros	
59	34B. Bell & Son	
302	30



$113,474 62 CUSTOMS DUTY ON TOBACCO.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	What was the total amount of customs duty collected on tobacco for the year ending 30th June, 1904 ?
2.	How much of this was due to legislation of 1897 ?


William Paterson: The total amount of customs duty paid on tobacco entered for consumption during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1904, was $604,555.82. The increased duty collected thereon under the tariff of 1897 as compared with that which would have been collected had the tariff as in 1896 been in operation, amounted to $138,294.55.



TOBACCO-INLAND REVENUE DUTY.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ending June 30th, 1904, by the Inland Revenue Department ?
2.	How much of this was due to the additional duty imposed in the session of 1897 ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	$5,178,736.40.
2.	$1,587,224.04.



BOUNTY ON IRON AND STEEL.

Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1. What was the amount of bounty paid on iron and steel for the year ending 30th June, 1904 ?
2.	What amount was paid as duty on lead in the same year ?
3.	What amount was paid as duty on steel rods and other steel under Chapter 68 of 1904 ?


Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: 1.	On iron and steel, $880,549.83.
2.	Tbe amount so far paid on account of the year ending June 30, 1904, is $104,341.40. Claims, however, as yet not fully adjusted.
3.	Nil. Nothing as yet has been paid.



FISHING REGULATIONS.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I have been requested by the member for St. John, N.B. (Mr. Daniel), to ask that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should give an answer to the statement made by my hon. friend on 'Saturday night with reference to the Baie de Ghaleur fisheries.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I have no hesitation in giving an answer to the member for St. John (Mr. Daniel). The matter is a very simple one, and without going through the whole question I may say that proceedings were taken last year against certain fishermen in Gloucester county, who chiefly resided in Bathurst. The. proceedings were taken under the following circumstances : Licenses had been granted by the Dominion government to a number of these fishermen at a distance of from four to 'four and a half miles from the estuary of the river which is being exploited and is rented to a club called the Anglers' Association. On the representation of that body that licenses had been granted in previous years near to the estuary of the river, the Department of Marine and Fisheries refused to issue these licenses, and, as I have stated, issued licenses at a distance of about four and a half miles. It appears that this coast of New Brunswick is subject to very frequent storms, and that the fishermen pursue their avocation there under very great difficulty. They were instructed by the fishery overseer to lift up their nets as high as possible under the circumstances, and they followed his instructions. It appears from the documents that it is not according to the letter of the law to lift up these nets in the way they were lifted, and a gentleman of the name of Gilbert, representing the Anglers' Association, instituted proceedings in his own name against ten of these fishermen. One of the cases was brought before a magistrate of the name of O'Brien, and tried. After the evidence had been put in and the case argued, the defendant was found guilty and condemned to pay a flue of $30 and costs, which, according to the information, amounted to about $30 more. It was shown during the trial that the fishermen had followed exactly the instruc-

8784'
tions of the fishery overseer. That was proven by the overseer himself, who went before the court and swore to the facts. The convicted party, named Ronalds appealed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries against the decision. After con-sultng the Department of Justice, and after looking into the case myself, I came to the conclusion that it would be unjust to maintain such a decision, because the department or its officers were responsible for any illegal act, if there was any, w7hich I deny, for which this party was condemned.
I considered it a case of persecution pure and simple, and decided under the circumstances the fine should be remitted. This did not satisfy Mr. Gilbert, who appealed to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. That court maintained the decision of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. To show the spirit in which these actions have been taken against these poor fishermen, I may say that the other cases, which were suspended last year, have been taken up again this year by Mr. Gilbert, and I have in my hand a protest against these proceedings, on the part of the fishermen who were in the same position as Mr. Ronalds. The following is a telegram addressed to Mr. Turgeon, M.P.:
Geo. Gilbert has brought on postponed cases of last summer similar to one decided in our favour by Supreme Court and to-day hearing was adjourned to Monday next. Lay matter before Department of Fisheries and explain if possible that department protect us before magistrates court, as we are being prosecuted for carrying out the instructions of department officials and regulations governing salmon licenses. Please wire result of negotiations to P. J. Benoit. Decision of Supreme Court seems to have no effect on sitting magistrate.
James Armstrong, Ephraim Scott, Abel Ellis, Jane White, Louisa Jennings, Robert Miller, , Herbert Buttimer, Jos. Scott, Richard Miller, Fred. Ronalds, John Eddy.
As I have no Jtirisdiction over the magistrate, I have not interfered with this action.
It will be time for the department to intervene if the case proceeds in the same way as the Ronalds case. With regard to the point that the department was being criticised for having issued these licenses, the report says :	-
It is worthy of note that on the urgent representations of the anglers, a salmon net fish- . ing license which had been issued to James , Gammon, in Bathurst Harbour during 1902, was this year refused, thus in this case meeting 1 the most extreme demands.	1
A crusade has this year been instituted ] against the net fishermen by the anglers, on i the plea that their nets are not sufficiently i raised during the weekly close time to afford a . strict compliance with the law, and the case * of the present appellant is only one of many 1 in contemplation, if not already begun.
I read these extracts from the report made 1 to me by one of the officers of the depart- i Mr. PREFONTAINE.
ment, Mr. Yenning, in order to show that everything had been done to protect the anglers of that river, and that there is no reason whatever to complain of the non-execution of the law. The fact that the judgment of the department was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and the other facts which I lay before the House, show that there was no ground whatever for complaint against the department, for intervening to protect these poor men who are earning their living in the fisheries. The department gave instructions, those instructions were not contrary to law, and I felt that it was the duty of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to protect those men against a persecution of this character.


Mr. G. W. FOWLER.: The hon. minister has scarcely given us a correct statement of, the facts of this case. In the first place, he says that his decision was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. I am instructed that that is not the case. Only three judges out of the total bench of six expressed themselves on the decision of the hon. minister, and those three were adverse to it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Will my hon. friend allow me ? I did not know that a discussion would arise on this matter. On Saturday evening it came up on the motion to go into Committee of Supply ; and, unless the hon. gentleman moves the adjournment, the discussion at this time is irregular.


George William Fowler: I will conclude with that motion. I am instructed that the three judges who gave judgment on the point decided that the minister was wrong in what he had done, and that the other three judges did not give any opinion upon that particular point, but decided against tbe mandamus on the ground that it was not necessary because the prosecutor could idemuify the magistrate and have the executions issued. So that when the hon. minister says that his judgment was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick be makes a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. One of my reasons why this is not a simple matter is the fact that it constitutes an interference with provincial rights, and I am rather surprised that a member coming from the province of Quebec, which has always stood for provincial rights, should have committed this unwarranted interference with the rights of a province as the Minister of Marine has done in this case. These nets and other devices used for the purpose of catching salmon along the shores of bays prevent the entrance of fish into the river. Now tile riparian rights to these rivers are owned by the people who live along their banks and by the provincial government, and the Dominion has nothing to do

[DOT]with them. The riparian rights on these rivers derive their value from the salmon, and if the salmon are prevented going up them, then these rights would be worth nothing, and the large yearly sums which the provincial treasury derives from the leasing of these rights will be lost to the province. The law is very explicit. Subsection 7 of section 14 of the Fishery Act provides :
No one shall use a bag-net, trap-net or fish-pound, except under a special license, granted for capturing deep sea fish other than salmon.
This man had no license, and the evidence clearly shows that he was using a trap-net in violation of the law. I submit that the minister had no right to give the decision he did, and to add to the injustice, he not only remitted the flue but the costs as well. My contention is that the Act, which gives him a certain discretion as regards the penalty, does not give him any right to remit the costs. Just look at the injustice and hardship of the thing. Here is an Anglers' Association which paid a large sum of money for a certain privilege. Surely they ought to get the benefit of that privilege, whatever it may be worth. Finding that some one was illegally preventing the association enjoying tire fruits of that privilege, they appealed to the courts, and the magistrate decided against the offender and imposed a penalty besides the costs. But the minister, who knows nothing of the circumstances, acting upon the advice of a political supporter who represents the county, remits not only the penalty but also the costs. It may be all right for the minister to remit the penalty because that does not go into the pocket of the prosecutor, but he has no right to remit the costs which are supposed to recoup the prosecutor for the expenses of the suit. That certainly was a clear violation of law and reason. In addition to this prohibition against the use of trap-nets, the Act also provides that any net used for the purpose of catching salmon along the coast must be taken up at six o'clock Saturday night aijd remain up until six o'clock: Sunday night, or twenty-four hours at least. One day out of seven shall be allowed the fish to go into their spawning ground. Surely the fisherman, when he has six days out of seven to cast his nets, ought to be satisfied and leave the seventh for the fish to go to their spawning ground. But these avaricious gentlemen, these persons desiring to break the Sabbath, will give the poor fish no chance at all to reproduce themselves. Apart from that, the hon. minister has done very serious injustice to the members of the Anglers' Association and the prosecutor who represented them, and has set a very bad precedent. He has shown that all these violators of the law need is a little pull with their local member, and they may disregard utterly the provisions of the Act and the regulations passed for the purpose of protecting the fishery interests. Sir,
that interest is a very important one in the province of New Brunswick. The fact that these fish go, up these rivers is a means of bringing a very large amount of money to the treasury of the province. It attracts a very large amount of tourists and causes a large expenditure among the people and the giving employment to a considerable number. It is therefore of the greatest importance that nothing should be done to interfere' with the fish going up these rivers.
I trust that after this matter has been ventilated, the hon. minister will see that whatever he may do with respect to the penalty, he has no right to interfere with the costs and that he will undo the wrong as soon as possible.
Motion to adjourn, negatived.



RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolutions :-
1.	In these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway ?
2.	The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated), which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of 50 per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000.per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile:
1.	To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Railway Company, for a railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 7 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 15 miles.
2.	To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :
(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the


Mr. EMMERSON.: '
teuil, and a point in the parish of St. Lawrence, in the county of Jacques Cartier, passing through the parishes of St. Placide, St. Eus-tache and St. Martin, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 10 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 38 miles.
10.	From a line of railway from Lardo towards Upper Arrow Lake, British Columbia, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 28 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1901, not exceeding 30 miles.
11.	To Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company, either for a line of railway from a point at or near Spence's Bridge on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nicola Lake, or for a line of railway from a point at Or near the village of Coutlee, southerly towards Princeton and Headley, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 26 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 45 miles.
12.	To the Western Alberta Railway Company, from a point on the United States boundary, west of range 27, north-westerly towards Anthracite, in the district of Alberta, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 40 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1899, not exceeding 50 miles.
3.	The Governor in Council may grant the " subsidy hereinafter mentioned towards the construction of the bridge also hereinafter meiitioned, that is to say :-[DOT]
1. To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, the balance remaining unpaid of the subsidy granted by item 33 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, for a single track standard railway bridge, with two roadways 10 feet wide, for vehicular traffic, the same as upon a public highway, from Bout de L'lle to Charlemagne at the junction of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, a sum not exceeding $51,000.
4.	The subsidies hereby authorized towards the construction of any railway or bridge shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows :-
(a.) Upon completion of the work subsidized ; or
(b.) By instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the. cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or
(c.) Upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of ' Railways and Canals, that in his opinion, having regard for the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $30,000 :	or
(d.) With respect to (b) and (c) part one way, part the other.
5.	The subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways and bridge respectively ; all the lines for the bridge for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1904, and completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of

August, to be fixed by the Governor in Council and shall also be constructed according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said minister, which contract the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines and bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
6.	The granting of such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to the other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with the railways and bridge so subsidized, reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with the connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between ail such connecting railways ; and the Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and the bridge hereby subsidized.
7.	Every company receiving a subsidy hereunder, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized hereunder, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the line in respect of which it has received each subsidy, and whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service ; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being performed, and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in or towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to three per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company hereunder.
8.	As respects all railways and the bridge for which subsidies are hereby granted, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways, shall, when required, produce and exhibit to tlfe Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers, showing the cost of constructing the railway or bridge, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
9.	The Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided, or any heretofore authorized by any Act of parliament, as to which a contract has not yet been entered into with the company for the construction of the railway, that the company shall lay its road with new steel rails, made in Canada, if they are procurable in Canada of suitable quality, upon terms as favourable as other rails can be obtained, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the judge.
10.	Whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of hallway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, and his certificate that
he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profiles of the whole line so contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means of transport available for construction, naming the probable and reasonable cost of such construction, may, with the authorization of the Governor in'Council, enter into a supplementary agreement, fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to be paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer, and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinary subsidy of $3,200 per mile, together with the 60 per cent of the difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any ; and the balance, 40 per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole work subsidized, and1 in so far as the actual cost, as finally determined by the chief engineer, entitles the company thereto ; provided always :
(a.) That the estimated cost, so certified, is not less on the average than $18,000 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;
(b.) That no payment shall be made except upon a certificate of the chief engineer that the work is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;
(c.) That in no case shall the subsidy exceed $6,400 per mile.
He saidThese subsidies are only revotes. There are none additional since last session of parliament.
Mr. 'SPROULE. That is a very brief ex planation. Am I correct in understanding that there are no subsidies for new railways ?


Wilfrid Laurier: None. All are revotes.
Mr. iSPROTJILE. There seem to be cases where the subsidy is changed from one company to another.


Wilfrid Laurier: A change in words ; that is all. They are merely renewals of votes about to expire.
Mr. SPROULE, It would be important to know in what cases the change of the subsidy is made from one company to another, and why. But I suppose that can be taken up on the several items.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolutions.
1. In these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon ithe recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and
[Stage Direction]
careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway ?
Mr. IIAGGART.: I take it that there is no change in this resolution from the former one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Perhaps the government will tell us now whether it is their intention, in connection with these subsidies, to make it a condition that the employment of alien labour shall be prevented.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: We did that on Saturday.


William Findlay Maclean: I think that the Bill we discussed on Saturday, to which the hon. member (Mr. Alex. Johnston) refers, will not secure the end we have in view. We set out to hav.e a national transcontinental railway, and we understood that it was to be built by Canadian engineers and Canadian workmen. But that has hot been quite secured. We are trying to secure that end by an Alien Labour law. But I say it should have been attained by making it a condition of the payment of immense sums of money to that railway, and the sain.* thing should apply to these subsidies. If we intend to keep out alien labour, that is only one way to do it I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to take that step ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have provided for that by a Bill that was passed. I think it is quite enough to cover the case.


William Findlay Maclean: I suppose the Prime Minister speaks by the book, and that the measure he refers to will go through the Senate. But if it does not, these subsidies will be voted without making any provisions against the employment of alien labour.
1.	To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Rail-M'ay Company, for a railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 7 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 15 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is simply providing that the subsidy shall go to a certain company. Originally it was a general vote.
2.	To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :-
(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the town of Bruce Mines, on Lake Huron, a distance not exceeding three miles ;
(b.) For the 6 miles of railway constructed from Gordon Lake station, being the end of its line as subsidized by chapter 7 of 1901, northward to Rock lake, a distance of 6 miles ;
(c.) For 12 miles from Rock lake northward, a distance not exceding 12 miles.
The subsidies to the said lines being granted in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 38 of Mr. SPROULE.
section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 21 miles.


Mr. BARKER.: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: This is merely divided up.


Mr. BRODER.: Why do you do that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To advance the interest of the road.


Samuel Barker: But why ? Is there any particular reason why, for instance, this grant should be made, as under subsection (a), for a road of three miles in length only ? It may be, as I said, simply a grant for a siding to a mill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There Is nothing of that kind.


Samuel Barker: There must be some reason for making the change, and perhaps the minister will tell us what it is.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There seems to be something very peculiar about this subsidy. This is a road of only three miles long ; when we granted the subsidy before, it was for a line of considerable length. I fail to see for what good purpose the government can give aid to such a line as this. Surely it cannot be for any great commercial purpose. It cannot be for the purpose of opening up the country. It is more likely to my mind to be for the purpose of aiding some private individuals. It bears very much that construction upon the face of it. A line three miles long into a new country would seem to be of no value whatever as a colonization road, and it is only for five purpose of colonization that we on this side of the House, at any rate, consent at all to granting these subsidies. Now it is due to the committee that some better ex-

planation be given before this item is allowed to pass. We ought to know who is going to benefit by it. Certainly the general public is not going to benefit; a road three miles long into a new country is not going to be of material benefit to the country at large, it is not going to operate as a colonization road ; and it is going to benefit some private individual let the minister say who it is, and let us judge whether the enterprise to be benefited by this subsidy is of sufficient importance to warrant the government taking public money to promote private interests.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that there is any private individual who is going to be benefited, it is for the benefit of the whole country. The road will be 100 miles long, and will open up woodlands of nearly 10,000,000 acres, which are at present inaccessible. These portions which are to be built now are merely stepping stones, and will form part of a road which will be eventually 100 miles long. So far as I know, there is no mine owner or mill owner who is to be benefited, only the general public.


Mr. SPROULE.: How many miles were subsidized before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The same number.
' The line is intended to be 100 miles long, but there are only 21 miles subsidized.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now we are subsidizing 3 miles, 6 miles and 12 miles. Is this one of the roads to which the Ontario government has loaned money for the benefit of the Soo industry ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman mean that the sections of the line mentioned here are precisely the same line as originally subsidized ?
Mi-. EMMERSON. No, there is some change in the wording.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. gentleman ought to have told us that. He said he was making no change. The people are [DOT]entitled to know whether he is granting money to new lines.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think I stated that. It is the same lines, but with variations as to the wording.


Andrew Broder: They are located differently.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


David Henderson: I understand that three sections of a road are being subsidized. I would like to know if these three sections form one continuous line, are connected with each other, or are they separate portions of a railway, or are they simply branches off what is intended to be a
main line. I think we ought to know whether any good purpose is to be served by the payment of this money I confess it seems to be surrounded with a good deal of secrecy. To my mind, if they are separate sections, they will answer a very small purpose indeed. If they are to constitute a continuous line of 21 miles, then some justification might be given. So far as I am concerned, I am very much opposed to this system of subsidizing railways, unless for colonization purposes into a new country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is this difference. This item reads :
For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is continuous.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But in the original item it reads :
To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway for 21 miles from the end of its line as subsidized by chapter 7, 1901, northward, not exceeding 21 miles.
In one instance 'a subsidy is given for a railway northwards from Bruce Mines, and in the other it is given for a railway southerly from the junction. This seems to be either for a different railway, or else they start at different points on the same railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a small portion of the line already built.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the junction of the Bruce Mines Railway from the Bruce Mines ? Is it southerly or northerly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is running northerly.


Samuel Barker: I understand that with a piece already built, the portion subsidized will form a continuous railway.


Mr.   H AGO ART@: Has there already been any payment of a bonus on this line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, there has been.


John Graham Haggart: This particular portion, for which a subsidy is now being voted, has been bonused before has it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: But it had not been paid for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. it had not been paid for, it has been bonused but not paid.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly there has been a bonus for this particular portion before, and I think the amount has been paid ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A subsidy was voted but not paid.


John Graham Haggart: It is ou the constructed line that you are giving a bonus.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I stated there is a j portion nine miles long tliat was built and paid for. These portions while they have been subsidized have not been paid for.


John Graham Haggart: I remember very plainly the debate in the House in which the member for that section of the country explained this. I think that in some way or another there has been a payment of the bonus.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was the nine miles for which I said the subsidy was paid 828,000.


John Graham Haggart: So no portion of the line of road for which you are now asking a bonus has been bonused before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have been subsidized but not paid.


David Henderson: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the difference in the wording of the various clauses in this item. 'Sections A and B are as follows :
(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the town of Bruce Mines, on Lake Huron, a distance not exceeding three miles ;
(b.) For the 6 miles of railway constructed from Gordon Lake station, being the end of its line as subsidized by chapter 7 of 1901, northward to Rock lake, a distance of six miles.
In section B authority is asked for the subsidizing of six miles of railway constructed, not to be constructed. I would like to know from the minister if this six miles of railway is already completed, and if that is the portion of the road lying in between the three miles and the twelve miles ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has been constructed but not paid for. The subsidy has not been paid and this authorizes the payment of that subsidy.


David Henderson: There was no subsidy for the six miles before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No not previously.


David Henderson: Is it possible that in Algoma they have been constructing a railway without a subsidy ? I think there must be some mistake about that.


John Graham Haggart: How long is it since this road was constructed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has not been inspected, it must have been very recently constructed.


John Graham Haggart: The principle is entirely different. If you are going to bonus constructed roads, nearly every road in the country will have a claim.


Mr. HYMAN.: This is an extension only, it was earned before.


John Graham Haggart: It strikes me that this road has been built for some time from Mr. HAGGART.
Bruce mines either to the water's edge or to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
On subsection ' B ' of section 2,


David Henderson: I would again ask the minister if this six miles is the uncoloured portion on the map between the three mile section and the nine mile section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


David Henderson: I understood a few moments ago that was the section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The uncoloured portion is the nine miles. The subsidy for that has been paid.	.


Samuel Barker: Is the gap already constructed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is constructed.


Samuel Barker: And this was already bonused ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, this was bonused and paid for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is in this a very bad principle, bonusing a short piece of railway after it is built. I tried very hard on behalf of the Meaford and St. Vincent people to get a portion of the subsidy granted to the line of railway from Meaford to Owen Sound, part of the Mani-toulin railway, and up as far as Wiarton and from Wiarton to Tobermory. One portion of that route from the Grand Trunk proper down to the wharf, a distance of about one and three quarters miles has already been built by the people. That small town which had then only 2,000 or
3.000	inhabitants was obliged to give a subsidy of $25,000 to build that, and I made my best endeavours to get the government to give them a portion of the subsidy for the line which they intended to construct by way of Owen Sound up to Manitoulin, to apply to this line, a piece of road that was urgently required and not actually completed. I could not prevail on the government to give them a dollar, either to divert a portion of the subsidy or to give an additional subsidy, allowing the other to stand. Here where a road is built three miles long, a subsidy is granted, and by this very vote we are granting a subsidy to another six miles long. I think it is another example of the old saying that kissing goes by favour. The government seem to be always able to devise ways and means to subsidize roads belonging to their own friends, whereas if a road is not controlled by their friends, the wants of the country do not appear to be taken into consideration, and they get the go by. I do submit that in a case like this that portion of the road from the Grand Trunk down to the water, which is a portion of the through system if it is ever built up to the Manitoulin

island, should be entitled to a subsidy. The people had to construct that line and I think the government should give them a subsidy for that portion of the line, especially as we are now subsidizing roads only three miles long.
Mr. FOWLEfi. Is it a fact that this piece of road was built without any promise of a subsidy, without any consideration or expectation of a subsidy, and that then after the road was built, a subsidy was given Surely that cannot be the case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has occurred in the Dominion.


George William Fowler: In this particular case ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That hais occurred. We are now simply granting a subsidy that has been earned.


George William Fowler: Then it is the custom and the habit to give money after a road has been built and completed without expectation of a subsidy ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: -A road is built without expectation of a subsidy and then you make a present to the builders of the amount of the subsidy. It seems to me this is a very strange thing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The subsidy was voted, but it has not been paid.


George William Fowler: That is not what the minister stated a moment ago. The minister said that this particular piece of road was built without any subsidy being granted : that when it was built the subsidy was granted, and that it was a common thing to do this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said it had occurred before.


George William Fowler: Often.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On more than one occasion.


George William Fowler: I am not opposed on general principles to railway subsidies. I believe that in this country it is most important that we should have railways. It is as necessary to have railways as highways, and I favour railway subsidies where you cannot get a necessary road built unless you subsidize it. But, I protest most strongly against a case of this kind where the company, believing that the undertaking would be a paying one, built a number of miles of railway to extend their system, without any expectation of subsidy and we must assume without necessity for a subsidy, and then the government comes forward and makes them a present of $15,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were thirty miles subsidized. Nine miles were built and paid 279-
for and now we are subsidizing the remaining twenty-one miles.


George William Fowler: Well, what sort of information are we getting? I understand that the minister cannot know all about these different matters throughout Canada, but here is his deputy sitting beside him who has been for I don't know how many year3 in the public service, and the information he is giving to the minister is so misleading that the minister is obliged to contradict himself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think not.


George William Fowler: I am in the judgment of the committee when I say it is so. I hope that the change the Minister of Railways has made in his personal appearance has not affected him ; I hope that no Delilah has shorn the hon. minister of his locks, and affected his strength of reason. For some reason he is mixed up this morning. Now, I would like to know what we are really doing? The minister has told us that no subsidy has been asked for or voted or expected.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said none was paid excepting the nine miles.


George William Fowler: Well every member of the House heard the hon. gentleman make the statement I attribute to' him. Will the minister tell us what we are supposed to be doing ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The resolution is very clear. We are subsidizing three miles and six miles and twelve miles, in all twenty-one miles.


James Joseph Hughes: Is this a private owned road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a company road.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it all the one road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is all one company.


James Joseph Hughes: That is a different thing. Can any one explain It ? Does the hon. gentleman from Nipissing (Mr. Mc-Cool) know anything about it ?


Mr. McCOOL.: It starts from Bruce Mines and is all the one line.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand it is a mere lumber road.


Charles Arthur McCool: It is not through a lumber district at all, except it be hardwood. It is through a copper mining district.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the road that goes into the old mine that an English company is redeveloping ?


Charles Arthur McCool: No. The mines are now owned by a Philadelphia company I understand. I have not Jbeen on the line but so



far as you can see from the Canadian Pacific Railway train, it is substantially built and they run a regular train every day to *connect with the 800 train on the Canadian Pacific Railway.


James Joseph Hughes: Have they a charter from this government ?


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes. There are very valuable copper mines there. The old Bruce Mines were near the river front but these mines are thirty or forty miles back-


James Joseph Hughes: There is no settlement there, and you are simply helping a private company.


Charles Arthur McCool: There is considerable settlement there.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand there is not a solitary station on this line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The line runs from Lake Huron to the Canadian Pacific Railway 3 miles. From that point there are 6 miles to Rock lake. Then there are 12 miles from Rock lake northward.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it one continuous road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. one continuous road all owned by the same company.


John Graham Haggart: Did you pay a subsidy for the line from Bruce Mines to the lake shore ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the deputy that we did not.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company themselves built a branch line to the lake for the purpose of taking out material to use as ballast. The whole line of Sault Ste. Marie branch was ballasted from there.


Charles Arthur McCool: That was only a temporary road for the purpose of taking out ballast, and the rails have been taken up long ago. As a matter of fact, I know that this new line does not follow the old Canadian Pacific Railway line at all. I have seen it myself, and it is a very well built road. There is a little confusion of names by reason of the fact that the village at Bruce Mines wharf is called Bruce Mines. The village of Bruce Mines is about three miles from Bruce Mines station on the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think there is any doubt about this being a continuous road.


John Graham Haggart: Is the new mine working now ?


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: And this road is in the interest of that mine ?


Charles Arthur McCool: There is a large farming settlement in the district, and at the time Mr. McCOOL.
of the first effort to obtain this subsidy, I was asked to join a deputation of those people in support of it. They were ^ ery anxious about it.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose that the gentlemen interested in this company wish the line to run northward, partly for the sake of their mines and partly in the interest of the community.


Charles Arthur McCool: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In 1903 we subsidized 21 miles of this line. Is the line which we are subsidizing now any portion of those 21 miles or are we changing a portion of the subsidy to some other portion of the road Has the other subsidy lapsed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We want to pay for the 21 miles. It would lapse, I think, on the 1st of August.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had better know whether it is because of the subsidy lapsing by effluxion of time or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend permit me to observe that these subsidies were voted in 1900, and they were all voted on condition that the roads should be commenced in two years and completed in two years.


John Graham Haggart: There is another reason. Under the old Act the subsidy could not be paid unless the road was completed in ten-mile sections ; and this is for the purpose of allowing the minister to pay the subsidy for 3-mile and 6-mile completed sections.


David Henderson: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is aware that there is a very strong objection to * the indiscriminate subsidizing of railways, and I fail to see where he will find sufficient excuse for the action he is now taking unless he can show that this road is really a colonization road. If it is simply a road to enable lumbermen to bring out their lumber or to enable a mining company to carry on its operations, the Dominion of Canada is not justified in subsidizing it. It should rather be done by the province of Ontario, which gets all the revenue derived from these industries. It can only be justified if it is to be a colonization road for the purpose of opening up the country to settlement by agriculturists. Last year I entered a very strong protest against the subsidizing of railways throughout the province of Ontario in the older sections. I would enter that strong protest against the subsidizing of railways now unless the minister can say that these subsidies are renewals. If they are renewals and if certain corporations" had been led to believe by the government that they would be assisted, I would not ask the government to do anything but keep faith and not cause difficulty to men who have invested their means

already in the construction of roads. With regard to the new subsidies, I am not at all in harmony with the idea of granting such, unless it can be shown distinctly that they ore for the purpose of opening up the country for settlement and are strictly colonization roads.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were told by the Minister of Railways that the subsidy would lapse on the 1st of August and that was the reason assigned by the First Minister for the granting of this subsidy. But these subsidies were granted in 1903 upon the following conditions :
All the lines and bridges for the construction of which subsidies are granted unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the 1st of August, 1903.
We are only at the 1st of August, 1904, so that there is another year to run.


Wilfrid Laurier: But they must complete a section of ten miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is the explanation, why did the hon. Minister of Railways not give it and let us not waste time.


Samuel Barker: Why cannot they build another four miles and get themselves within the law ? If they have built six miles they have now only to build another four to come within the original law.
On resolution 3, subsection * a,'
Mr. MaOLEAN. Is this a Canadian Pacific Railway proposition ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware that it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What company owns the
road ?


William Findlay Maclean: This Is a proposal to go to Hudson bay, judging by the map. It will make connection with Albany river.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it is a Canadian Pacific Railway proposition. So far as I have knowledge, it is not.


William Findlay Maclean: Who are the applicants '!


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canadian Pacific Railway has nothing to do with it. The Nipigon Railway Company are the applicants.


George William Fowler: Who is the general manager V


Henry Robert Emmerson: I simply have the application on behalf of the company which was presented by a lawyer of the city of Ottawa. It is signed by the Nipigon Railway Company.


George William Fowler: There must be somebody's name there as acting for the company.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Those questions were all gone into when the subsidy 279i
was granted. This is not originating any new scheme. I do not know anything about these resolutions except that they are renewals.


George William Fowler: You are asking for a subsidy for twelve miles of railway. Why go piecemeal about it ? Why not ask for a subsidy from Nipigon to Hudson bay ? If this is part of a general scheme to subsidize a railway from Nipigon to James bay, it may be a good thing. But why not let the committee know ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The subsidy last year was as follows :
To the Nipigon Railway Company for a line of railway from Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon, and from a point on the north shore of Lake Nipigon northerly, not exceeding 80 miles.
That was for a continuous road, but the company now want to build from the shore of Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon, then use the lake and from Lake Nipigon, another stretch northward, then to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Therefore, instead of having a continuous line of railway, you will have a Vi ne of railway to the waters of Lake Nipigon, then use the water of Lake Nipigon and so on.


William Findlay Maclean: This would be the first connection from Lake Superior with the new transcontinental road ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The promoters intended to do that and use the railway for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific.	[DOT]


William Findlay Maclean: As a matter of fact do the Grand Trunk control this charter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so. They have nothing to do with it.


George William Fowler: I am glad the Prime Minister speaks so definitely on that point. Will he tell us in whose hands this charter is ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The only party connected with the charter whom I know is Mr. James Conmee.


George William Fowler: That settles it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Carried.


Samuel Barker: As neither the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) nor any member of the government seems to be able to tell us who are connected with this institution to which we are granting a quarter of a million of dollars, perhaps some hon. member from the district can tell us. The Nipigon Railway Company is a mere name. I think we ought to know who the parties are who have asked for money and to whom it is to be voted, that we may be able to judge whether they are capable of building the road. The Minister of Railways would naturally make full inquiries before he decided to revote the

subsidy and what the minister has inquired into we are entitled to know. We should have more information on this subject before we vote the subsidy. To tell us that a charter was granted by the Dominion parliament to the Nipigon Company and treat that as a sufficient explanation, and that we need not - know who are the parties behind this project, seems to me absurd. It is not a matter of favour that this information should be given ; we have a right to it. We have heard a great deal lately about the employment of aliens. For all we know, every man connected with this concern may be an alien. Aliens or citizens, we are entitled to know who they are.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, We have only to look at the statute to know who the incorporators-


Samuel Barker: Oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, the information is there. The man I know as being connected with this enterprise is Mr. Conmee. But I have sent for the statutes, and I will be able to give the hon. member (Mr. Barker) the names of the incorporators of the company.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the Prime Minister lay down the principle that simply because a subsidy is asked for, it is therefore to be granted to the people who ask for it ? If a rubber stamp applies here for a subsidy of half a million dollars is the stamp to get it ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the principle on which the Prime Minister proceeds ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Why, this parliament has over and over again granted subsidies for railways before the companies were formed at all. The subsidy was granted and it was open for any company to come forward and earn it.


James Joseph Hughes: This particular railway has been before this House on a previous occasion. When the Grand Trunk Pacific measure was going through, we were told by the Prime Minister that that railway would have a branch to Nipigon. But we find that this scheme is for the benefit of Mr. James Conmee who controls this charter, and now, in order to bunco the public, he is endeavouring to get his road bonused to Lake Nipigon. He has obtained from the Ontario government concessions for the fisheries, and he has obtained also pulp concessions-this crowd have got that whole country tied up. And now, for the benefit of Mr. Conmee who is one of the greatest bunco steerers that ever struck the Dominion of Canada, the people are to be taxed to put up a quarter of a million for this road. This is simply scandalous. It is absurd to speak of this as opening up the Mr. BARKER.
country. There is no pretense of settlement up there. This is simply a bonus to benefit Mr. Conmee by enriching this corporation that he controls. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has had the facts presented to him. I suppose this road is going to connect the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is wrong-he will pardon me for saying so. This road was incorporated before there was any mention of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


James Joseph Hughes: I am aware of that. But did 'the original charter go north of the lake ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


James Joseph Hughes: No, it only went up to the lake. But since then it has been proposed to build the line from Lake Nipigon to a connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never said that the Grand Trunk Pacific would go to Nipigon bay. That is a question, as I understand, now in issue-as to where the lake terminus will be. They are surveying the country and they will go to the port that is mast convenient. But this railway, as I understand it, was chartered before there was any thought of this transcontinental railway. Having this subsidy they would be in a position to build, and, probably before it is possible to build the Grand Trunk Pacific this road can be built and it can get considerable amount of business in hauling the supplies necessary for use in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is the reason why the change is asked in the manner of granting the subsidy.


James Joseph Hughes: The original charter ran from the mouth of the Nipigon river at Nipigon bay to Lake Nipigon.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, And beyond.


James Joseph Hughes: No, only to Nipigon lake.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not eighty miles from Nipigon harbour to Nipigon lake, and the subsidy was for eighty miles.


James Joseph Hughes: But there is not a foot of the road built. The reason for building to Nipigon bay is to allow this company to get out its fish. But they can get them out by steamers, and steamers will perform all the service that will be necessary for many a year. This is only a scheme to get money out of the pockets of the people for the benefit of this company.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is nothing of the kind. Parliament voted this subsidy last year. We are not asking a cent more than was granted last year unanimously and, so far as I remember without comment

by this parliament. The object of putting the vote in this form is to divide this subsidy in a manner different from that in which it was voted last year. But not a cent more is asked.


George William Fowler: Is this Mr. James Con-mee who is promoting this railway the same person who is a candidate for this House in the next election ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that he is a candidate. He is a member of the local legislature of Ontario.


James Joseph Hughes: I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) that Mr. Conmee is not officially a candidate. But he kept out a large number of delegates and secured a nomination in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister said in answer to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) that this parliament had voted money to railways although no companies were in existence for the construction of them. But it was upon the understanding and statement made to the House that the government would satisfy themselves as to the personnel of the company and its financial ability to carry out the enterprise before the subsidy should be turned over to them. But where the company has been formed and is known, parliament should be informed as to the condition. I understood the Minister of Railways to say that we were, holding this subsidy in this form to enable the government to pay subsidies for less than ten miles. And I find that that is not provided for in these resolutions because it says :
(b.) By instalments, on the condition of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or
(c.) Upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $30,000.
So, it does not provide for paying over three miles or a mile and a half as we were led to believe. Therefore, there must be *something else behind it.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I will explain it if my hon. friend will follow me. The question of payment does not come upon this section. Last year we voted a subsidy for eighty miles, that was for a continuous railway. Now the company want to avail themselves of the water stretches, to build first from Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon, then to build from Lake Nipigon to another stretch of water, and so on. That is the intention, not to build one continuous line of railway, but a disjointed line of railway.


George William Fowler: What will be the amount of subsidy per mile on this particular road V


Henry Robert Emmerson: $3,200 is authorized.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is the usual subsidy.


George William Fowler: It may be $6,400 a mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister says that the line originally subsidized is eighty miles long; now it is reduced to firty miles.


Wilfrid Laurier: The same length.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then if we voted a subsidy last year why are we asked to vote it again this year ? Last year there was a provision giving them two years to commence, and it would be payable on progress estimates when ten miles were built.


Wilfrid Laurier: I speak witli some diffidence, because it is some time since I gave my attention to this matter. But I do remember that last year a subsidy was voted for eighty miles of railway, which was intended to be a continuous line from one point to another point, from Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon and then northward). This year the intention is to build from Lake Superior to Lake Nipigon, then from the other side of Lake Nipigon to another point on another stretch of water, and it is intended to use steamers across the lake. I speak subject to correction, but so far as I remember that is the present project, and that is the reason of this change in the subsidy.


George William Fowler: It is a different thing altogether from the proposition of last year. It may be the same thing in point of length, but it may be in another direction altogether. The proposition last year was for a continuous line of railway that could be operated, for instance, summer and winter. The present line is one that can only be operated in the summer, which is quite a different thing from a line of transportation that could be operated both summer and winter. The committee should be shown some reasons why this change is made. Is it that there is no necessity for a line of transportation, or is it that* it is impossible to keep up a line of transportation, or is it that the water transportation is the big end of the thing, or what is it ? Now it might be that the water stretch is the most important part, or the great part of it, and that they could only use a railway to overcome some difficulties perhaps in the water navigation. Then I could understand why the change is made ; but otherwise, we are shutting up the country entirely in the winter time.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not to meet the exigencies of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


William Mulock: No doubt it is largely that.


James Joseph Hughes: There are three miles from Nipigon bay to Lake Helen ; has that any connection *whatever with the other road ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know about that. There was a petition that will be brought down this afternoon.


James Joseph Hughes: That three miles and a half goes up to a nice little timber limit.
Mr. MAgLEAN. Is not this a railway branch due to the Grand Trunk Pacific ? Apparently we are now getting some light on it, This is really a modification in a road that was bonused last year, so as to make it apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance from Nipigon lake to Lake Superior ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About thirty-five miles.


John Graham Haggart: The minister was to give information to the House as to whether that short section was part of the main line or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is part of the main line, I am informed.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister whether he has obtained and could give us any information as to whether any other subsidies have been granted to this same line from any source whatever ?
Mr. EMMEnSON. Does my hon. friend ask respecting provincial subsidies ?


Samuel Barker: From provincial or any other sources.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not prepared to answer that.


Samuel Barker: I am prepared to give a little information on that subject, but before doing so I wish to say that I think it is the duty of the government before they recommend any subsidy to this House or any change in any subsidy already granted, to ascertain precisely the position of the work, what probability there' is that the promoters of the undertaking will be able to carry it out, what the necessity for it may be, and what assistance they may be receiving from other sources. It must be clear to the minister that if a very large subsidy had been granted from local sources that fact alone should be sufficient to induce him to refuse further assistance and unless the hon. gentleman takes the trouble on behalf of the people to inquire Mr. MACLEAN.
into these circumstances we are exposed to the danger of throwing money away. I think it is also part of the hon. gentleman's duty to inquire who the promoters of these undertakings may bd and to ascertain whether he is giving money that will go to the benefit of Canadians or money that will be taken from Canada and put into the pockets of people in the United States or other foreigners. We have heard a great deal about the Labour Department of this country and the necessity of protecting Canadians. You must protect the Canadian workingman and the Canadian contractor, according to the Bill passed through the House the other day. But when it comes to handing out large subsidies the government apparently have not thought whether the recipient of these subsidies is a foreigner or a Canadian. I allude to that subject because what I am about to point out shows that this House has been and is again asked to grant large sums of money, anywhere between a quarter and a half million dollars, in connection with this railway, practically to citizens of the United States. I find that a Nipigon Railway Company, not the company that is referred to in this resolution, but an Ontario company of that name, was incorporated in 1899, and in 1902 it obtained an amendment to its charter. I find on looking at the statute and its amendment that the incorporators of that Nipigon Railway Company were : Paul Weidner, of Detroit, a pulp manufacturer; M. B. Lloyd, of Minneapolis, a manufacturer and James Whalen of Port Arthur, a contractor. I understand that Mr. James Whalen is a near relative, a son-in-law in fact, of Mr. Conmee, who was mentioned by the Prime Minister as one of the parties interested in this subsidy. I find further that one of the incorporators was Mr. Newton W. Rowell, who takes a very active part in political matters on behalf of the Liberal party, and who apparently is solicitor for the gentlemen who are receiving this subsidy. Another incorporator is James G. Shaw, another solicitor of Toronto, and a further one is Mr. F. S. Wiley, of Port Arthur. Mr. A. J. McComber, of Port Arthur, a clerk is also included in the list, but he seems to have dropped out. Possibly he was simply a substitute for Mr. Conmee, who no doubt is the sleeping partner. Those gentlemen were all the incorporators in the Ontario Nipigon Railway Company. I would further call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that by section 14 of the original Ontario Act, aliens, and companies incorporated abroad, are authorized to be shareholders and to have all the rights of vbting and acting as directors, just as any British subject would have under an ordinary charter. We may be asked : What has that to do with the Nipigon Railway Company which the hon. gentleman is now asking the House to subsidize ? I have looked at the statute of 1902 which incorporates this Do-

minion Railway Company and I find that the incorporators are the same men, Mr. Weidner and Mr. Lloyd, of Detroit and Minneapolis, the same solicitors and the same directors. They are all in the two companies. They went to Ontario and got a charter there, with a great many clauses, most of them very useful clauses, and much more ample powers than I think would be granted by the parliament of this Dominion. They came to this parliament the same year and under precisely the same name, they got a charter containing this provisions :
The company may agree with. . . . the Nipigon Railway Company, incorporated under the Ontario Railway Act, for conveying or leasing to any such company its railways in whole, or in part, or any rights or powers under this Act, as also its franchise and property subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
See what little by-play is going on. Two Americans, a Canadian contractor, and two gentlemen who are no doubt solicitors for the parties get charters from the Ontario legislature and from this parliament, and they have power to sell to themselves. They come to this House and the Minister of Railways, without knowing one particle about the undertaking or whether they have been granted aid from other quarters, asks us to vote to them from one-quarter of a million dollars to half a million dollars. If the minister had gone to his departmental library be would have found that this railway company bad received from the Ontario government a subsidy of $3,000 a mile for 14 miles of the very line we are asked to subsidize here. Is it right that we should be asked in the last hours of the session to grant public money in this way, when the minister who asks us cannot tell us the simple fact that these people are already in receipt of public money for the same work. It is about time this thing should stop. I do not object to fair and reasonable assistance being given to public undertakings, but I do think it is a disgrace to parliament that public money should be scattered broadcast and that we are not to be told the facts concerning the grant. I do not particularly condemn the present minister, because for the few years I have been in this House it is the practice to force subsidies in this way, but it is time that it should stop. I submit that the minister should recall this part of the resolution until more time shall be had for its consideration, or, that he should at least make the grant that is proposed here subject to a deduction equal to the amount granted by the province of Ontario which apparently he did not know anything about when he made the recommendation for this subsidy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Aid is given on the merits of the railway itself and not in consideration of the company. I apprehend that before entering into the contract, the
department will be assured that the parties can carry out their arrangement. When that time comes it is the duty of the department to get all information possible with regard to the standing of the parties, and until that is ascertained it is not necessary for that information to he sought. The railway itself stands upon its merits and has to be dealt with from that standpoint and no other.


Samuel Barker: What is the standpoint ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From the standpoint of the merits of the line itself as to whether it should be aided or not. Before the contract is entered into the standing of the individuals concerned has to be considered.


Samuel Barker: If we are here for any purpose at all it is to consider whether the subsidy be granted or not. We are not giving a power of attorney to the minister to decide on that point, and when we vote this subsidy the minister has to carry it out. We have never heard of a minister refusing to pay a subsidy so voted after he had made inquiries. The truth is patent on the face of the papers, that one gentleman in Detroit and one in Minneapolis, two foreigners, are to receive from one-quarter of a million to half a million dollars in aid of this work, in conjunction with the contractor who will build the work, and two solicitors who applied for the charter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When it was originally contemplated to aid railways in this way, the policy was clearly outlined to this House. It was : That the government should first satisfy themselves that the road was needed in the locality and that without aid, it was not likely to be built, and then the government were to satisfy themselves that the company which had charge of the undertaking had sufficient financial support to build the proposed railway with the aid of the subsidy. Upon the strength of that the government decided to place the subsidy in the estimates, and it was for parliament to consider whether, it should be voted or not.
Since then another system seems to have developed. The promoters get some aid from one government or from both, so as to make a financial nucleus around which to finance a scheme for building the railway. It has been reversed from what was originally contemplated. I notice that several of these companies, writing about their roads in the papers, say : We are getting $3,200 a mile from the Dominion government, and we are getting from the, provincial government' $2,000 a mile, or so many acres of land, and we can put these two securities together and with them form a basis on which we can sell bonds to build the road. From that has grown up the system of exploiting these railways. In some cases they get into hands of lawyers ; in other cases they get into the hands

of politicians. There is do one equal in reputation to iMr. Conmee in that regard. He is one of the handy men who are always available to help to buy up or control a constituency to keep the government in power, and he gets recouped in some way or other. He has mining leases, timber leases, fishing leases, railway charters, and in every direction he tries to get something out of one government or the other. Take this railway; he is getting a subsidy from the provincial government, and now he appeals to the Dominion government as well for a subsidy. For what purpose ? Not that the locality requires a railway, but because Mr. Conmee has investments in that country which he wishes to develop by means of the aid he receives, so as to make money. It is said that he has timber limits up there. He certainly has mining leases. It is said that he has fishing licenses also. If he could get from the two governments enough money on the basis of which to erect a financial structure to build a railway which would inure to his own benefit more than to the benefit of the country, that would be all right. It is fostering one of these schemes, I believe, that we are doing to-day by voting this money.


Mr. LENNOX.: So far as I am personally concerned, I object to subsidies as a rule That is not very material here, because the majority of the House are in favour of subsidies. But I particularly object to this government assisting the Ontario government in the schemes which the Ontario government cannot carry out themselves. This is another Jackson transaction on a different scale. It is not so scandalous, I think, as the Jackson transaction, but it is a good deal on the same line. That Mr. Conmee is notorious as an exploiter I need not tell the hon. minister, as the facts have been stated by the hon. member for Hamilton. Whatever might have justified the minister prior to the statement by the hon. member for Hamilton, there can be no justification for his going on with this vote now. The only basis upon which a subsidy can toe excused is that it is absolutely necessary in order to get a road built. This subsidy 'was recommended to the House upon the understanding of the minister that it stood alone, that' no other subsidy was being paid to this company, and that it was necessary in order to enable the company to build the road. We now have the fact that that is not so, but that they are already in receipt of a subsidy from the Ontario government, which should be a sufficient reason for the minister to withhold the subsidy or reduce it by the amount'granted by the Ontario government. The only excuse the minister has-and that is a weak one-is that he did not know the facts of this case. If he had known them he would be absolutely without justification. But knowing the facts as he does now, through the agency of the hon. member for Hamilton, it is certainly his duty Mr. SPROULE.
to reduce the subsidy so as to put it on the basis on which he launched it.


James Joseph Hughes: This railway runs, or is supposed to run, through a country in which there is not one settler, and where there will not be settlers, but where the company represented by Mr. Oonmee control the fishing licenses, a monopoly ; control the pulp, a monopoly ; control the timber, a monopoly ; and my hon. friend from East Grey says they have also the mining rights there. I was not aware of that, but it would not surprise me if they had the whole country-M have not the slightest doubt they have. In Sir John Macdonald's time the policy of the Dominion government in bonussing railways was to grant them only in old settled districts, or in new districts where the Dominion had some interest. If the bonuses given by Sir John Macdonald's government are examined into, it will be found that that was the policy Which ran through them all. I know that, because when we wanted a bonus for the railway from Haliburton to Mattawa the answer given us was that unless we could show that >t formed part of the general policy of the 1 >ominion, he would not. give us a dollar ; and he held back the subsidy for years, although all the political influence behind the project was of the same stripe as his own. His contention was that the province should aid all the colonization roads. The Dominion government should not assist this road. It is supposed to run to the south end of the lake, then you have a large gap. and from the north end of the lake you have a road running northward to a muskeg. There is no use of shutting our eyes to the fact that this is simply a scheme to get enough money from the Dominion and provincial governments to build this road, so that Mr. Conmee will get his rake-off from the company, and possibly get the provincial government or the Dominion government to guarantee his share in the contract, in the same way as the provincial government has guaranteed his share in the interests around Sault iSte. Marie. I fail to see Where there is any excuse for subsidizing this road in any shape or form. It is not needed for any settler, because there is not one solitary settler in the locality. Is this line from Nipigon bay to Lake Helen, 3i miles, part of a through line, or where does it run ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, there is the right to build branches of less than six miles, under the general law.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the minister tell me where Lake Helen is, and are the 30 miles between Nipigon station and Nipigon lake intended to go by Lake Helen ?


Samuel Barker: 
James Joseph Hughes: The minister has rot answered my proposition. His plan should show whether this three and a half miles branch connects in any sense with this railway. The map does not show it nor does -the charter. *


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is on the map.


James Joseph Hughes: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. The red line on the map does not go within several miles of Nipigon bay. He cannot expect the House to vote jobs through without some knowledge. This is one of the worst jobs ever perpetrated. If there was any settlement there, there would not be the same objection, but there is not a settler in that entire country. Is this intended to develop settlement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly, to develop settlement.


James Joseph Hughes: Where is the farm land ? There is none.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are mica mines.


Haughton Lennox: There is no mine ; there is only the possibility that a mine may be>
discovered. The hon. minister cannot mention any mine developed or actually discovered within thirty miles of any part of the railway. [DOT]


James Joseph Hughes: I happen to have seen the country. There is pulp timber there which Mr. Conmee controls. There are fish in Lake Nipigon and if any citizen of this country wants to catch them, he must pay tribute to Mr. Conmee. I will tell you what this three and a half miles of road means. There is a very good timber limit adjoining and this three and a half miles is given to run from Nipigon bay up a level flat to this timber limit. It is a mere lum.-ber road of the kind which lumbermen are wont to build at their own expense. This vote of the people's money is for the benefit of this concern composed of American speculators and promoted by Mr. Conmee. They have the fish, they have the timber, they have the pulp, and my hon. friend beside me says they have the mineral. There is hematite ore there, but it has not been developed-there is not a mine in that country. All these various interests are combined. And now Mr. Conmee says : It will help us to put this project on the market of the world and get a good rake-off if we can get a bonus from the government of Ontario, and then come down to our friends at Ottawa and get a bonus from the Dominion. So, he will get this work done at the expense of the country, he will get his rake-off. and he will laugh at the farmers who will pay for it all. It is time to quit this kind of thing. The province of
Ontario has already been taxed for this man, because they have given a guarantee for his benefit in connection with the Clergue industries. This road runs from Nipigon bay a few miles east of Nipigon river. That little dab on the map should not mislead anybody. Let the map and the reading of this resolution tally. I may tell the holt, minister that the stream down this particular valley Is not floatable, it is a little too far to haul the timber ; and he is getting the Dominion of Canada to build him a lumber road. That is what this three and a half miles amounts to.


Mr. MURRAY.: It strikes me that if there is no trade for this road, or no industries to be developed to afford it traffic, the bonus will not enable the company to build, and so they will never gain it. The hon. gentleman for North "Victoria (Mir. Sam. Hughes) says he has a personal knowledge of this section of the country. I have not. But I have knowledge of the country through which the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. Going through a country that looked as if it were nothing but barren, rock every now and then you would strike a patch of good land, and these places are now well settled. If, on a road of this kind there are minerals, or even if there is pulp wood, there will be some business to assist these men in floating the scheme. It is all very well to say that Mr. Conmee is trying to make a speculation out of This. It is not so easy to gull the people of this world, and Mr. Conmee cannot float this scheme if there is no business to be developed that will make the road a success. If there are mines to be developed, what will follow ? The development of the mines will bring in many people. We know very well that in the United States where there are minerals, even though there is no arable land in this section at all, the mines lead to the building up of large towns. It may be so in this case. But' (if .there are np minerals, if there is no pulp wood, if there is not the basis of some industry to sustain the road, the promoters will not be able to carry out their undertaking.


James Joseph Hughes: There is pulp wood there, but the Nipigon river affords the means of bringing that wood down. There is timber there, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray), as a practical lumberman, knows that it is cheaper to float the timber down a stream than to carry it by rail. But why should the people of Canada be taxed to build this railway for the benefit of this lumber, pulp, and fish company. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) has told us that where there are good timber limits settlements spring up, that where there are mines, large towns may grow. But can the hon. gentleman tell me in any case in the United States or Canada where a mining railway was built before a mine was' developed ? This is the first instance in the

history of the country. We are asked to build this road in the hope of striking a mine. The Canadian Pacific Railway was built past Sudbury and a large mining industry was developed-that is true. But the Canadian Pacific Railway was not built for the purpose of developing those mines, whereas in this case there is no object pretended except such development. As to settlers going in where there are timber limits, surely the hon. gentleman knows that under the iniquitous law of the province of Ontario, none but the license holder can realize on that timber under the old licenses. The farmers throughout Muskoka, Parry Sound, Haliburton and all that northern section are simply persecuted-those who happen to be on the land held by the old license holders. They dare not cut a stick of timber except for the immediate purposes of their farms. They dare not sell a cord of wood without the permission of the holders of these licenses.


Thomas Murray: But they can take what they require.


James Joseph Hughes: They dare not clear a field.


Thomas Murray: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. Why, w7e have the cases of men in Muskoka who were taxed so many cents a cord for wood that they had sold. This wood was lying on fields that they desired to clear to put in a crop. They dare not burn it, because the license holders had not given them permission to do so. But they tried to sell it and were taxed by the Ontario government agent, Mr. Christie, for every cord. And it was wood lying there rotting in the fields, and preventing them from putting in a crop.


Charles Arthur McCool: The hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) knows that that is not the case under the present license. Any sales of timber made since 1890 are made under the conditions that all wood except pine is reserved for the farmer. And, in the spruce concessions to Mr. Conmee, as soon as the settler is located on a lot Mr. Conmee loses all right to the spruce.


James Joseph Hughes: And for that very reason, Mr. Conmee will take care that settlers are not located there as long as there is a stick of spruce timber for him. That is the very trouble. We happen to be familiar with all this kind of thing in Ontario, for we have had instances of it before. More than that, I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCool) that there is no place for settlers around Lake Nipigon. And, even if there were not one of these settlers would be more than 27 miles from a railway ; I can give the hon. gentleman instances where there are thousands of people in the older-settled parts of Ontario that are to-day thirty, forty or fifty miles from a Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
railway. And we cannot get a ten-thousand-dollar canal lock built, which would open up communication for these settlers. If the company were going to run a road up the Black Sturgeon valley a few miles west of Nipigon, there is an arable belt there north east of Port Arthur. But there is not a foot of land on that road now under discussion that is fit for settlement. The item should be struck out.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to enter my objection to this way of voting public money, by devoting it to the construction of railways where they are not required. This money is to be given to American promoters. It is true that some gentlemen from the province of Ontario have joined with these American promoters for the purpose of constructing this railway, if it ever is constructed.
I may say to the minister that Mr. Conmee is a well-known promoter in the province of Ontario, he has been associated with the Ontario government many years. He is a gentleman who has had deals of every description put through for him in the province of Ontario, a gentleman who is all the time engaged in either a railway deal, or a pulp wood deal, or a mining deal In the province of Ontario, until he has become pretty well discredited in that respect. I understand he has now taken a nomination for the Dominion House. He took a nomination for the Dominion House once before ; he tendered his resignation in the local house and ran as a Dominion candidate. It was supposed that the resignation had been accepted by the local legislature, but after he was defeated by the people, the fact loomed up the next morning that his resignation had never been accepted, and he still held his seat in the local legislature. This gentleman is sitting in the local legislature at the present time and he is accepting a nomination for the Dominion House. It is a well-known fact that exploiters in the province of Ontario are getting cornered, and the time is coming when these men must be driven out, and I suppose Mr. Conmee thinks there is a splendid field for him at Ottawa. I am much surprised that my hon. friend who has just entered the cabinet and occupies a very distinguished position in the government, should allow a gentleman of this kind, to come in, that he should stand up in the House and assist to put through a deal of this kind. My hon. friend from Hamilton has given some information to the House in respect to the personel of this company. Mr. Rowell, of the city of Toronto, another promoter, a gentleman who now is sollicitor of the Soo Company, the well known reconstructed Soo Company that has been and is yet to be assisted by the local legislature-that gentleman is also indenti-fied with this company. Speaking for myself, I say the time has come when the

parliament of Canada cannot afford to vote money in this way. I do not think there is much difference of opinion on either side of the House as to whether money should be voted for the development of this country. I think we are all in favour of giving bonuses where bonuses are required to open up a new country, which will give settlers an opportunity of taking in and bringing out their goods. But here we see gentlemen of this kind coming forward, first to the local legislature, and getting $3,000 a mile for 14 miles, in 1902, and they have not done anything toward the construction of that railway up to the present time. The only thing they have been doing during these two years is to formulate a policy that they could urge upon the Dominion government. Apparently they have been successful, because we are asked to vote this money now. I say the government should have more definite information before they ask parliament to vote this money. The road should be clearly defined, or defined as clearly as possible. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked the minister this afternoon if he could state within 30 miles where the terminus of this road . would be, and the minister honestly stated that he could not. It does look as if some people are behind this scheme who lja've more information about it than the government. I think these gentlemen might stay in the province of Ontario, because the people of Ontario will take care of them. It is enough for the people of Canada to vote money and to vote bonuses in order to develop the country, without voting money to promoters who are dealing in timber limits, in mining interests and fishing interests. For that reason I enter my protest against this system of bonussing railways. I think it is time that these promoters should be set aside, and if there is any money to be voted in the way of bonuses, it should be given for the purpose of opening up a new country and supplying settlers with railway facilities which they really require.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had but little experience in this House with reference to this gentleman and his railway exploiting, but the people of Ontario know something about his history. It is only during the last session of the local legislature that the question came up in connection with the breakdown of the Lake Superior Company, or the Consolidated Company, and then wo found that this same Mr. Conmee was very much to the fore. What was the history of that affair ? Mr. Conmee was in some way associated with Mr. Clergue in getting a bonus from the provincial government for the Algoma Central Railway, and they came down here and got a bonus from the Dominion government as well. Then Mr. Conmee goes on and contracts for the road, but he sublets the whole road to others to build,
and it turns out, after the company are unable to carry out their obligations and the Lake Superior Company have gone to the wall, that Mr. Conmee, with his partner, Mr. Bowman, of Southampton, have a claim against this road for some $400,000, and the Ontario government is asked to guarantee or give a loan to the Lake Superior Company in some way, and take this road as security. Now the provincial government give a guarantee of $2,000,000 to help resuscitate and put this company on their feet again. There is no doubt whatever from what was brought out there, at least no doubt in my mind, that Mr. Conmee was one of the beneficiaries of that deal, and yet Mr. Conmee sat in the legislature and helped to vote it through, both he and Mr. Bowman. This road was built on the same principle, I presume, as governed several other deals that were brought out in the local legislature a few years ago. It was discovered that this same Mr. Conmee was interested in or owned no less than eightly mining leases, or had applications in for mining obligations, or mining rights, or timber rights in that country, as well as water-powers-everything, it seemed, within reach in that country Mr. Conmee was connected with in some way or other. Whether it is water-power, whether it is pulp limits, whether it is timber limits, whether it is fishing leases or mining leases, Mr. Conmee seems to be in everything, and his name appeared in the books there not less than eighty times, applying for mining leases and other grants in the gift of the Ontario government of which he was an ardent supporter all the time. But Mr. Conmee found that he was becoming so well known in Ontario that it was necessary for him to commence to operate somewhere where he was not so well know. Now he is adding this scheme to his strength, so as to enable him to finance his scheme ; and he requires this for the purpose of building up something that he will sell in New York or elsewhere, through his solicitors, having already control of fishing rights in that country, and having control of pulp lands in that country, being interested in mining leases in that country, and if there are any water-powers, most assuredly he will be in them as well as in everything else. It is not for the purpose of developing these water-powers, but in order to finance a scheme out of which he can make money that he is coming down here to get aid from the Dominion government. Now the intention of the Dominion government was to assist in the construction of railways where they were needed by the settlers. It is unnecessary to build here for that purpose, because there are no settlers. Then for what purpose is it ? If it was absolutely necessary to build a railway to a mine, to develop a mine, I could understand it, because sometimes, without

government aid in building to a mine, you could not carry on the operation. But so far as we know, there is no mine to be developed in that locality. Well, there are pulp lands, we may be told. There are pulp lands, but they are all gobbled up by Mr. Conmee and his friends. There are fishing interests there ; but he has control of them also. There are water-powers, I have no doubt whatever, but he will have control of them before long. Therefore, it is merely for the purp'ose of aiding Mr. Conmee and Mr. Conmee's friends.
After a while we may be asked to come to the assistance of the provincial government to keep alive some enterprising company, and to take back as security for the money we advance or the securities we hold this very railway which we are helping to build to-day, as they have done in Ontario during the last session, with the Algoma Central. It is for that purpose the money is being given. I say it is an improper purpose. It is not the intention of parliament to aid railways for that purpose but for the purpose of assisting the settlers or developing a country where it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the settlers that some money should be given to aid a railway so that they might have the convenience of means of communication.
Mr. MeCOOL. In looking at the wording of the resolution it certainly does not leave the impression that there is anything whatever wrong with the three-mile branch. Any one who has been along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway knows well that it is nearly impossible to get down to the lake shore at Nipigon station. The proposed line starts from Nipigon station and the object of this branch from Lake Helen to the main line is in order to get down to the lake shore for water communication, to tap the lake with easy grades. If this does not tap the Nipigon Railway, then the subsidy is not "payable, so it is quite evident to me-I do not know this as a fact, but looking at it trom a common-sense point of view-that the object of this three and a half mile branch is to get access to the lake which cannot be had at Lake Nipigon. I know that from my knowledge of the locality.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the Nipigon not a floatable river ?
Mr. MeCOOL. We are not talking about the Nipigon river, but Nipigon station. The hon. member for Hamilton objected owing to the fact that the Ontario government had granted a subsidy of $3,000 a mile for this piece of road. He knows as well as I do or as any one does who has been in that country, that no line of railway can be built there for $6,200 a mile. It is said that the Canadian Pacific Railway just in that neighbourhood cost $60,000 a mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Samuel Barker: The government are not paying for the railway, this is simply a subsidy.
Mr. MeCOOL. I know that, but even $3,000 of a local subsidy should not be any reason why this subsidy should not be granted. I think it will be found that the three and a half mile branch is intended to give them access to Lake Superior.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that this three and a half miles would cost anything in the neighbourhood of $60,000 a mile to build ?
Mr. MeCOOL. In the neighbourhood of Nipigon station the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am told, cost about $60,000.


Richard Blain: I am asking about the three and a half miles under discussion, and how much it would cost, in the hon. gentleman's opinion.
Mr. MeCOOL. I could not say. The hon. gentleman has passed through that section more than once, and knows as well as I do that the whole country there is difficult to build a railway through, and that you cannot cheaply get back into the interior. I do not think there is any land fit for settlement in the first few miles after leaving the lake, but when you get back, there is no doubt there is good land and if this road is going to reach land which will be good for settlement there is no reason why the subsidy should not be granted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. gentleman aware of any special industry in existence there to-day that requires the building of this railway ?
Mr. MeCOOL. All I know is that there are a great many mining locations there, but I do not think it would be possible to work them without railway communication.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My impression is that there is no industry there and no mining locations developed, simply the merest evidences of mines that may or may not become something. The only resources would be the pulp timber and the fishing interests, and the pulp-wood I understand could be easily floated down. Therefore ,c seems to me this cannot be for any purpose but to help an exploiter to develop a scheme out of which he is go'n.g to make money.
Mr. MeCOOL. I think it is a most reasonable thing to use the water stretches along that road in view of the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in order to provide early communications in the summer to carry supplies through for that line. While these .sections are simply connecting the lakes at the present time they form links in the whole system, and the inten-

tion is to continually build around the lakes In the meantime, they form a line of communication over which supplies for the Grand Trunk can be taken.


Samuel Barker: Looking at the map in the hands of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) which is a government map, and on a larger scale than the map which the minister shows, it is quite clear that Helen lake is either on the main line between Nipigon station and Lake Nipigon, or the three miles to Helen lake is a branch parallel to the main line or very nearly so, so that in no sense can it be proper to grant this! three mile subsidy. It is either part of the main line or else almost parallel to it. Helen lake is north of Nipigon station, and must be either on the main line or close to it, so it seems absurd to grant a subsidy for the main line and also for another three miles from Nipigon station to Helen lake.


Charles Arthur McCool: The intention is to get down to the lakes.


Samuel Barker: No, it is in the other direction.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is wrong.


Charles Arthur McCool: It is a line running north, it would run a little east of north, starting from the lake.


Sir. SAM. HUGHES.: My hon. friend knows where Helen lake is ?


Charles Arthur McCool: No, I do not know, but the wording says it is on the line of the Nipigon Railway.


Samuel Hughes: You cannot get from Helen lake to the bay without going through Nipigon station. If my hon. friend looks at the map he will see in an instant.


Mr. BROCK.: The arguments against this subsidy are so strong and so well defined, and the arguments in favour of it are so weak and so confused and so indefinite, that the committee ought be convinced that the item should be dropped, at least until we *can get more information. I cannot understand this proposition as a matter of business. The Minister of Railways seems to be going it blind, if I may use the expression ? He asks us to vote this money without his having any knowledge of the manner in which it is to be expended or as to whether it can be expended at all. We are simply making a farce of this subsidy business, if we are going to vote subsidies on such absolute want of information as the minister displays or even on such meagre information as the member for the Nipissing district can give us. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCool) had every desire to make his statement in regard to this matter as favourable as it could be
made, but his arguments have been so unconvincing that I have made up my mind that I cannot vote for this subsidy.


Samuel Barker: We are voting a subsidy here for one-half mile of track which is simply a spur track on the main line to some insignificant place not shown on the map. If we are to grant subsidies for spur lines we had better do it above-board. This is a branch line for the convenience of some person who has a bit of property that he wants to get a railway to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no doubt that some one has an investment at Cameron's Falls mentioned in the resolution, which this line will help to develop, and probably when they get the subsidy the next application we will have will be to make it an electric railway. We are getting the business down to a fine point when we subsidize :o>ue and a half miles in a section of the country where there are no settlers, and deny a subsidy to hundreds of other places where there is considerable settlement and great need of a railway.


David Henderson: In view of what was said the other day as to the vote when no division is recorded, I wish to say that I protest against this subsidy and I want it to be understood that I vote against it.
4. For the construction of a branch line of railway beginning at the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's main line at St. ,Philippe d'Ar-genteuil station, or at a point between there and Grenville, then in a northerly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 49 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding three miles.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the Canadian Pacific Railway get this subsidy ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but I am not sure.


William Findlay Maclean: I take this opportunity to protest against a single dollar of the people's money going either to the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway as long as they maintain that infamous contract with the Beil Telephone Company, against the interests of the people of Canada. There is only one way to regulate these monopolies ; there is only one way to maintain the rights of the public, and that is to refuse to give public money to: these corporations that act unjustly until they remove the injustice. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, stand convicted to-day as conspiring against the interests of the public, and we should not give them a cent without demanding a removal of grievances. The government have already decided to deal with companies concerned with the Inland Revenue Department which make improper contracts, by | cancelling their licenses. The same principle should be applied in this matter,

and not a single dollar should go to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Grand Trunk Railway, or any other company which is party to a contract which is inimical to the rights of the people. This contract with the Bell Company is against the public; interests, and I protest and will continue to protest against granting these companies getting a dollar until that contract is revoked.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend should await a better opportunity to protest. I*am afraid that even with this subsidy neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor any other railway company will build the line, so that it can hardly be considered as much to their benefit. It is in order to induce some railway company to give accommodation to the people that the subsidy is voted.


William Findlay Maclean: This is the first opportunity I have had to protest, but time after time we will be giving great concessions to these companies, and I will always renew my protest. No doubt the Canadian Pacific Railway have asked for this subsidy.


Wilfrid Laurier: They have not asked for It.


William Findlay Maclean: They will later on.


Wilfrid Laurier: That will be the time to protest.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman said he thought it was for the Canadian Pacific Railway, but when I raised the question he now says it is not for the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not.


William Findlay Maclean: The time will come when the issue can be raised ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That will be the time to raise it.


William Findlay Maclean: I will be on hand to raise it. The only way to discipline these companies is to prevent them receiving favours from this parliament until grievances are removed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The old subsidy was for a line between Argenteuil and Lachute, and this subsidy is for a line between Argenteuil and Grenville.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: I wish to say a few words in explanation. This subsidy was granted last year to the Great Northern Railway to build a branch to Brownsburg, at which point extensive granite quarries are established, which employ a large number of men, and which have a monthly payroll of $5,000. The distance is much shorter from the Canadian Pacific Railway to this quarry than it is between the points for which a subsidy was granted last year, and the railway will serve not only the quarry but the Dominion Cartridge Company Mr. MACLEAN.
which has very extensive works at Brownsburg. At the present time both the granite company and the cartridge company have to cart their supplies and their products a distance of three miles over a bad road which it is very difficult to keep in order. This line is very much required and it will be greatly in the interest of the country /when it is constructed. I am told that when this piece of railway is built, the granite quarries instead of having a pay-roll of $5,000 a month will pay three or four times that amount in wages. This subsidy ought not be questioned by this House, and I for one would not recommend it were I not absolutely sure of the merits of the case. I have no hesitation in supporting this subsidy. I am informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not undertake to build the line, but, as it is a work that is absolutely necessary, the concerns interested in having it built are willing to give some additional assistance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is well that the hon. gentleman gave the explanation, because that is what the House wants to know. I do not think any person would object under the circumstances such as these ; but without that knowledge, we are going it blind. It may be that this line will largely benefit an individual who owns a quarry ; but even where that is the case, the general interest of the public may justify the subsidy.	,


Thomas Christie: Apart from that, there is quite a little village there.
To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, for a railway from a point in Hoche-laga ward, Montreal, to a point on the Great Northern Railway in or near the town of Joli-ette, passing through the town of L'Assomption, Quebec, together with a spur line into the said town, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 32 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 42 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would amend that by striking out the word ' through ' [DOT] and substituting the words ' at or near ' the town of L'Assomption.


William Findlay Maclean: Whose line is this ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad to say I can give a good explanation of this to my hon. friend. It is owned neither by the Grand Trunk nor the Canadian Pacific Railway, but by the Great Northern, and the railway is in operation.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the Great Northern a contract with the Bell Telephone Company ? The right hon. gentleman should assure the House of that before he grants this subsidy. The Bell Telephone Company is making these contracts with all the railways in Canada, and if the right hon. gentleman is alert in the public interest, he will make this inquiry and refuse to

give a subsidy to any railway company that makes such a contract.
To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, for a branch line from a point on its main line to or near Charlemagne, thence northerly and westerly to a point on the Mont-ford and Gatineau Railway at or near Morin Flats, in lieu of the subsidy granted to the Montford and Gatineau Colonization Railway by item 41 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 22 miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you change this subsidy from the one company to the other ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think because the railway has been acquired by the Chateauguay and Northern.
To the Ottawa River Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near St. Agatlie des Monts station towards the township of* Howard in'the county of Argenteuil, passing near Lakes St. Joseph and Ste. Marie, in a southerly direction, In lieu of the subsidy granted to the Montreal Northern Railway Company by item 58 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 15 miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You change this to the Ottawa River Railway Company from the Montreal Northern. What is the reason of that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason, as I understand, is that the Montreal Northern Railway Company refused to build the railway for that subsidy, and this new company is willing to undertake it.
To the Ottawa River Railway Company, for a line of railway between a point in the parish of St.- Andrews, in the county of Argenteuil, and a point in the parish of St. Lawrence, in the county of Jacques Cartier, passing through the parishes of St. Placide, St. Eustache and St. Martin, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 10 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 38 miles.


Wilfrid Laurier: This subsidy last year was given to no company. This year it is voted to a company which has been organized since.
For a line of railway from Lardo towards Upper Arrow lake, British Columbia, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 28 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1901, not exceeding 30 miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What company is to get this ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canadian Pacific Railway.
To the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company, either for a line of railway from a point at or near Spence's bridge on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nicola lake, or for a line of railway from a point at or near the village of Coutlee, southerly towards Princton and Headley, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 26 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 45 miles.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I would suggest to the Minister of Railways that this item be
withdrawn, for the following reasons. Last session a subsidy was granted to the Nicola. Kamloops and Similkameen Railway Company for forty-five miles from Spence's bridge to Nicola lake. Around and in the vicinity of Nicola lake there are a number of large cattle ranches, farms, small ranches and coal fields. One of the reasons given for the granting of the subsidy last year, which I considered a good reason, and which
I	supported, was that whereas these ranchers and farmers had to drive their stock forty-five miles before they could get to the Canadian Pacific Railway, if this road were built to Spence's bridge, they would be able to put their cattle and other produce on the cars there ; whereas, if the alternative proposition is carried out, the railway will start at Coutlee near Nicola lake, and run in a southerly direction, beginning (forty-five miles distant from the Canadian Pacific Railway) where there is no railway, and ending where there is no railway at a much greater distance. As this would be of no practical benefit to the settlers, I must request the hon. Minister of Railways to withdraw' the resolution.
Mr. EMMERSON moved that resolution
II	be struck out.
Mr. IIA (JO ART. Who are the promoters?


William Alfred Galliher: They are all either St. Catharines or Toronto people, some on one side of politics and some on the other.


John Graham Haggart: And most of them on both sides.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friend has more experience than I in these matters.


John Graham Haggart: Why do they ask for an alternative road ?


William Alfred Galliher: One of the reasons they gave me was that they thought it would bring about a quicker construction of the road-not only that forty-five miles, but the forty-five miles that would connect them direct with Spence's bridge. That reasoning did not appeal to me. I am speaking entirely in the interests of these people when I ask that this resolution be withdrawal, without regard as to whether it is better or worse for the company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On resolution 6,
6. The granting of such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to other companies, such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with the railways and bridge so subsidized, reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways; and
[Stage Direction]
tie Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and the. bridge hereby subsidized.
William Stevens Fielding: This was copied from the old Aet which was made at a time when the Governor in Council had supervision of rates. The Railway Commission has been substituted for the Governor in Council in this respect and this section should be amended.
Mr. EiMMERSON. I will ask that this section be allowed to stand that an amendment may be made to fit it' to the changed conditions.


William Findlay Maclean: At this point I would like to propose an amendment as section 6a :
6a. The granting of said subsidy and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the conditions that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to all telephone, companies equal treatment in the matter of telephone connection with the stations and buildings of the company.
I would like to know if the government will accept this amendment. This is to gain the same object with regard to these companies that was supposed to have been gained with regard to all companies by the clause that was inserted in the Railway Act of last session. I will not insist on an answer now, hut I will submit the amendment so that the minister can consider it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will take it into consideration. It is distinct from the matters with which we are dealing.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and I make it a distinct clause of the Subsidy Act and am prepared to divide the committee on it if necessary. I want only to make it clear that these subsidies shall not go to companies that will not grant equality of telephone connection.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can not accept it at the moment but I will take it into consideration for the third reading.
On resolution 7,
7. Every company receiving a subsidy hereunder, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized hereunder, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails .over the portion of the line in respect of which it has. received each subsidy, and whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service ; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being Performed, and the company performing it, ard, in case of disagreement, then at such rates Mr. GALLIHER.
as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in or towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to 3 per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company hereunder.


William Findlay Maclean: Does that mean transportation for all officials of the government?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the hon. gentleman a list of the officials of the government who already have free transportation over the railways of this country ?
On resolution 10,
10. Whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of railway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company, and upon the request of the chief engineer of the government railways, and his certificate that he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profiles of the whole line so contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means for transport available for construction, naming the probable and reasonable cost of such construction, may, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, enter into a supplementary agreement, fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to be paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer, and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinary subsidy of .$3,200 per mile, together with the 60 per cent difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any ; and the balance, 40 per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole work subsidized, and in so far as the actual cost, as finally determined by the chief engineer, entitles the company thereto ; provided always :
(a.) That the estimated cost, so certified, is not less on the average than $18,000 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;
(b.) That no payment shall be made except upon a certificate of the chief engineer that work done is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;
(c.) That in no case shall the subsidy exceed the sum, of $6,400 per mile.


John Graham Haggart: Payment under this is not to be based on the actual cost, it is to be based on the estimated cost. Surely, payment ought to be made on the actual cost of the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is in accordance with the Bill which we passed the other day. It is based on the original grant of $6,200, then on progress estimates you pay 60 per cent.


Richard Blain: Referring again to resolution 9, there is a provision that when the steel rails cannot be purchased in Canada of suitable quality and at a reasonable price, they may be procured and purchased elsewhere. I would like to ask the minister if there is any reference to rolling stock, cars and locomotives. I agree with section 9 as

regards the purchase of steel rails in Canada if they are procurable ; but I think the government should go further, and say that no subsidies shall be granted unless the rolling stock is purchased in Canada as well.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the duties would protect the home industry. The only assurance the home industry would have would be found in that way. When that Act was passed rails were free.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the subsidy would be actually paid before they bought the rolling stock, so you could not apply it very well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I wish to go back for a moment to resolution 6 and amend that resolution by substituting the words ' Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada ' instead of the words ' Governor in Council ' in the two cases where the latter words appear.
Mr. HAGG'ART. I suppose the minister has got the consent of His Excellency the Governor General to these resolutions?


William Stevens Fielding: That had to be obtained before we reached this stage, we got that at an earlier stage.


John Graham Haggart: If there are any serious changes, you will have to get his consent again.


Richard Blain: The Finance Minister has answered my question by saying that he supposes the duties that are imposed will protect in some measure the Canadian manufacturer of rolling stock and locomotives. I would like to point out to the Finance Minister and to the Minister of Railways that while the duties would in some measure protect the manufacturers of these things in Canada, in my opinion the duties are not sufficient, for the fact remains that during the last few years a large number of locomotives and a considerable amount of rolling stoek have been purchased elsewhere, a considerable portion in the United States. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I think that is correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not within the last two or three years.


Richard Blain: Will he say there are no locomotives being imported from the United States ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None are being imported from the United States now, they are being constructed at Kingston.


Richard Blain: I am quite sure my hon. friend is wrong about that.


William Paterson: Does the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) refer to government railways ?


Richard Blain: ' I refer to locomotives for other railways than the Intercolonial when I say there is a considerable amount of money that goes out of Canada to the United States and to England for the purchase of locomotives and other rolling stock. When the Minister of Finance says that the duty In some measure protects the home industry I agree with him, but I say it is not sufficient. When the minister is putting a provision in resolution 9, that when steel rails can be purchased in Canada for the construction of these roads they should be purchased here as long as the quality and price are suitable. subject to the decision of the Minister of Railways himself, why could not the government put in a clause saying that these subsidies shall not be paid unless the railway companies purchase their rolling stock in Canada ? There can be no objection to that.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that it is unnecessary. I think I am safe in saying that there have been no locomotives-I do not think I would be wrong if I said no rolling stock-imported into Canada for the last two or three years except in case where the Canadian manufacturers were so busy that they could not supply the articles. I think that statement is substantially correct. In the matter of locomotives. I know our factories were all busy, and the locomotives were only imported because railway companies could not obtain them in Canada. Therefore, I think everything my hon. friend desires to accomplish is already accomplished. I think my statement respecting locomotives would be substantially true also with respect to rolling stock unless it be in the case of higher grade rolling stock, such as sleeping cars, Ac, which have not hitherto been made in Canada at all.
^ Mr. BLAIN. Let me call attention to the fact that the Railway Commission on the instruction or with the approval of the government have bought a car at a cost of $20,000 which was not made in Canada. The Minister of Finance has overlooked the fact that the hon. member for West Toronto pointed out at the last session of parliament that a considerable amount gf parts of locomotives were imported last year and large orders given by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is not an answer for my hon. friend to say that they would be purchased here if the shops were not busy. What I say is, that any railway company or any body of men constituting themselves a company to construct a railway in Canada receiving a subsidy from parliament should be compelled to pledge themselves that every dollar of rolling stock would be manufactured in Canada and the money paid to Canadian people. It is all very well to say the shops are busy, that is an old story.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Richard Blain: The Finance Minister says ' yes.'


William Stevens Fielding: For eight years now.


Richard Blain: It has got too old now, and rather thin, for the government to advance any longer. What I say is that if these companies are in a financial position to construct railways then they are in a financial position to erect shops in this country and cause rolling stock to be manufactured in Canada. We cannot expect to build up this country and make it a large manufacuring country if we are going to pay out of the treasury of Canada very large amounts of money every year towards the construction of railways and at the same time allow a large portion of the money for the equipment of these railways with rolling stock to go into the United States and other countries. The hon. Finance Minister has put in a clause that the steel rails shall be procured in Canada, if possible, when he knows full well that there are no steel rails manufactured in Canada to-day. Two years ago the hon. gentleman said that in a short time steel rails would be manufactured in Canada in his own province under the splendid assistance the government were giving the steel rail industry. That time has passed, and no rails are manufactured, so the minister says nothing about it now. If it is the policy of the government to put a clause in that steel rails shall be procured in Canada if procurable, surely the same policy shall apply to box cars, sleeping cars and locomotives, of which there are a great many manufactured in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the manufacture of rails, I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. friend that not only in my province but in his province rails will be made before many weeks, certainly before many months, so that my hon. friend will be in a position to congratulate us at no distant date upon the full realization of our expectations in this respect.


Richard Blain: That is all very well to make that statement in the House, but we all remember that a month before the last general election in October, 1900, this government entered into a contract with the Clergue Manufacturing Company at the Sault, Ontario, to supply a very large quantity of rails, the contract extending for five years.


William Stevens Fielding: Was that not a good thing ?


Richard Blain: Very good, if it was not done for political purposes and if it matures. The difficulty is that these statements are made and my hon. friend wishes to take credit for the contract made in 1900 yet we are in the year 1904, and the fact remains Mr. BLAIN.
that at the Sault, where the contract was made, I shall not say that exactly no rails, but practically no rails have been manufactured. I think I am correct in saying too that in the Finance Minister's own province, where he stated a few years ago steel rails would be manufactured, there are none manufactured at this moment.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that several years ago I stated that steel rails would be at once manufacture in my own province.


Richard Blain: I did not say that. I said* that my hon. friend, in the discussion of the steel rail contract entered into by Mr. Blair, then Minister of Railways, said that we would not only have steel rails manufactured in Ontario, but that they would be manufactured in his own province.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, and both of these statements will be found to be correct within a very few months, if not weeks. When my hon. friend says that no rails have been manufactured he is slightly mistaken. I cannot tell what quantity were made at the Sault, but a quantity were manufactured and delivered to the Intercolonial where they are now in use.


Richard Blain: How many ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot tell the number. My hon. friend I think rather assailed us for making the contract. At all events we made an effort to encourage the rail business in Canada, in his own province, Ontario, and I think he might be more grateful for our efforts even if, in the meantime, the industry there and at Sydney has experienced some difficulties. We ought to be able to rejoice that these industries are rising above their troubles and that at a comparatively early date steel rails will be made at both Sault Ste. Marie and at Sydney, If the clause be amended in the way suggested it will not alter the situation but will leave it precisely the same as now. The clause as the hon. member proposes it, would read just as in the case of the rails, that rolling stock should be procured in Canada when it could be procured at prices as reasonable as it might be procurable abroad. That is exactly what is happening to-day. i stated as a matter within my own knowledge that the Kingston locomotive shops were full of orders and could not take any new orders during the last year or two. It may be that now they are in a less congested condition and can take orders, but I know that again and again the locomotive works in Canada were unable to fill orders and only under those circumstances did the railways go out of Canada for the locomotives. I think I am safe in saying that no locomotives have been brought into Canada for the last two or three years except where the shops in Canada were

not able to fill the orders. If you put in that clause in respect to rolling stock you will leave the matter in the same position as it now is, as no rolling stock is being brought into Canada to-day as far as I know, except in the case of the especially high class work. Whether or not it was wise to require for the Railway Commission a car of the character which has been purchased, is another question, but a car of that character could not be made in Canada. That is an absolute fact.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Richard Blain: If the government had imposed a proper duty on steel rails live years ago, some enterprising firm would have invested money in the enterprise, and we would have been manufacturing steel rails in Canada to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: I simply pointed out to my hon. friend that under that there is-no such policy as a bounty on steel rails.


Richard Blain: This is another indication of the government trying to introduce protection under the guise of special favours. It would have been much better if, instead of- giving special privileges, the government had placed a duty on steel rails sufficiently high to induce enterprising Canadians to invest in the industry. The hon. gentleman has tried the bounty system without much advantage to the people and not much credit to the government, because after four years of bounty, steel rails are still being imported. The Minister of Finance said that the private car for the Railway Commisison could not be made in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that. 1 said that whether or not the railway commissioners required a car of that character had been the subject of debate, but that a car of that class could not be made in Canada.


Richard Blain: Could not ?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly ; there is no factory in Canada making tliem.


Richard Blain: I make the broad statement that there is sufficient enterprise in Canada to manufacture a car suitable for the railway commissioners, and they would have manufactured that car


Richard Blain: The policy of this government has been one of bounties rather than one of protection.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a fair question for argument if we were discussing bounties generally.


Alexander Johnston: With the permission of the House, I would say that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company at the present time is rushing to completion the construction of a steel rail mill. Some time ago they sent some of their steel billets to the old country and had them converted into steel rails, and these steel rails have been reported on most favourably by the government inspector. The report which is on file in the Department of Railways and Canals shows that these rails are of a very superior quality indeed. Some of them have been laid upon the Intercolonial Railway, and others have been sent to the Canadian racific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company is at present taking orders for steel rails for delivery in the spring to any railway company which is prepared to give orders to them. These rails have been proven to be of splendid quality. I shall not dwell on that further, but I wish to say a word in answer to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). He says that the proper policy for this government to have adopted five years ago was to have placed a high duty upon steel rails.
I am at one with the hon. gentleman at that, but I wish to remind him that that is the very thing which this government has done. Gentlemen who are interested in the manufacture of steel rails in Canada came to this government and submitted a proposition which the government approved of But let me remind my hon. friend (.Mr. Blain) that certain gentlemen in Nova Scotia who were. interested in the manufacture of steel rails came to the Conservative government, and asked them to impose a duty upon steel rails, and I am here to state that the Conservative government absolutely and positively refused to do so.


Mr. CLANCY.: What evidence have you of that V


Alexander Johnston: I will refer my hon. friend to evidence that he will not contradict.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were all asked and declined.


Richard Blain: Then it was the duty of the government to decline to vote any money for a car until it could be manufactured in Canada, and the railway commission would not have suffered much in the meantime.


William Stevens Fielding: That is quite another question. I must correct my hon. friend on a very material point. He has said that for four years we have been carrying on a policy of bountying steel rails and that nothing has come of it. My hon. friend is dreaming. There is no such policy as a bounty on steel rails.


Richard Blain: That is a catchy point.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not.


Richard Blain: I stand corrected. The hon. gentleman knows full well that his government entered into a large contract with a Canadian firm for steel rails.
280J	'	.


James Clancy: I should be glad to have it.


Alexander Johnston: It my hon. friend will turn' to the files of ' Industrial Canada ' he will see that assertion made. Further, if the hon. gentleman will consult those who are interested in the manufacture of steel rails in Canada, he will find that such an application was made to the Conservative government as far back as 1887 ami refused by them. At all events no one will deny that while there were tariffs on everything else there was no tariff on steel rails until last year. The record of the late government and the record of the present government are before the people, and I have no hesitation in saying that the people will regard the policy of the present government in reference to the steel rail industry as being far preferable to the policy of the late government.


Richard Blain: How many steel rails have been manufactured in Nova Scotia since 1896 ?


Alexander Johnston: No steel rails have been manufactured in my province since 1896. but I can tell the hon. gentleman that previous to 1896 we had all the elements that would tend to a successful steel rail industry in Nova Scotia, but was not established. In 1898 those interested in the manufacture of steel and iron made representations to the Liberal government, and under the assistance they received they built up a magnificent steel industry in the county which I have the honour to represent. I may mention that there are two such industries in the constituency of Cape Breton to-day. My hon. friend may think thni tpese industries have not been eminently successful, but I am here to say that up to the present they have been fairly successful, and that their future is assured. I can also say that the erection of a steel rail mill is* being pressed forward as rapidly as possible. At this very moment the company is looking for orders for steel rails which it is prepared to deliver in the spring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to correct the hon. gentleman in one statement which he made, or the information which has been given to us is wrong, that application was made by the Sault Company for a duty on steel rails. The statement made by Mr. Clergue in Toronto was that he desired to have a duty placed on steel rails, but that the government would not accede to that, but to satisfy his company gave it a contract for steel rails at a pretty high figure.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has admitted the important fact, that we have proposed a duty on steel rails, and that under that provision of the statute, steel rail mills are in operation at this moment.


James Clancy: I would ask the Minister of Finance if steel rails are now being im-Mr. A. JOHNSTON.
ported free of duty ? He knows that he has a pledge embodied in the statute, that as soon as steel rails of a suitable quality can be made in Canada, the duty will come into force. We have the assurance of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that already steel rails of an admirable quality are being made.	.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


James Clancy: I will not contradict the hon. Minister of Finance. I will leave him to argue that out with his own friends. But I understand that there are steel rails already laid on the Intercolonial Railway that were made at the Sault. Are they sufficiently good that the hon. gentleman will now encourage the industry by bringing the tariff into force ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has slightly misconceived what was stated by the hon. member for Cape Breton. He did not state that steel rails had been made at Sydney. What he did state, and what is the fact, is that the promoters of the Sydney enterprise, with a view to testing and proving the fitness of their steel' for making steel rails, had sent a quantity of Sydney steel to the United Kingdom, and had it rolled into rails, which were brought out and placed on the Intercolonial Railway. Steel rails have not yet been made at Sydney for commercial purposes. They have been made at the Sault, and arrangements, I believe, are being made there to re-open the works. The Sydney works also will be ready at no distant day to make rails and when that time arrives the statute provides that the duty shall be [DOT] imposed. That time may come very soon.


James Clancy: Is the contract with the Sault Company still in existence ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a matter for the Railway Department, but I think it has lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were making rails, because I saw them turning them out.
Mi'. FIELDING. They were making rails at the time the contract was made. The provision with reference to the duty was of a later date.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has told us that some of these rails were laid on the Intercolonial Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


James Clancy: Is he satisfied, irrespective of the quantity delivered, that the qual-itv is such as would warrant him in bringing the statute into force if a reasonable quantity could be had ?


William Stevens Fielding: Frankly, I think so.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that there is something wrong with the steel

turned out at the Clergue works. Has the hon. gentleman any data bearing on that ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that most of the rails turned out proved to be satisfactory. I believe that some were unsatisfactory and were not used. But that transaction occurred several years ago, and I do not remember the particulars.


William Findlay Maclean: I submitted a resolution while the premier was out and gave it to the Minister of Railways on the understanding that he would consider it. I am quite willing that the resolutions be reported, and on the third reading I will bring up the question again.


Mr. KAULBACH.: The fact that the resolutions at present before parliament calling for so many and large appropriations for railway construction in various parts of this Dominion contain no appropriation for the northern end of the country which I have the honour to represent, so much deserving of aid, causes me great disappointment which I feel constrained to express. 1 made a request by letter in April last addressed to the Minister of Railways which was a rene'wal of previous requests, for a continuation of the line of railway from New Germany, where the Caledonia and Central Railway intersect to Foster Settlement and New Ross, and from thence by the valley of the Gold River to Chester basin, to connect with the Halifax and Southwestern Railway. I asked for a money appropriation for construction, and showed how essential this road was to the settlers along the line of route, as well as to open up and develop the resources of the country, rich in soil, lumber and mineral, it being as fine as any in Nova Scotia. I further showed that the proposed road would be a ready way to market, as well as have those people relieved of the torture they at present have to undergo, travelling over a highway, or portage road, very little better in some places than an open wilderness. I must here not omit to state that the scene along the proposed route is an everchanging panorama of splendid views, showing miles of romantic ride, and soil most productive ; the scene being interspersed with hill, glen, lake and stream-the latter well supplied with fish ; all vieing with each other to offer the greatest attraction for settlers. Bulletins are published offering very excellent farms in Ontario and the west ; but nothing is said of the vast areas of productive, arable soil in Nova Scotia. Fruit in Lunenburg county, particularly in the districts I have referred to-New Germany, Foster Settlement, New Ross, and the places adjacent-can be grown in abundance and that of a beautiful description. It is a lovely sight to witness the farmers' handsome orchards, trees bending under the weight of scarlet apples, luscious, juicy grapes, plums growing purple in the sunlight, and pears
vieing with each other for size. These in themselves contribute very largely to the comfort and wealth of the farmer and fruitgrower of these places when proper attention and skill are employed. The want of good roads and other facilities to reach a market, the people now occupying days in going to market and returning, is a great drawback to them, and most discouraging, whereas, with the facilities of railway transportation, time and space are overcome, money saved, and the promising youth of the country induced to remain, and settle at home, instead of going to the United States as they are now doing, seeking employment denied them at home, owing to the difficulties and inconveniences that beset them such as I have referred to. We are spending from day to day immense sums of money to -bring settlers from abroad to the Northwest, whereas by constructing a railway from New Germany to New Ross, giving accommodation to the adjacent settlements of New Burn, Woodstock and other settlements nearer home, we offer inducements for our youths to remain and build comfortable homes for themselves at a comparatively small expenditure of time and money, and, best of all an opportunity to receive a fair return for their labour. I hope I shall not be considered as viewing the condition of this subject with a microscopic eye for I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I know whereof I speak, having a practical knowledge of the capabilities of the country, and the conditions under which these people are suffering for the want of a railway.


William Stevens Fielding: I may point out to my hon. friend that these are all old subsidies which are (being revoted because they are about to lapse. There are no subsidies among them for the province from which my hon. friend and myself come, for the very good reason that the parties there connected with the various railway enterprises are all prosecuting their work. Certainly the particular ones which touch his county and mine are going oh in good faith. I have no reason to doubt that the particular enterprise to which my hon. friend refers runs through an excellent country and I hearily endorse what he says, but his county has been rather well looked after in the matter of railways and even if he does not get the particular line he desires, he has no reason to complain.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I fully endorse the work done. The Halifax and 'Southwestern, from Halifax on to the county of Shelburne, will, I hope, meet with the expectations of the government. It is a very useful road, particularly for fishermen in the export of their fish to the west in cold storage. I am not criticising the construction of that road, because it will aid to develop the resources 1 of the country, but I still hope that my hon.

friend the Minister of Finance will see the necessity for a road from New Germany to New Boss and down the valley of Gold river, to conect with the Halifax and South western, and trust he will see his way clear to have that project carried out at the very earliest day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Had the Minister of Railways any application from the Tilson-hurg and Oollingwood Railway Company for an additional subsidy on what was voted last year ? The subsidy voted last year was for 25 miles, and the company could not go on and finance on the strength of that short portion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall. I find that we amended this by striking out the _ words ' Governor in Council.' I think that ' those words should be restored, and clause 6 be reconsidered.
Motion to reconsider clause 6 agreed to.
Mr. EMMERSON moved to restore the words ' Governor in Council.'


Samuel Barker: Should they be restored lower down in the paragraph again, the Governor in Council will have absolute control at all times over the rates and tolls to be levied. But that is a matter for the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is always a final appeal to the Governor in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that is only appellate jurisdiction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 'It would be very much better to make this change. It would cove!' the idea better to simply put in the words ' Governor in Council.'


John Graham Haggart: Here is how it reads :
And the Governor in Council shall have absolute control at all times over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies or by any of the railways and the bridge hereby subsidized.
You will thus remove the control altogether from the Railway Commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I simjjly restore it as it was.


David Henderson: I understand that in the second instance the clause reads ' and the Board of Railway Commissioners.' But the minister desires to strike out ' the Board of Railway Commissioners ' and substitute ' the Governor in Council.' That is altogether contrary to the spirit of the Railway Act, under which the full control is given the Railway Commissioners. Surely the Minister of Railways is not going, at the end of the session, without a moment's notice, change the whole of the law In that regard.


John Graham Haggart: You not only withdraw the control of the Railway Commission from Mr. KAULBACH.
the roads to be built under this Subsidy Act, but all the roads to which any subsidy is given. You do so by these words :
And the Governor in Council shall have absolute control at all times over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies or upon any of the railways and the bridge hereby subsidized.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not take away from the Railway Commissioners any of their powers.


John Graham Haggart: Then I cannot understand the English language.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) proposed a two-cent rate the government told us that full control over rates had been given to the Railway Commission except in cases of appeal, and It would be improper for parliament to make an amendment that would take away the control. In this case we are making a change the effect of which will be that you have two authorities dealing with the same subject. Suppose that one authority is in .favour of one rate, and auother of another rate, how will the matter be settled ? Then there Is the question suggested by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) :	One of these railways is a
portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, over whose rates the government do not profess to have control. Are they going to try to get control in this round about way ?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a point that deserves consideration. I would suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) that the resolutions might be reported, the Bill introduced and then, we could consider the point before the Bill comes up for fi second reading to-morrow.


David Henderson: Will the hon. Prime Minister give us any assurance that the words ' Railway Commission ' will be retained ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot give my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) any assurance on that point. But I say the subject Is worthy of consideration, and to-morrow morning we shall have an opportunity of discussing it.
Resolutions reported, read the first and. second time and agreed to.
Mr. EMMERSON moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 171) to authorize the granting of subsidies to the lines of railways therein mentioned, founded on the resolutions.


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

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill

(No. 164) to amend ttie Companies Act of 1902. He said : This Bill is from the Senate. Its principal provision relates to railway contracts. The Companies Act provides that companies may be incorporated by letters-patent for various purposes, but provides that no company shall be incorporated by letters patent for the purpose of constructing a railway, telegraph or telephone lines. That is, a railway company cannot be incorporated 1} letters patent ; such a company desiring incorporation must come to parliament. This Bill proposes to amend that so as to make it clear that, while a railway company cannot be incorporated by letters patent, a company to take contracts for work on railways may be so incorporated. This Bill as it comes to us from the Senate reads :
3. Nothing in this section, or in any charter or letters patent heretofore or hereafter issued, shall be deemed to prevent any company to which this Act applies from acting as a contractor in railway, telegraph' or telephone construction.
I am inclined to think that under that wording a company organized, say, to run a cheese factory would be able to engage in tbe work of railway contracting. Of course that is not the intention. The necessary amendment will be proposed to make it clear that only those companies that are chartered for the purpose can engage in this work.


John Graham Haggart: Has this any ex post facto effect ? Will it affect any pending litigation.


William Stevens Fielding: It has no reference to that, and I am not aware of any such suit pending. The second clause in the Bill is to correct a clerical error in the French translation. The third section has to do with the redivision of shares to make them of convenient sums. Section 4 relates to the borrowing powers of the company. The law now limits the powers of companies as to the issue of bonds. It is proposed to add the following subsection :
2. The limitations and restrictions contained in this section shall not apply to the borrowing by the company on bills of exchange or promissory notes made, drawn, accepted or indorsed by or on behalf of the company.
The Bill has been put through the Senate, and I have no doubt that it is a well considered measure.


Samuel Hughes: Did not that Bill
originate in the Commons ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is a Senate Bill.


Samuel Barker: It was introduced here by the bou. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan).	*


Mr. SPEAKER.: This Bill ?


Samuel Barker: A Bill for tbe same purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We. certainly dealt with a Bill for the same purpose. It may have been a railway Bill then and now they have changed it to an amendment of the Companies Act. It was discussed in this House and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) must have heard the debate which took place. I think it was he who said, w'ben the Bill was explained, that he did not think it a good measure. It was allowed to stand and afterwards was dropped. But now the promoters, to accomplish their object, have evidently introduced a Bill in the Senate to amend the Companies Act, seeking to gain in an indirect way what they could not gain directly. At the time, when the Bill was under discussion here, I drew attention to one case of trouble arising out of the construction of a railway to Hamilton. The members of the railway company were also members of the construction company. They brought in foreigners to carry out the vVork and these foreign contractors did not pay their workmen. When we sought to compel the company to pay their obligations, we found that it was a company located, I believe, in Illinois, and we could not control it as we ought to have been able to do. It was admitted at the time that this chartering of construction companies was a very bad principle, and such rights have not been granted since. But now the attempt is made to revive this system which was found to work so badly a number of years ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember the discussion to which my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) refers. All I know is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in whose name the Bill stands, had occasion to be absent and asked me to move the second reading. I think the object of the Bill has been fully explained. Unless, there is thought to be very serious reason to the contrary, I would suggest that the Bill be allowed to pass through its early stages, and before it is finally passed there will be every opportunity for consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say in this connection that I think the minister was there at the time, and he will probably remember that the member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) had the Bill for the member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) ; and I believe it was understood jt was in connection with 'the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is all coming out by degrees now.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember what took place at the time, but I have no knowledge whatever of any company, to which this applies. We have been in session for a long time now, and some things may have happened early in the session which I do

not remember, and I do not remember tbe discussion to which the hon. gentleman refers. However, we have to deal with the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is as I have stated ; and unless there is a strong opposition, I see no objection to it. The purpose seems to ibe legitimate.


Samuel Hughes: At the time the Bill was brought in it was considered by the Finance Minister, as well as the Prime Minister, as being a covert means of arriving at certain ends, and so much opposition was engendered against it that the Bill was dropped, and now, for the first time, it pops up from the Senate. It looks very peculiar. I think it would be in the interest of all concerned that we should let it stand until we have had a chance of reading it, anyway.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances to press the Bill. I will withdraw the motion fo1, the second reading, if the House will permit and it will be presented at a later stage. I am acting at the request of the Minister of Justice.
Motion for second reading withdrawn.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.



WAYS AND MEANS-TARIFF COMMIS SION.

['I have no objection and I move that the debate be adjourned.']
William Stevens Fielding: That the House again go into committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to he granted to His Majesty.


William Findlay Maclean: Before that motion is put, I take this occasion of asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he will take the House and the country into his confidence and state, with more detail, what the prospect is of a commission in regard to the tariff, whether we are to have such a commission ; and, if so, whether the claims of the market-gardeners of the country for better protection will be considered ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I can add anything to the very clear and emphatic statement I made on that subject iu the budget speech. It is the intention of the government to appoint a commission of ministers, who will make an inquiry into the tariff, as on a previous occasion.


William Findlay Maclean: After this session ?


William Stevens Fielding: At some time; I am not prepared to say at what date. We are not anxious at this moment of having more business on our hands ; but, by and by, in a reasonable time, the commission wall lu-appointed and will proceed to its work.


William Stevens Fielding: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
['']
William Stevens Fielding: I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen to the tariff resolutions, which will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the 28th of June, page 534.
On resolution 2,
2. Resolved, that whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs or of any officer of customs authorized to collect customs duties, that the export price or the actual selling price to the importer in Canada of any imported dutiable article, of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, is less than the fair market value thereof, (as determined according to the basis of value for duty provided in the Customs Act in respect of imported goods subject to an ad valorem duty) such article shall, in addition to the duty otherwise established, be subject to a special duty of customs equal to the difference between such fair market value and said selling price : provided, however, that the special customs duty on any article shall not exceed one-half of the customs duty otherwise established in respect of the article, except in regard to the articles mentioned in items 224, 226, 228 and 231 of schedule A, the special duty of customs on which shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem, nor more than the difference between the selling price and the fair market value of the article as aforesaid.
The expression * export price ' or ' selling price ' herein shall be held to mean, and include the exporter's price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported directly to Canada.
The foreging provisions respecting a special duty of customs shall apply to imported round rolled wire rods not over three-eights of an iiich in diameter, notwithstanding that such rods are on the customs free list : provided, however, that the special duty of customs - on such wire rods shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem.
If at any time it shall appear to the, satisfaction of the Governor in Council, on a report from the Minister of Customs, that the payment of the special duty herein provided for is being evaded by the shipment of goods on consignment w-ithout sale prior to such shipment, or otherwise, the Governor in Council may in any case or class of cases authorize such action as is deemed necessary to collect on such goods or any of them the same special duty as if the goods had been sold to an importer in Canada prior to their shipment to Canada.
If the full amount of any special duty of customs be not paid on goods imported, the customs entry thereof shall be amended and the deficiency paid upon the demand of the collector of customs.
The Minister of Customs may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of the foregoing sections and for the enforcement thereof.
Such regulations may also provide for the temporary exemption from special duty of any article or class of articles, when it is established to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs that such articles are not made in Canada in substantia] quantities and offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms.

The special duty aforementioned shall not apply to goods of a class subject to excise duty in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to propose an amendment, to insert after 'equal terms,' at the end of the last paragraph tout one of resolution 2, referring to the regulations which may be made in carrying out these provisions, the following :
Such regulations may further provide for the exemption from the special duty of any article whereon the duty in schedule A is equal to fifty per cent ad valorem or upwards, or where the difference between the fair market value of the goods and the selling price thereof to the importer as aforesaid amounts only to a small percentage of their fair market value.
The general purpose of the resolutions I have already explained, and I shall offer a word of explanation of this amendment. It proposes that the department may by regulation exempt from the operation of this clause two classes of goods, one where the duty is 50 per cent. There are some classes on which the dutfes are already very high and practically there is no need of a dumping clause as respects them. The second case is where the difference between the selling price and the fair market value is, to use the words of the resolution, only a small percentage. The reason for that is this. The operation of this clause, as anticipated from the beginning, will necessarily give a good deal of trouble and care -to the department, and we desire to minimize this as far as possible. If the difference between the selling price and the true market value is an insignificant one, it is not worth while to bring the provisions of this Act into operation and we propose that the Minister of Customs may make regulations, under the advice as he will of the Board of Customs, defining the manner of dealing with cases of that kind where the difference is so very slight. Hon. gentlemen will see that if the difference is very slight there will be no object in applying the dumping clause. The provision respecting the class of goods where the duty is 50 per cent will cut out a number of cases of no great importance which if allowed to remain will give a great deal of trouble and worry to the department without accomplishing any substantial purpose.


William Rees Brock: What do you define as the fair market value and the selling price ? As I understand it the selling price is the market value.


William Stevens Fielding: In the practice of the Customs Department now, the fair market value is defined as the ordinary selling pi'ice in the country of production.


William Rees Brock: What do you mean by the ordinary selling price? There is the ordinary price of the manufacture of the article to
the wholesale trade and the jobbers, and there is the jobbers' price to the retail trade. Between these two there may be a difference of 15 or 20 per cent. Where a wholesaler in Canada buys from the manufacturer in the United States at 10 cents, goods which are sold by the manufacturers to jobbers in the United States at 10 cents and by them again sold probably at 121 cents, which is the market value. The American jobber has one price, the American manufacturer has another price.


William Stevens Fielding: For all customs purposes they deal with wholesale prices.


William Rees Brock: Manufacturers' prices ?


William Stevens Fielding: For all customs purposes they take wholesale prices, and in the case cited by my hon. friend this would not apply because if they sell to the wholesaler in Canada at the same price that they sell to a wholesaler in the United States then there is no cutting in price, there is no slaughter and there is no cause for bringing into operation the dumping clause. I think that is a fair answer.


William Rees Brock: There are various ways of selling in the United States. A manufacturer sells goods to the wholesale trade at one price, and to the retail trade at another price. Probably they will sell three times as much to the retail as to the wholesale trade. The large departmental stores in the United States buy at one price and a large wholesale jobber in New York at another price, perhaps the wholesale jobber will get a special discount of 10 per cent. I go to the United States and buy from the manufacturer at a certain price. A large firm in New York will buy two days later and get a special discount of 10 per cent. But they make the market value in the United States without the discount. On which am I to pay duty ?


William Stevens Fielding: If they sell to my hon. friend in Canada at the same wholesale price as to the -wholesaler in the Ujiited States there is no slaughter, no discrimination and no dumping.


William Rees Brock: If a large retail merchant in Toronto goes to the United States and pays 10 per cent more than I do he will claim that the goods were slaughtered to me and the penalties may be enforced against me. There is a difference between the wholesale jobbing and the retail trade, that is getting to be day by day more important in this country.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no new condition in that respect. The position will be precisely the same as to-day.


William Rees Brock: The Customs Department are rather lax to-day. I might apply to the Minister of Customs himself and he will

find it difficult to give a definition of the market price in the United States. The yalue to-day is one price but immediately ;after a certain date the price may vary. Five days hence there may be an entirely different price in the United States from the price to-day yet both are fair market values. One merchant in this country may have imported at the higher price, another at the lower price, yet each buys at the fair market value. How are you to decide ?


William Stevens Fielding: Precisely as we do today. I do not imagine that these questions are free from difficulty but there is no change in the position in this respect. One (man doing a large business will buy at a better price than another. The customs authorities will bring intelligence to bear and will make comparisons for like quantities and like conditions. The difficulties that my hon. friend suggests arise to-day yet the customs manage to deal with them. These difficulties always did arise and always will under any system, so long as we (have ad valorem duties.


William Rees Brock: You are creating a new state of things by the dumping clause for which you are taking a great deal of credit. What the country wants to understand is tow you are going to apply the dumping clause. I myself, with my limited knowledge of business, see great difficulties ahead, and I can see ways in which the schemer, the man who wants to evade the law, can do so. dt is going to be a difficult matter to arrive at what is really the fair thing. We know what the honest thing is, but in what way will the minister arrive at what is to be a fair thing to all the people in this country. I am engaged in a class of business that is [DOT]very conspicuous for the great differences iin values, for the very same articles in a (Very short time. If I import a thousand pieces of goods at 6 cents and some one else had imported six cases a short time before and paid nine cents, then because he has paid what was a fair value three or four days ahead of the time I purchased, am I going to be subjected to all these penalties if I manage a few days later on to buy the goods at a lower price ? These are things that are happening every day and I think .this is a matter that will require to be looked into very carefully before you impose penalties.


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Rees Brock: You are creating a new set of fines. You are fining people not only the additional duty on the greater value but a Mr. BROCK.
large amount besides. That is a very serious matter and I think before you attempt to collect these fines you must be very sure you are right. A customs-house officer in Montreal may take one view of it, and a oustoms-house officer in Toronto take another view. A Montreal merchant may import at one rate and a Toronto merchant may have to pay a higher duty on the same goods. There should be some board or commission under the Customs Department by which these matters could be settled. There is no objection to paying a proper duty only let us feel we are all paying on the same basis. That is a difficulty that presents itself.


William Stevens Fielding: I quit admit what the hon. .member says but these difficulties apply not merely to this new condition but to the past condition. We are not creating new fines. If a duty is 30 per cent it becomes necessary to-day for the Minister of Customs to determine what is the fair market value on which it is to be levied. The only thing my hon. friend can say is, that the penalty in the past hah not been so great as it will be in the future.


William Rees Brock: And remember, the penalty at the present time may be collected without any dishonesty on the part of the importer, it may arise from the difference of the date on which he bought the goods. I am speaking of goods I deal in myself, and I know that after the first day of June goods have had their value reduced all over the United States and England. The man who bought a large quantity of these goods on the first of June finds that some one else is now buying the very same goods at fifteen or twenty per cent less. Upon which of these will you impose the penalty ? Will the merchant who bought them at the lower rate have to pay extra duty because he bought them less than his, follow merchant ? Market value is a hard thing to arrive at ; it is a question in a man's mind as to what he thinks an article is worth, and he has to consider whether these goods are going to be in fashion or not. The intrinsic value does not decrease, but the selling value and the fashion value does decrease.


William Paterson: My officers find difficulties enough already, and I hope my hon. friend will not suggest more. It is our duty, under instructions from parliament, to accomplish what the hon. gentleman thinks is difficult to accomplish. If a person is bringing in goods at present and the invoice is not correct we require him to amend it, and pay the extra duty. But, after this, there would be an amount added to that. If the hon. gentleman were to buy a quantity of goods to-day at a very much lower price than they will be sold at ten days hence, his invoice would be judged by the (Kite on which the goods were imported to Canada ; if the goods had materially in-

creased in price in the interim his invoice would still be correct. The gentleman who bought them at the increased price would have to pay the duty on that price. It is the same with the customs duty as with the price of the goods. If my hon. friend bought goods at ten cents and two weeks hence they were twelve cents, he would have his goods at two cents less, and so much less in duty in proportion.


William Rees Brock: You leave the door open -for a great deal of swindling.


Samuel Hughes: Let me put this case. Suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) were to import an article the regular price of which in the United States is $115, and the duty 30 per cent, but he can buy that article in the United States for $100, he would pay the regular duty on the market price $115 which would be $34.50, and the special duty would be how much ?


William Paterson: The difference in this case would be half of 30 per cent.


Samuel Hughes: What would be the special duty ?


William Stevens Fielding: It would be $15 added to the $34.50 which would be $49.50.


Samuel Hughes: Now, suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) buys that article at $100, the duty is $34.50, and the special duty $15. which makes a total of $149 for the article. Suppose we add 15 per cent to that for profit, then the cost would be $171.85 to the retailer who would buy from the wholesale merchant. But, I am told that these American manufacturers open jobbing branches with a little -office in Canada. They have their agents and send their travellers out as the wholesale merchants do, and they say to the retailers : We shall not import these goods but we will sell them to you f.o.b. at Pittsburg or other United States centre. They add a profit of 25 per cent-the seller gets $25 on the transaction in one case as against $24 on the other. The goods are brought into this retail merchant at the invoice price of $125 and he pays the duty on them and they are laid down to him at $162.50 ; -a difference of only $10. The wholesale merchant in the city of Toronto is thus cut out, and I am told that this kind of thing is now being done. American business firms and others are to-day ceasing to sell to the wholesalers and are putting their commercial travellers into the country, and are making a larger profit than before by selling to the retailers. In this way they can wipe every wholesale merchant in Canada out of existence. Another feature of the case is that certain lines of American products are sold in England and then shipped back to Canada. We will assume that the regular selling price in the United States is $150. but they are sold to English manufacturers at $100, enter En-
| gland free of duty, and then they are reshipped from England to Canada at $100 which is the legitimate invoice price of these goods in England.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not profess that a measure of this character, or for that matter any tariff measure which human ingenuity can devise, is not capable at some point of being evaded ; and it may be possible that this may be evaded in the way the hon. member for North Victoria says. I think, however, it will be found that there are difficulties in the way of that. In the first place, if the retailer buys goods in the United States, he will buy in moderate quantities and at the retail price, whereas the ties wholesale importer would buy at the wholesale price.


Samuel Hughes: I say the retailer is buying at $125 instead of $115.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt there are such cases. We shall only learn by experience. I do not think, however, that the wholesalers of the Dominion are at present very much alarmed at such a prospect. 1 think their feeling with regard to. this provision is not one of disapproval, but rather of approval. In regard to the system under which a firm in the United States opens an office in Toronto or Montreal, and sells as it were ito itself by appointing an agent who, having an office in an attic, goes around and does the business, we have tried to get over that difficulty by providing in a separate clause that where attempts are made in that way to evade the law, we may follow the transaction to the end and readjust the duties so that the goods will be in the same position as if they were bought from the parties in the United States.


Samuel Hughes: The case I mention is a bona fide transaction. The dealer is paying the full duty on $125 instead of oil $115, and the Yankee seller makes $10 more than if he sold the goods at the wholesale price, while the goods cost the retailer a little less than they would otherwise. I may tell the hon. minister that this is done in some lines, and the case I mention is an actual case.


William Paterson: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is suggesting a case in which a New York house sells goods to the retail trade at 10 per cent advance. Where they undertake to do that, I think my hon. friend from Toronto and others in the wholesale trade will be able to sell within the margin of 10 per cent and keep the American goods out. I do not look for any trouble in that direction.


William Rees Brock: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am very much more in favour of the manufacturers of Canada being adequately protected than either the wholesale or retail trade making a special profit. My

desire is that the country generally should be benefited, not the wholesale merchant only, and I contend that the greater benefit is conferred on the whole country by adequately protecting the Canadian manufacturer, and thus avoiding the necessity of going abroad for these goods. The argument that the goods would cost more if our manufacturers were adequately protected has been proved by the experience of the last twenty-five years to be without foundation. The competition is always such that the consumer gets the advantage. Protection does not mean an additional price to the consumer. If adequate protection is provided for the manufacturers, there will be no loophole by which the goods will leak into this country to their detriment. AVe have large cotton factories in this country which are not adequately protected. You say you are trying to protect them by this dumping clause. It can be got around, and will be. For instance, there is no difficulty in having the goods sent to England, and having sufficient work put on them there to have them recognized as English goods, and sent to Canada as such. The United States factories act very drastically in these matters. They will sell, we will say 20.000 cases of prints at a certain price. They have 1.000 cases left which they will not hesitate to sell at half the price of the other goods, and they will give a guarantee to every purchaser that in the event of their placing these goods at a lower pricejm the American market. they will allowT the purchaser an equivalent rebate, tip to the present time we have to a great extent got the advantage of that. But I would be much better satisfied If adequate protection were given to our manufacturers all around, so that they would be protected from the surplus goods from the United States. You say these goods are out of fashion. So they are, but there are a large number of people in this country wiio are not looking for fashion, but who will buy the goods if they can get them at a reduced price.
I know that the intention of. the government is good. I know that their desire is, by this dumping clause to get rid of this difficulty, and no doubt they think they are protecting the large manufacturers, but they are going a roundabout and crooked way to do it. The fairest way is to go straight at the thing you are aiming at and stop the goods at the border by charging such a duty that foreign manufacturers will *know what they have to meet when their goods reach our border. There would be nothing unfair in that. It is what the Americans are doing now. When a manufacturer of another country dumps his goods into the United States, he has to pay 60 per cent, whereas American manufacturers who dump their goods in this country only have to pay 30 per cent. The fairest way for this country to act is to let for-Mr. BROCK.
eigners know exactly what they have to meet and let our own manufacturers know exactly in what position they stand. We do not think now. What with this mixture of regular duty and the dumping clause, it would require a Philadelphia lawyer to understand our system. Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) may understand it, but I do not. I do not see how it is going to affect the dry goods business. The foreign manufacturers will devise every means possible to get around these difficulties. There are difficulties that I could get round and I think there are other people more clever than I who would devise some means of getting around this dumping clause. I know of no better way to meet the difficulty than by honest, fair and square protection. If 30 per oent will not overcome it, then make the duty 40 per cent and the country will stand it. People who do not understand the question jump to the conclusion that protection means high prices, but it does not. Protection by creating competition in this country, will keep down prices more than any dumping clause you can put into operation. You had in Canada a certain protection on woollen goods which you have found to be inadequate. After I have been pleading with you for four years, you have done exactly what I wanted you to do and then say that I ought to be thankful. Grateful for what ? Grateful for the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to the wealthy people, not to the capitalists, but to the poor labouring artisans in our mills who were foolish enough to invest their savings in the stock of these mills. In one concern $800,000 of stock has been lost simply because the government refused to do four years ago with regard to woollen goods what they are doing to-day, and you have no more reason for granting that protection now than you had four years ago, and had you granted it four years ago, it would have saved millions' to the country, and a good deal of anxiety and shame to people whose money has been invested in large undertakings which money they cannot now get back. The result has been that a number of mills are now closed up. Some' other people may buy them at sacrifice price, which is the worst kind of dumping. The losers are not the capitalists or the banks for they have secured themselves, but they are the poor working men in the mills, many of whom have had to leave to seek employment in the United States. Go to Hespeler, Waterloo, Carleton Place and other places and count the mills that are closed down and the number of people thrown out of employment and scattered abroad, most of whom have gone to the United States. I bring this as a charge against the government that they adopted this policy in the face of the light and knowledge they must have

possessed, and simply because they wanted to please the Minister of Finance, who says he is a free trader. Well, free trade has proved a failure. If the principle on' which the government acted four years ago was a good one, why do they not stick to it now ; and the fact that they did not four years ago listen to the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen on this side and give that protection which -would have saved thousands of people from ruin in this country will meet them wherever they have to go and face the people. What are the friends of the hon. Minister of Finance in Halifax saying to-day '! They say they are [DOT]glad to get 30 per cent, but want 5 per cent more, and the Minister of Finance seeks to justify himself by pointing to some factories which have flourished by the production of one or two articles on which they have happened to make money. Hon. gentlemen opposite will find great difficulty in administering this clause. They have taken a roundabout and crooked way of protecting the manufacturers instead of taking the straight and honest course. They are doing this for protection but will not acknowledge it. What we are asking for is honest, fair, square and honest protection; and you may ridicule it as much as you like, the people are beginning to understand it as I am. A fair protection is understood by the people of this country and also by .the foreign shippers. These foreign manufacturers, if we had adequate protection, would know what they have to meet and would not be likely to ship their goods where they would have to pay a duty of 40 per cent. The government may know more about this matter than the rest of the country, but I tell them they will have to revise their ideas if they want to get the support of the people at the next election. After they have been experimenting from year to year, they have to acknowledge that they were wrong and they are trying to let themselves down easy by this dumping clause. But they will find that this clause will give the Minister of Customs a great many headaches and a great deal of trouble when he comes to meet the customs collectors at St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and on to the Pacific coast. He will find that there are, hardly two appraisers who will agree on the market value of any particular line of goods in the United States. He may be able to establish the market value of such an article as wheat, but in the case of dry goods and hardware, I defy anybody to tell me what the market value of these goods is. The market value, for instance, of a piece of cotton in one town and its market value in another will be altogether different. I can sell some goods in the province of Quebec that I cannot sell in the province of Ontario. A piece of print that will sell in Quebec will have no value in Ontario. The government are simply
laying out a great deal of trouble for themselves and they will find that this system they are adopting will be of no benefit to the manufacturer, the merchant or the consumer.


William Paterson: Exactly the same difficulty would arise in the case of a high tariff. Under the dumping clause a 30 per cent article may .become an article on which a 45 per cent duty is charged. But what the hon. gentleman proposes is to- make everything 45 per cent.


William Rees Brock: Not at all, only on goods which we can manufacture in this country.


William Paterson: The. hon gentleman says that this dumping clause will lead to evasion, because the 30 per cent duty may become a 45 per cent duty, but if the tariff were fixed at 45 per cent duty you would have the same attempt at evasion on the part of the exporter. He would be even more certain to attempt evasion then than he would be now,


William Findlay Maclean: The point made by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) is that if you wish to protect the manufacturers of this country, you should apply the principle of protection by imposing a higher customs tariff than by the way proposed here. The idea of protection is constantly growing and to-day the principle of protection has been enunciated in such a way as to educate the people in this country as well as in the old land. There was a report presented in England the other day which said that the way to meet the demand for increased protection there is by the adoption of a preferential tariff and of a maximum tariff against the countries which are hostile to our own.
Now that is the kind of tariff we want rather than regulations of this kind. In dealing with the United States we do not want regulations like this but a maximum tariff. We want a high tariff for goods of countries hostile to us, a reciprocal preferential tariff for the old country, and a general tariff for the rest of the world. That is the new principle and the one that ought to be adopted. I agree with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that that is the way to protect our manufacturers and not by regulations of this kind.


William Rees Brock: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) says that under the old tariff of a straight thirty per cent there was great evasion or attempted evasion. But he knows how the department met that-by making the parties who sold the goods swear to the value of them. If they swore falsely, of course the great penalty was very severe. In getting goods from the United States you do not buy from a great variety of people, but from great houses that sell the whole make of certain mills.. And I never found, in all my business career, any attempt on

the part of any of these large American dealers to evade the law in^any way. They are most reputable. You could not get them to give two invoices, one for the goods and the other for customs purposes as European houses have sometimes done. If you asked for such a thing they would not sell you goods at all. And the minister knows that there is no difficulty with the large wholesale or retail line of dealers in any line of business. The people with whom you have trouble are the people you would suspect even before you saw the invoices. So, this was a great safeguard that could be applied even if yon had a duty of forty per cent instead of thirty per cent. If this principle were adopted the country would gain so much in ten years that you would be amazed at it. Some years ago the prophecy of tall chimneys was sneered at. But we worked on and day by day the tall chimneys grew. But this government, if they have not thrown do'wn the tall chimneys, have at least prevented the smoke from coming through them. You could see the change in the results of the business as the preference went on-first, 121 per cent, then 25 per cent, then 33J per cent. The losses of the manufacturers of woollens in this country were in proportion to the preference, showing that the duty was not an adequate protection. All I ask is that the government should take that matter into consideration. One thing is certain, if the present government will not do it another government shall. It must be done. The people demand it, and the people must rule. The people of Canada are not going to sit idly by and see the factories closed up, our best artisans leaving the country and Doukhobors brought in in their places. The Finance Minister talks about the prosperity of this country. How prosperous has the iron and steel business been ? What are the dividends of the companies engaged in that trade 1 Then take the pulp industry-what are the indications of prosperity in our great pulp mills V And what about the woollen mills ? 1 And what about the cotton factories ? Go from Sydney to the Sault and see *what money is being made out of iron and steel.


Alexander Johnston: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Alex. Johnston) is very fond of interrupting. I have never interrupted him. The Minister of Finance told us some time ago that we were on the crest of the wave of prosperity Which, however, was likely to recede. Fortunately for this government, magnificent crops, the large inflow of immigration and the kindness of Providence have kept them afloat. But the industries of this country -not the little ones, ljut the great ones with millions of money invested-are not paying Mr. BROCK.
a cent of dividend and the stock is not worth one-third of what it was. I have not observed that the Finance Minister ever pointed that out to the people. He points to his enormous revenue and the great surpluses he is piling up. But these things begin to arouse the suspicion of the people. And, when we come to resolutions like this we begin to see what the whole thing means.
1 think the Finance Minister has found out that a little protection is better than the free trade theories he expounded some years ago. He is giving us protection in small doses ; but this country is prepared for a little heroic treatment. As we have gone back, the minister must do something to help, us forward, and he will not do it by this picayune business, this dumping clause-it is only the people who do not know anything about business who believe there is anything in it. If there is dishonesty now there will be greater dishonesty under the operation of this clause. People who want to be honest and straight, and who will not do anything but what is right, will act in conformity with the law. But they would do that anyway. But as to the rogue, I defy you to check him by any such clause as this. Of course you will check some rogues, but there will be enough damage done under this clause to more than counterbalance all the benefits gained through it. As I said, the only way to meet the reasonable demands of manufacturer and consumer and of the country generally^-and the minister will find it out-is through a system of ample protection. Not by any dumping clauses, but by raising the tariff as has been done on the other side of the line in the country with which we have to compete.


Alexander Johnston: I can quite understand why the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Broek) did not desire to have the effect of his observations spoiled by being called upon to answer a simple question. I asked to be allowed to ask him a question but the permission was refused. But, now that he has concluded his remarks perhaps he will let me put a question to him. He spoke of the iron and steel industry and of the dividends paid by the concerns engaged in that industry. He asked what those dividends were to-day. Does he know what the dividends of the Nova Scotia Steel Company, for instance- the only steel and iron concern at that time -were previous to 1896 ?


William Rees Brock: What has that to do with our expending 870,000,000 or $80,000,000 this year ? What do we pay duties for ? To meet the expenses of our government. If that company did not sell their goods at high enough prices to pay a dividend, that is not our fault.


Alexander Johnston: It has everything to do with the question. The hon.

gentleman (Mr. Brock) sought to create the impression that the iron and steel industry [DOT]was less prosperous to-day than it was before 1896.


William Rees Brock: I did not refer to 1896. I was speaking of things as they are to-day.


Alexander Johnston: If the hon. gentleman was speaking of things as they are to-day then, let me tell him that the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company is in a prosperous condition, whereas before 1896 it was more famous for passing dividends than for anything else.


William Rees Brock: What is the stock worth to-day ?


Alexander Johnston: What was it worth before 1896 ?


William Rees Brock: This government were put in to make it valuable. What have they done ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it fair for the hon. member from Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnston) to talk of the condition of things before 1896. No hon. gentleman on the other side likes to be reminded of that.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Finance tries to give us the impression that the Nova Scotia steel industry is in a prosperous condition to-day. What is the fact ? The stock is constantly going down, it is now lower than it has been for many years. My hon. friend from Toronto was-pointing out that the country was not in as prosperous a condition as the Finance Minister would, lead us to believe from his budget speech, wherein he dwells so lovingly upon the amount of the surplus he was getting, while in the former days we were told that a surplus was wrung from the pockets of the people of this country, that it was bleeding them white. We do not hear that song to-day, but we used to hear it very often. In the election of 1900 the cry was ' Vote for Laur-ier and 11 cents cheese.' Now if we have an election this fall it will be ' Vote against Laurier and 7 cent cheese.' One cry would be just as fair as the other, because the Prime Minister has just as much to do with making cheese 7 cents a pound as he had in making it 11 cents a pound in 1900. That is what my hon. friend from Toronto was referring to ; he was pointing out that the Minister of Finance, when he makes his flainbuoyant budget speeches, does not refer to those industries that are in a languishing condition, he does not wish to present a fair statement of the facts, but he picks out a lew things here and there that are prosperous, and dwells upon them, and leaves all the others in the shade.


William Paterson: Don't let us get into a discussion on free trade and protection, although that will come on by and by. I think
the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock), although he does not approve wholly of the dumping clause, would prefer to have that, in force than to*he without it. Our duty will be, once it is put in fdree. to perfect it as much as we can. Let me point out that the Board of Customs has not yet finally considered the machinery to be adopted, and the declarations that we will require, because we want this to pass the committee before changing our regulations. But I think the course we will pursue will be to require in the future as we have in the past, a certificate. The certificate we have required on the 'invoice hitherto has been that the man who sold the goods knew the home market price, and he had to certifiy that the goods mentioned on the invoice were charged at the prices at which they were sold in the country whence they were exported ; or if there was any difference in the price, it was noted on the margin. It is probable that we will adopt in the future a double column,, and require them to put in the one column the home price and in the other column the price at which they sell, put into the home column the price at which they sell even if it is the same. Then probably we will require the exporting firm to sign a declaration that it is a true and honest invoice, that it is without any evasion, that there is no drawback-a strong declaration. If there is any misstatement, either about the home price they put in, or in respect to anything else, then it becomes a fraudulent invoice, and the person becomes liable to penalties of the Customs Act in such case provided. I may remind the hon. gentleman what many seem to forget, that we are able to get on to these frauds at any time when thei'e have been invoices with undervaluations. Whenever we reach them, we deal with them, and they know it is a dangerous thing to engage in. Some people seem satisfied. once they have passed the customs, that they have nothing more to fear. They forget the fact that the customs can get after a fraudulent invoice for duty at any time ; even a hundred years from now we can get after them for an evasion of the law. But within three years, not beyond that, after they have passed the entry, if we discover it is fraudulent not only can we go after them for duty, but go after them for the penalties imposed by the Customs Act. The extreme penalty would be the value of the goods, and $200 for everw false entry. These penalties are so strong as to have a deterrent influence. There may be cases in which fraud is committed, but I believe that a great majority of the invoices will be honest invoices, not only because of the fact the member for Toronto mentions, but because the great bulk oft the houses he alludes to who are selling largely here, would be too honourable to make a false declaration. But those who might be lacking in that respect, will be

deterred by the penalties that will be imposed. We will do the best we can under this Act. Let us pass this measure, and we will work it out in the best way we can. If there are any amendments to be suggested, I will be glad to hear them.


Samuel Hughes: I brought a case before the attention of the minister some time ago, showing how this provision might be evaded. Yankee wholesale houses will establish agencies in the American centres along the border, as at Niagara Falls and Detroit, they will keep their travellers there, and ship their goods in to the retail merchants In Ontario. I know that is being done, because an instance was given to me by an American firm who had established themselves in one of these places along the line. Instead of selling to the Canadian wholesalers at the manufacturers' prices, they will wholesale the trade on the American border, and the goods will then be shipped as I have pointed out, the Canadian wholesale trade will be on the Yankee side. The price will probably be more than it was formerly, owing to the fact that they can evade this dumping clause by bringing them in under the terms I have stated. The case I cited was given to me by a gentleman who has been in the business for some weeks.


William Paterson: I think a clause further down will reach that.


Samuel Hughes: You cannot reach it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that we could overcome that by any legislation. If they are determined to cut away the middlemen and sell directly to the retailer, I doubt if any legislation can reach that.


Samuel Hughes: Adequate protection will meet it. If the minister will remove this extraordinary or special duty, the matter will right itself in Canada, because the retailer will get his goods at a much cheaper rate. As it is now, they add the duty on the other side, and put the wholesale cost on the other side.


Richard Blain: Will the minister state what goods bear 50 per cent now.


William Paterson: A large class of medicines containing alcohol. No matter how small the quantity of alcohol may be in them, they are charged 50 per cent, and these articles I am told by druggists run up into the hundreds.


Richard Blain: What other articles are there ? I presume there must be a considerable number of articles.


William Stevens Fielding: No, not many ; I cannot at the moment recall any others.


William Paterson: These are the principal ones.


William Paterson: 


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett) called attention to the fact that American traders were trying to evade the dumping clause by saying to a Canadian representative that they would appoint him ns their agent and allow him a commission. Has the minister given his attention to that ?


William Paterson: These are questions that come up, and if you see fit to give the Customs Department the power we are here asking, which we think it necessary to have, I believe that the Board of Customs, who will have the framing of these regulations, will be able to deal with that and all similar questions. Many ways of evading the law are talked of, but that would be a question with which, I think, we could deal. The intent of this resolution and of the Customs Act is that the selling of goods in this country under a system of secret rebates, or anything to evade the law, will be made fraudulent. It is intended to make regulations so that when goods come in here on an invoice there must be no evasion concealed in the invoice by salaries or anything else. If a firm is doing business on certain conditions in the United States they will be recognized here, but if they are trying to evade the Canadian law in any way, they will not be permitted to do so.


Richard Blain: Suppose that under the existing tariff a firm in Toronto imported a certain quantity of goods at 12 cents a yard. The agent in the United States says to the Canadian purchaser : You can continue to purchase these at 12 cents a yard, notwithstanding the imposition of the dumping clause ; we will allow you 10 per cent, appoint you as our Canadian agent, and you can sell these goods as before. Might I ask the minister if his dumping clause will reach a case of that kind ?


William Paterson: That is already the law ; it was passed in the Customs Act.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister will explain how it will reach that case ?


William Paterson: It would be a reduction in the price of the goods ; and when this dumping clause becomes law, he would not only have to pay the duty, but the penalty as well.


William Findlay Maclean: In the United States they were troubled with dumped goods, but they met the difficulty there not so much by legislation of this kind as by their tariff. When they found other countries dumping their goods in the United States they did not make regulations of this kind, but imposed a high tariff. Why does not the minister adopt that plan here ? It has been successful in the United States and all protectionist countries, and you prevent outside countries sacrificing their goods in your country by a high tariff. Why not adopt that policy here instead of these regulations ? How does the minister propose to deal, for instance,

with the United States steel trust ? According to the report published in England the other day the United States steel trust sends its goods , into Canada and through the Canadian Hardware Association fixes the price and compels everybody to pay that price. If any Canadian merchant trie's to do business outside the Canadian Hardware Association, which is really the steel trust, that individual meets with reprisals, and cannot carry on his business. Do the government intend to deal with a case of that kind with their regulations ?


William Stevens Fielding: As to the general question of the American tariff, which my hon. friend and some of his colleagues admire so much, with its duties of 60, 70 80 and 100 per cent, I may say that that tariff shuts out goods, not only when dumping occurs, but when there is no dumping.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear; it keeps the home market.


William Stevens Fielding: We propose legislation which will keep out the goods when dumping occurs, but will admit of reasonable competition when there is no dumping. As to the other point, we do not distinguish between the United States steel trust and any other trust. I understand that some of these organizations have contracts in Canada which will expire in the next few weeks. After the expiry of these contracts I do not think the United States steel trust and other trusts will attempt to renew these contracts, as they will see that they cannot, under this legislation, carry out their purpose.


Richard Blain: What does the minister intend to do with his policy of stability of tariffs ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is stability.


Richard Blain: When he introduced the tariff of 1897 he said to the people of Canada : This is a stable tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: So it proved.


Richard Blain: But the same year he introduced what is called a preferential tariff, giving a preference of 121 per cent. The following year he tinkered with the tariff and introduced a 25 per cent preference, and the following year a 33J per cent preference. Now he has a dumping clause. I think my hon. friend will have to introduce some legislation that will create a Canadian ready-reckoner, so that the people of Canada and the government itself will understand what this legislation means. My hoii. friend's policy of stability of tariffs is gone to the winds, because, when he wakes up after this is passed, he will not understand this tariff himself. If he does, he will be one of a very few.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's historical references are not always accurate. He will be surprised to find that some of these 281
reductions to which he has referred were not the result of special legislation, but were provided for in the original tariff. Two of these were provided in the Bill of 1897.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend cannot quibble on that point.


William Stevens Fielding: No, but you can.


Richard Blain: What I say is, and I repeat it in the presence of the hon. gentleman, that when he introduced the tariff in 1897 he stated to the Canadian public that he was introducing what he regarded as a stable tariff, suggesting to the public that it would not be interfered with. I am not just sure of the years, but I think the same year he gave us a preferential tariff of 121 per cent. Is that not correct ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is not correct. I do not know that the difference between the hon. gentleman and myself is material, but the tariff of 1897 provided for the adoption of preferential rates on a graded scale.


Richard Blain: To come into force when ?


William Stevens Fielding: On future dates. The special reduction of 33J per cent was a special Act, but the earlier reductions were brought about under the Act of 1897.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister to state when the 12j per cent, the 25 per cent and the 33J per cent preferences came into force ?


William Stevens Fielding: I fear I cannot from memory. The original Act provided, in the first place, for a general reduction in the tariff in what is called the general tariff in a great many cases.


William Rees Brock: A reduction of something like one-quarter of one per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to have been so much on woollen goods that it has alarmed my hon. friend ever since. He says it killed out the woollen industry.


William Rees Brock: You were speaking of a general reduction.


William Stevens Fielding: I said it was a genera! change in the tariff. I say that hundreds of items were reduced. The tariff of 1897 provided, first, for that general reduction, and then for a preferential rate of 12J per cent.


Richard Blain: When ?


William Stevens Fielding: Immediately, and then a further 121 per cent to take place some months later. Later on a special Act was introduced making a special reduction of 33^ per cent. That is the history of the tariff reduction.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman told us that the tariff of 1897 made hundreds of changes.


William Stevens Fielding: Hundreds of reductions.


James Clancy: I challenge the hon. gentleman to show hundreds of reductions.


William Stevens Fielding: I have stated in the House a dozen times that there are hundreds of articles on the tariff list on which the duties have been decreased, and in the budget speech of some years ago, I gave a detailed list of these items.


James Clancy: There was not 16 per cent of the total of imported goods on which there was a reduction. There are less, than 500 items in the tariff and there were not hundreds of reductions on these leading items. The hon. gentleman himself stated in 1897 that there was no general reduction other than what would come from the preferential tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: In the budget speech of 1898 or 1899 I detailed the items upon which the duties were reduced. As to their relative importance that is another matter, but I am justified in saying that hundreds of articles were reduced.


William Mulock: When the tariff reductions were introduced in 1897, Sir Charles Tupper in this House predicted disaster to the manufactures of this country because of these reductions. The hon. member (Mr. Clancy) now says there were practically no reductions. Which view are we to accept ? Is it not a fact that these gentlemen opposite, in their tariff resolutions and in their speeches in this parliament have spent hours and weeks in denouncing us for tariff reduction ?


James Clancy: I say there were some reductions, but there were not hundreds.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman said there was not 15 per cent reduced.


James Clancy: I said there was not 16 per cent of the imports of 1903 on which there was any reduction, and I repeat it. The Minister of Finance himself declared that taking reductions and increases on the whole, there was no general reduction of the tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not.


James Clancy: Before we close I will prove that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) did say that. The Postmaster General thinks that in referring to an alleged statement of Sir Charles Tupper he can down the Conservative party. Sir Charles Tupper is well able to take care of himself, but let me remind the Postmaster General that there are a great many things which he said in this House, and which his party and he himself now repudiate. He is the last man who should speak of inconsistency. The Postmaster General is not himself able to pull up his skirts and pass safely over the mudhole. It doesn't come with very splendid grace from him to try to quote Mr. FIELDING.
Sir Charles Tupper against the Conservative party.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman voted with Sir Charles Tupper then.


James Clancy: I voted with him and I will vote with him again. This government proposed the most vicious tariff that has ever beset any country. They came into power just as 'the expansion 8iad comf menced the foundation for which was well laid by a prudent and wise Conservative government. The Liberals in opposition promised reductions, but because they saw they were wrong or because they were afraid of public opinion, they did not carry out their promise. The Minister of Finance told us the other day that the .people went to the customs houses to hand their money over. Well, the reason is that they could not get their goods until they handed their money over. The Conservative party would have protected every industry in Canada that would give a man a fair wage for a fair day's work, and they would not have collected the millions of unnecessary taxes that this government does. They teir us that they have a revenue tariff, and if so a revenue tariff is a device for taking the greatest possible amount of money out of the pockets of the people.


William Mulock: The people pay into the public treasury and not into private pockets under our tariff.


James Clancy: The Postmaster General and his friends went throughout the country denouncing the duty on sugar, but last year there was a higher rate of duty on sugar than ever before. It was $1.26 per 100 pounds as against $1.14 during the Conservative regime. It is the same with rice and numerous other commodities. I am not afraid of money going into the pockets of the manufacturers, because if it does it will enable them to pay better wages to the workingmen and give them more employment. I venture to say that if the Postmaster General goes into any business which has become profitable by reason of fair protection, he will very soon find he will have competition in that business which will give him enough to do to hold his own. I would like to read to the Minister of Finance one or two chapters from his speech in which he declares what protection has done. We had it read by the right hon. the First Minister the other day. He told us that the United States was ruined with protection, that an unhealthy stimulus was given to business, that too much was done, that the small fellows were frozen out, and that the big ones fell after having swallowed up the small ones. I want to say to the Postmaster General, with all the respect which I have for a gentleman of his ability and his inconsistencies, and they are great, that until he is in a position to cast the

first stone, he had better hesitate before ho throws one at even so distinguished a man as Sir Charles Tupper.


William Mulock: I was not so much alluding to Sir Charles Tupper as to the hon. member for Bothwell. In 1897 Sir Charles Tupper declared that our tariff had made such a wholesale reduction that it -was going to bring about wholesale disaster.


Andrew Broder: Sir Charles Tupper was discussing the preference so far as you proposed to apply it to other countries besides Great Britain.
'Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. He was discussing the tariff, and the hon. member for Bothwell voted with him on that occasion, and on several occasions since. I am not quarreling with his vote or with his references now. The only difficulty I have is as to the views of which member for Bothw'ell to accept-the member who voted at that time or the member who is sitting here tonight.


James Clancy: They are quite consistent.


William Mulock: He has told us that our tariff reductions amount to nothing-not more than 15 or 16 per cent on the total imports-while a few years ago it was the very opposite. I only mention that for the benefit of those who do not know the facility with which the hon. gentleman can take this or that side of a question, from which they will no doubt judge how much value to attach to his utterances.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: 
William Ross: What I was going to remark was this. In the old times, before the change in the tariff was made, there were compound rates of duty-so much a pound or so much a square yard, and so much ad valorem on the same article.


James Clancy: There are specific duties on nearly every article produced in the maritime provinces. Can the hon. gentleman tell me one that has been taken off ? And if the people suffer under them, we in the other provinces are suffering.


William Ross: In the present tariff the duties are either specific or ad valorem, and one clerk will do more business for a wholesale house to-day than three could do under the old tariff, because there are not so many different calculations. That is admitted by all men in the wholesale trade.


William Rees Brock: What would that amount to in a business ? Not $20 in a year.


William Ross: But that is not what I rose about. We wasted the whole time of the sitting of Saturday night, and that is what we are doing now. At this time we should exercise some common sense and bring the session to an end. On Saturday night a man spoke on the Trent Valley canal from eight o'clock till eleven. Do you think the interest of the Trent Valley canal was promoted by that speech ? No, it was retarded. Now we are going back to give the history of the tariff, and we seem likely to do just as little to-night as we did Saturday night.


George William Fowler: I am surprised at the hon. member for Victoria getting up and reading such a lecture to the Postmaster General. We were getting along pretty well, and would probably have finished by this time if the Postmaster General had not butted in and obstructed the passage of the resolution. However, I think the castigation administered by the hon. member for Victoria to the Postmaster General is very well deserved, and I trust he will keep silent and let this resolution pass.


William Paterson: I wish to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), though it refers to a matter that does not concern us now. He suggested that a case of goods might be sold to an agent in Canada at a lower figure than to other parties. We have provided for that in the resolution which was adopted by the House on Saturday night. If the goods are sold to a person in Canada, it will not be permitted to the exporter to send in a pro forma invoice covering goods that have been sold by him to different parties throughout the country ; but the price at which the goods are sold to the dealer_will be the price for duty.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman is not answering my question. What I asked was: if a merchant in the city of Toronto were purchasing goods at 12 cents a yard prior to this legislation coming into force, and after it comes into force the American manufacturer said to him : Go on and sell the goods as before, and we will appoint you our Canadian agent and allow you 10 per cent for selling them : what part of this legislation will reach that ease ?


William Rees Brock: Probably this might meet the difficulty :
The expression ' export price ' or ' selling price ' herein shall be held to mean and include the exporters' price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment.
I suppose the discount would be looked on as a charge after the selling of the goods.


William Paterson: Yes, and duty would" have to be paid upon it.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman misunderstands the question. What I ask is, will his legislation reach the point where the American manufacturer, in order to evade the Canadian tariff, says to the Canadian purchaser, I will appoint you my agent and allow you 10 per cent to sell my goods in Canada ?


William Paterson: That would depend on the regulations we make. If the Board of Customs is given power to make regulations, and it appeared necessary to make a regulation to meet the case stated by the hon. gentleman, we would meet it in that way.


Richard Blain: I must ask the permission of the committee to refer to a statement I made with respect to the preferential tariff. I am sorry the discussion has broadened in this matter, but the Finance Minister will have to bear a portion of the blame. I made the statement that the hon. gentleman could not hold to his policy of stability of tariff and I gave as a reason the fact that this government has been continually changing the tariff since they came into power. I asked the hon. gentleman if he would state to the committee when the legislation introduced by himself came into force, and he was unwilling to reply. I asked him if he would state when the 12J per cent preference came into force.


William Stevens Fielding: I said that the first one came into force in 1897.


Richard Blain: When did the 25 per cent preference come into force ?


William Stevens Fielding: I said some months later but was not sure of the date.


Richard Blain: He did not state when it came into force nor when the 33J preference came into force.


William Stevens Fielding: I think in 1900.


Richard Blain: I was pointing out that it would be impossible for the Finance Minister to cling to the doctrine of stability of tariff, in which he took so much pride. The government made a revision of the ta-rifl: in 1897 affecting a good many articles-in some cases lowering and in others raising the duties. In that Act the government put in a clause that there would be a preference of 12J per cent on goods coming from England. In 1898 they raised that preference to 25 per cent and in 1900 they made it 331. After another year or two my hon. friend introduced another special legislation providing for a special surtax against German goods. To-day we have the dumping clause introduced, which it is impossible for any one to understand, with the exception of course of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnston), who understands it thoroughly.


Alexander Johnston: Certainly I do.


William Paterson: 


Richard Blain: And I remember that hon. gentleman telling us about the great prosperity of the steel industry down there.


Alexander Johnston: I say so still.


Richard Blain: And the hon gentleman says so in face of the fact that the stocks in that industry are going down every day. People who work down there do not say it is flourishing. Does he not know that a great many of the citizens of Sydney went to the United States last year.


Alexander Johnston: I know that that is not the case.


Richard Blain: Well, the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) made that statement to myself.


Alexander Johnston: We have excellent Canadian citizens to take their place.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman first denies my statement and then admits it by saying that we have excellent Canadian citizens to take the place of those who went to the United States. That shows how much dependence we can put on any statement he makes.


Alexander Johnston: Do you doubt that it is prosperous ?


Richard Blain: Everybody knows it is not.


Alexander Johnston: I know it is.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is evidently not satisfied, because he wants special legislation for the steel industry I make the statement the principle of stability of tariff has gone to the winds with all the other principles of hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely the hon. the Finance Minister will never plume himself again on the stability of tariff. I am positive he will not after he gets a proper understanding of this dumping clause.


James Clancy: I always feel anxious to assist the Finance Minister in any way I can and I wish to recall to him what he said in the past, for I have no doubt he has forgotten it. At page 1111 of the ' Hansard ' of 1897 he said :
There are things we want to buy from foreign countries, and our desire to obtain these things on fair and reasonable terms is paramount to every other consideration in dealing with the tariff question. With the exception of articles to which I shall refer as I proceed, I have to tell the House that it is not the intention of the government-speaking of the question generally, but not with reference to any particular article-to propose any great reduction in the tariff as applied to those countries which are not disposed to trade with us. We propose, therefore, to have a general tariff, and that general tariff will be, to a large extent the tariff of to-day-


William Stevens Fielding: But my hon. friend must not stop there. I beg of him to go on, as I want him to refresh my memory as to what followed.


James Clancy: Now I shall read the hon. gentleman's banter which always follows these statements. He usually goes a long way ahead and then recedes to the same extent:
-but the tariff to-day freed from some of its enormities


William Stevens Fielding: And you were leaving that out.


James Clancy: Yes, that is not a reduction of tariff:
-freed from some of its enormities


William Stevens Fielding: That is very unfair.


James Clancy: -freed from some of its enormities, freed from many of the specific duties-
There is not an article consumed in his own province which has freed from specific duties. I am not complaining about specific duties, because they are sometimes the 'best kind of protection, but what is the case ?


William Stevens Fielding: Just finish the sentence.


James Clancy: -freed from many of the specific duties, freed from the conflicts, annoyances and irritation which have created war between the importer and the customs authorities-
This was not supposed to be a logical reason but it would follow the hon. gentleman's honest declaration. The general tariff was to remain just about what it was. He freed it from every feature of protection he could-not enough to ruin the business men of the country but just enough to chafe and irritate them. I can tell the hon. gentleman what he did-he showed himself to be the surest tax collector that Canada ever had. His tariff was the best instrument for carrying out that process-a painless process during good times-of taking money from the pockets of the people that we have ever known. If the purpose of his office is to take money from the people he is the most successful Finance Minister that has ever held office in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: The one way to meet the dumping difficulty is by the application of the principle of specific duties. That will effect the purpose of preventing Canada from. being made a dumping ground, and without the irritation between the importer and the department that has been spoken of.


David Henderson: We might as well settle the question we have been debating for the last half hour so that we may not have to return to it and may not require to spend too much time on the resolutions before us. I have here the testimony of the Finance Minister himself as to the effect of the tariff of 1897. We do not require to go back to the speech of Sir Charles
Tupper, who spoke on the spur of the moment, perhaps without calculation as to what would be the result of that tariff. But here we have the well-considered declaration of the Minister of Finance himself in 1900-1 and after the tariff had been three years in operation :
It was of the utmost importance that we should maintain a strong financial position, and in view of the uncertainties as to the amount of revenue that might be produced by this lower rate of taxation it became necessary that we should take some steps to make good any possible loss that might result. It was thought that it might fairly be met by providing for the raising of some additional taxation in order to balance, or make good the loss occasioned by the reduction of duties .... It was necessary to have an increased revenue in certain directions when we were to lose revenue in other directions.
So, it appears, it never was the intention of the Minister of Finance to lower the rates of taxation. His intention was that a firm financial stand should be maintained. Aud, to this end if he took the duty off one article he put it on another ; as I suggested the other night if he reduced the duty on a woman's silk dress he put it on her fur cape. So, the minister himseif admits that taxation was not reduced by the operation of the tariff brought down in 1897, and, moreover, that was not the intention. He simply carried out his intention in the way I have indicated-by increasing the duty on one article when he reduced the duty on another. As the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) pointed out, when he applied the preferential tariff and reduced the duty on goods coming from England he immediately put an increased duty on sugar and on rice and very largely increased duty on tobacco. We were told to-day that .by reason of the legislation of 1897-perhaps the Finance Minister was not responsible for that, but *still it was done by the government of the day-one result of the increased duty on tobacco was an additional revenue of some $1,700,000 or $1,800,000. Now, this was the kind of thing no doubt that the minister referred to when he said it was necessary to put duties on to make up revenue in consideration of what he had taken off. That was the way, as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) suggests he maintained a firm condition. I think he succeeded admirably in maintaining a very strong financial position-he knew that the reduction of duty on certain articles would cause a greater importation into the country arid he would get more revenue than if a higher rate of duty had been maintained and the production of the goods at home had been encouraged.


George William Fowler: I understand that this makes a change as to steel rods.


William Stevens Fielding: It makes the dumping clause apply to steel rods.


George William Fowler: Are they taken off the free list ?


William Stevens Fielding: No. But steel rods are aided by a bounty. And as an offset for their being on the free list we include them under this special clause. If they are dumped they will be brought under this special duty.


George William Fowler: That is, the measure of dumping will be added ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, with the limitation that it shall not exceed fifteen per cent, which is about what we believe it to be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister please explain the meaning of the section :
Such regulations may also provide for the temporary exemption from special duty of any article or class of articles, when it is established to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs that such articles are sot made in Canada in substantial quantities and offered for sale to all purchasers on equal termS.


William Stevens Fielding: The design of this legislation is to give a reasonable guarantee against the slaughtering of goods to the disadvantage of our own industries. But if we have a small concern making only a few articles in a line, not enough to supply the market and probably not contemplating sale to the market generally, it would not be reasonable to bring the dumping clause into effect. It is only where the business covers the Canadian market generally that the dumping clause comes in. Then, as to the expression ' offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms ' a concern may do business on a large scale and yet be unwilling to sell to all buyers. For instance they might keep their product to make it up in another department of their own factory. It is only where people carry on. business upon a competitive scale and sell on equal terms to all parties that they can seek the protection of this clause. '


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand this will cover the special duty only. The ordinary duty will remain as it is now ?
On resolution 3,
3. Resolved, that in schedule A, the words ' common and colourless window glass, and ' in item 201, and the words ' pails and tubs of wood ' in item 330 shall be omitted and that items 22, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 78 and 203 of schedule A shall be repealed and the following provisions added to schedule A viz.:-
After item 7	(a):-Provided that bottles,
flasks and packages of gin, rum. whisky and brandy of all kinds, and imitations thereof shall be held to contain the following quantities (subject to the provisions for addition or deduction in respect to the degree of strength), viz.:-
Bottles, flasks and packages containing not more than three-fourths of a gallon per dozen, as three-fourths of a gallon per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than three-fourths of a gallon, hut not more Mr. FIELDING.
than one gallon per dozen, as one gallon per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than one gallon, hut not more than one and one-half gallons per dozen, as one and one-half gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than one and one-half gallons, but not more than two gallons per dozen, as two gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than two gallons, but not more than two and four-fifths gallons per dozen, as two and four-fifths gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than two and four-fifths gallons, but not more than three gallons per dozen, as three gallons per dozen ;
Bottles, flasks and packages containing more than three gallons, but not more than three and one-fifth gallons per dozen, as three and one-fifth gallons per dozen.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to insert an amendment. These regulations respecting bottles and flasks are suggested by the experience of the Customs Department for uniformity of measurement. I wish to add thereto the following words :
Provided further that bottles or vials of liquors, such as samples not for sale to the trade may be entered for duty according to actual measurement under regulations by the Minister of Customs.
There is quite a number of articles coming in in small vials which, are not for commercial purposes, and we provide a method of assessing the duty upon them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['I would like to insert an amendment. These regulations respecting bottles and flasks are suggested by the experience of the Customs Department for uniformity of measurement. I wish to add thereto the following words :\nProvided further that bottles or vials of liquors, such as samples not for sale to the trade may be entered for duty according to actual measurement under regulations by the Minister of Customs.\nThere is quite a number of articles coming in in small vials which, are not for commercial purposes, and we provide a method of assessing the duty upon them.']
David Henderson: I would ask the minister what will be the duty now on pails of wood ?


William Stevens Fielding: This change takes them out of the twenty cent list and leaves them under the general classification of wood goods at 25 per eent. That is an increase.


Richard Blain: What is the extent of the reduction in duty on window glass ?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Richard Blain: Are we then to understand that the government have given up the idea that glass can be manufactured in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not made at present nor have we any indication that it is likely to be. It is a very specialized industry, and so far as we can learn it is not likely to be introduced into Canada at an early date.


Richard Blain: Then do we understand that the government have arrived at the conclusion that for all time to come, or while this tariff is in operation, window glass must he imported V


William Stevens Fielding: For the present, I won t say for all time to come.


Richard Blain: I think glass can be manufactured in Canada, and it seems to me the government are striking at an industry that will eventually grow up here. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) points out that the glass in this chamber overhead was manufactured in Canada. However, I think the government, in revising the tariff, should be very careful lest they strike an anticipatory blow at an industry that may eventually grow up in Canada.


William Paterson: The manufacture has already been tried here.


Richard Blain: Many things have been tried and have succeeded which people formerly thought were impossible. We have now large and flourishing industries that at one time were thought impossible.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is mistaken if he thinks this industry could be started in Canada under these regulations.
Such regulations may also provide for the temporary exemption from special duty of any article or class of articles, when it is established to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs that such articles are not made in Canada in substantial Quantities and are offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms.
Then any industry at present established in Canada that does not manufacture ' in substantial quantities ' won't come under the dumping clause, and no new industry that is not established is ever likely to be established because foreigners can dump as many goods as they like to prevent its being started.


William Stevens Fielding: The words ' substantial quantities ' should have a reasonable interpretation. Suppose some person makes au article on a small scale perhaps for his own use, not offering it for sale ; would it be reasonable to regard that as au industry that required the dumping clause to be applied to it, when the man is not able to supply the trade ? What good would it do him to give him further protection on an article which he is not able to supply ? That would be a very extreme doctrine! If the goods are not being offered in the market, nobody is hurt by other goods coming in.


John Graham Haggart: They may be offered in the market and may he manufactured in the country, hut perhaps not in the substantial quantities that would satisfy the Minister of Customs. The clause in the regulations virtually says to the people :	Don't start
any new industry. Or if you have started a new industry and you do not manufacture in sufficient quantity, the dumping clause will not apply to you.


Richard Blain: From what country is the larger portion of our glass imported at the present time ?


William Paterson: I think largely from Belgium.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I will read the balance of resolution 3 :
22. Paraffine wax candles, 25 per cent ad valorem.
151. Paraffine wax, 25 per cent ad valorem.
170.	Illuminating oils, composed wholly1 or in part of the products of petroleum, coal, shale or lignite, costing more than thirty cents per gallon, 20 per cent ad valorem.
171.	Lubricating oils, composed wholly or in part of petroleum, costing less than 25 cents per gallon, 2J cents per gallon.
172.	Crude petroleum, gas oils (other than naphtha, benzine and gasoline), lighter than *S235 but not less than :775 specific gravity, at 60 degrees temperature, 11 cents per gallon.
173.	Oils, coal and kerosene, distilled, purified or refined, naphtha and petroleum and products of petroleum, n.e.s., 2J cents per gallon.
175. Lubricating oils, n.e.s., and axle grease, 20 per cent ad valorem.
178. Vaseline, and all similar preparations of petroleum for toilet, medicinal or other purposes, 25 per cent ad valorem.
201 (a). Common and colourless window glass, 15 per cent ad valorem.
203. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or Danes, not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p., 10 per cent ad valorem.
203 (a.) Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each, n.o.p., 25 per cent ad valorem.
After item 323 -Provided that for duty purposes the minimum valub of an open buggy shall be forty dollars, and the minimum value of a covered buggy shall be fifty dollars.
368 (a.) Silk fabrics, when imported by manufacturers of neckties for use exclusively in the manufacture of neckties in their own factories, under regulations to he made by the Minister of Customs, 10 per cent ad valorem.
147 (a.) Artificial teeth, until April 1, 1905, 10 per cent ad valorem.
Notwithstanding anything contained in schedule D, the maximum duty on the undermentioned articles when imported under the British preferential tariff shall be as follows :-
185 (a.) Tableware of china, porcelain or other white clay, 15 per cent ad valorem.
201 (b.) Common and colourless window glass,
per cent ad valorero-
Notwithstanding anything contained in schedule D, the minimum duty on the undermentioned articles when imported under the British preferential tariff shall be as follows [DOT]-
394 (a.) Manufactures as described in item 394 of schedule A (excepting blankets, flannels, bed comforters and counterpanes) composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the Alpaca, goat or other like animal. 30 per cent ad valorem.


George William Fowler: Have any representations been made to the minister with respect to reducing the duty upon skates ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think not recently. I remember that in some former years there

was some discussion on the subject but to the best of my recollection there was no recent communication.


George William Fowler: We have a skate manufactory in my county, one of the few in Canada and they have met with a great deal of difficulty in carrying on business oil account of the competition of German manufacturers who make a much inferior quality of skate but are able to sell for so small a price that it is very difficult for the Canadian manufacturers to compete. There is a manufactory in the minister's own province, and I would ask the minister if he would make an amendment here to assist the Canadian skate manufacturers.


William Paterson: How is it since the surtax ?


George William Fowler: A little better than before. Of course there was first the removal of the specific duty which took place before 1896, and then came the preference of which the Germans had the benefit, and which was very serious. It is better now, but I think an increase in the duty would not do any harm to the people of Canada and it would be a very great aid to the industry in my own county.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the duty on skates is 35 per cent. Under the legislation respecting the German surtax that would make it 46 or 47 per cent, a liberal allowance. Whatever might be said before, I do not think that since the adoption of the German surtax there can be any ground for complaint.


George William Fowler: Of course it is not so objectionable as before. The difficulty is in regard to the cheap class of skates, which is most generally used. The Germans cannot compete with regard to the better class of goods.


James Clancy: It is delightful to hear the Minister of Customs and the' Minister of Finance as well, speaking in such sympathetic tones and asking1:	How are you getting on under the surtax ? He saw the advantage of the protection lie was not strong enough to give under the name of protection but under the name of surtax duties. It was a fortunate thing for the skate people that there was a means for putting on a retaliatory duty. My hon. friend now asks how the business is getting ou under the German surtax. It is a humiliating position for the minister. He says this was bad legislation and that he was forced into 'it. I think he took the right course but it destroyed every argument lie used before while he is delighted that we have some relief under the surtax. What would happen if the causes which led to the imposition of the surtax were removed altogether and the surtax came off ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: What pressure was brought to bear upon the government for the reduction on common window glass, and will this change of duty decrease the price to the consumer ?


William Paterson: Yes, I think it will decrease the price.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has overlooked my question as to the pressure which led to this reduction.


William Paterson: I think the Finance Minister on looking over the tariff, wishing to make further reductions for the benefit of the people, saw that this was an article in general use and as it was not made in the country at all, he decided it would be good policy to reduce the duty in the interest of the consumers.


Richard Blain: What reduction in price do the ministers expect will result from this reduction ?


William Paterson: There is a reduction of 5 per cent on the Belgian glass and over 6 per cent on the English glass.


Richard Blain: Whatever reduction there is on glass the full amount will be in the interest of the Canadian and therefore the consumer will purchase his glass so much cheaper by the introduction of this change in the tariff.


William Paterson: Ultimately, I think.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister will be good enough to answer my question, because if the consumer is not to be benefited it is useless for us to put on the statute-book such legislation as that prohibiting the introduction of a new industry.


William Paterson: I think they will be benefited.


Richard Blain: To what extent ?


William Paterson: I stated the extent of the reduction and as a general rule in business the business man, if he buys at a reduced price reduces his goods to a customer. If there is a window glass industry established in Canada I fancy they would want the rate increased. That carries with it the fact that a reduction of duty is supposed to lower the price.


Richard Blain: The minister expects that a reduction of duty would reduce the price to the consumer.


William Paterson: Yes.


Richard Blain: I am not a prophet but I hazard the prediction that such will not be the case.


William Paterson: If it does not, we will have made an unwise change because we will lose that large revenue. I think the benefit will reach the consumer.


William Rees Brock: When silk fabrics are imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of neckties, you allow them in at a reduced duty, but I cannot understand how the Customs Department will regulate that exception unless these goods are manufactured in bond. Large quantities of Japanese silk are imported by Japanese merchants here and not by Canadians. What machinery will you have to prevent an enormous quantity of these silks coming in at ten per cent when a large quantity of exactly the same goods will be charged 25 per cent ? Why should you not include women's blouses and dresses as well as neckties and have these articles manufactured in this country ? I cannot understand how you can .manage to carry out this provision unless you have these neckties manufactured in bond, and then you will need to have a [DOT]customs officer in every factory.


William Stevens Fielding: There are a number of items in the tariff which come in under a similar provision, and the criticism of the hon. gentleman might apply to any of these. We have to rely upon the supervision of the customs authorities. There is much to be said in favour of having all such privileges allowed only when the operation is carried on in bond. If that be done the smaller concerns would be shut out because only the larger ones could pay the expense of customs supervision. But for that I think all these operations should be carried on in bond. If any abuses should arise we may be obliged to adopt the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock). As to the difference made between neckties and blouses, the reason is that neckties are being imported from Great Britain under the preferential tariff, and in this country they are made largely from German silks which pay a very high duty. One's first thought would be that if neckties came in under the preferential tariff, the Canadian manufacturer *could also import his material under the preferential tariff, but it was shown to us that the silk out of which these neckties are made is chiefly German silk and not produced in Great Britain. Consequently, the Canadian manufacturer of neckties would have to pay a high duty on the German silk while the neckties made in Great Britain would come in under the preferential tariff at 23 per cent. Again, the neckties largely *come from Great Britain while almost all the blouses come from the United States ; the duty being 35 per cent. The blouse manufacturer does not, therefore, suffer from the same competition as the necktie manufacturer.


William Rees Brock: A great quantity of these *silks do come from Germany but large quantities come from France and other European countries that pay no surtax. I contend tha|t the silk should be manufactured in bond, and that those who do such a small business that they cannot afford to pay
bonding charges had better not be in the business. You will have no trouble with the large manufacturers in Montreal and Toronto ; your difficulty will come from those small manufacturers such as we know in the trade 'who keep these little sweating shops, do a small business at a small expense and pay small wages. A large manufacturer in Montreal told me that these little sweating shops manufacturing special articles are really ruining the manufacture of the better class of goods. Any manufacturer who is big enough to import goods ought be big enough to pay expenses of making them in bond. I trust the Customs Department will make careful regulations or else the trade of this country will be seriously injured by the importation of large quantities of silk alleged to be for neckties, but which will never go into the manufacture of neckties at all. I see also that in this resolution you except blankets, flannels, bedcovers, and counterpanes, from the regular rate of duty. Why should you do that ? The manufacture of blankets in Canada is one of our most satisfactory industries and yet the importation of an undesirable class of blankets is increasing largely. We are keeping out diseased immigrants, but here we are allowing goods to come into this country that are really diseased. The poorest stuff is put into these so-called blankets ; there is not a particle of clean wool or clean cotton in them ; they are made of rubbish and they are sold to the poorer people in the Northwest. The Doukhobors wear them and use them as covering for their beds, when you had far better let them use good woollen blankets and not encourage them to use this rubbish. I do not see why you should allow them in at a lower rate of duty than good honest woollen goods. Again, we can manufacture flannels in .this country and why should they be excepted ? Why try to injure them by leaving that item in ?


William Paterson: The total importation of blankets last year was $38,000, of flannels only $48,000, and of bed comforters or counterpanes only $5,000. I was satisfied that these products did not need any higher duty.


William Rees Brock: It is not the quantity that is imported that affects the Canadian manu-lacturer, for he has to enter into competition with them if there is only one pair imported. Our factories are wasting their time trying to compete with this rubbishy cheap stuff. We have not in this country the volume of manufactures so that we can collect the sweepings of the factories, the torn-up rags, jute and such things, to manufacture up into blankets ; but so long as you allow even these small quantities to come in, our manufacturers have to compete with them. I think it would be well to keep the duty up on these goods.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman knows the trade better than I do, but the

representations we have had from the woollen manufacturers are that the Canadian manufacturer has the market in these lines. In these three items the total importations last year were $93,000, while the importations covered by this class were over $7,000,000.


James Clancy: Was it in order to get revenue that blankets and flannels were taken out of the class where they have been for a long time ? Surely the hon. gentleman will not deny what the hon. member for Toronto says, that our manufacturers have to compete even if only one pair is imported. I would like to know the reason they are taken out of their class.


William Stevens Fielding: It is to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. We understand that the manufacturers of blankets and flannels are doing very well. The hon. gentleman must see where his argument regarding the small importations leads him. If the tariff is not high enough to keep out one pair of blankets


James Clancy: I did not say that. I was repeating the language of an hon. member who knows that business as well as any member of this House. He said that if only one pair were imported, we would have to compete against that pair.


William Stevens Fielding: What I want to point out is that the effect of the hon. gentleman's contention is that you must have an absolutely prohibitive tariff, because he says that even if a small quantity is permitted to come into Canada, that governs the price and depresses the whole industry. I think that is a very extraordinary doctrine. I do not think my hon. friend would like to follow it out to that end, although that is the logical consequence of his argument.


William Rees Brock: If there was one particular item, besides poisons, to which I would apply a prohibitive tariff, I think it would be to these very blankets. I think, from what I have seen of them, that the importation must be more like $500,000 than $93,000, because almost every dealer has them.


William Paterson: I am giving the figures for 1902-3. There may be some increase this year.


William Rees Brock: If the goods are undesirable, I do not think they should be allowed to come in at all. I feel with regard to them just as I do with regard to diseased immigrants-*1 would not have them in the country at all. They are very deceptive, and are brought in so as to deceive. They are not sold as honest goods. The more we can sell our own goods, made by our own people, from material grown in this country, the better it will be for this country.


David Henderson: Apart even from coal oil, it is possible that the most important item in the tariff changes now proposed is that which we now have before us, and I Mr. PATERSON.
think it should receive more than a simple passing notice. The item as described in the resolution Is :
Manufactures as described in item 394 of schedule A (excepting blankets, flannels, bed comforters and counterpanes), composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the Alpaca, goat or other like animal, 30 per cent ad valorem.
Now, item 394 in the tariff of 1897 comprises more articles than are specifically named in this resolution. It comprises ' fabrics, manufactures, wearing apparel and ready-made clothing, composed wholly or inpart of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or other like animal; blankets, bed comforters or counterpanes, flannels, cloths, doeskins, cassimeres and tweeds.' The government proposes to increase the duty under the preferential tariff on all these goods except blankets, comforters, counterpanes and flannels. They are willing that an opportunity should he given to make in this country all the other articles enumerated by placing them under the minimum duty of 30 per cent, or within 2 per cent of what the duty was in the national policy tariff prior to the adoption of the tariff of 1897 ; but they do not seem willing to allow blankets the same consideration-and when I speak of blankets I include the other articles that are excepted. The government propose to leave these articles under the preferential tariff at 23J per cent. This I regard as a very unjust discrimination, and I will state my reason.
The government by their policy have declared their willingness to have tweeds, cloths and ready-made clothing made in Canada. It is well known that most of these goods, the manufacture of which the government propose to assist, are made largely of wools imported from other countries-. If the government are willing to do that, why not include the article of blankets made largely from Canadian wools ? Why not have these goods made in Canada as well as the others ? Made in Canada should be our policy for blankets just as well as for tweeds, cloths and ready-made clothing and the other goods which the government propose to assist. In fact, made in Canada is a sound policy at all times. It would be much better for this country if something more of that principle were incorporated in all our tariff resolutions. Let us have everything made in Canada that we can, but more especially encourage the manufacture of goods which are made from Canadian material, such as the article of blankets. So far as my policy is concerned, wbat I would like to see could be illustrated in this way. I would like to see the pick that mines the ore, that produces the iron, that makes the plough, that tills the soil, that grows the grain, that feeds'the hog, that makes the bacon I had for breakfast, all made in Canada. I think that is good true Canadian

policy. The woollen industry is a very important one. In 1901, when the last eensus was taken, the capital invested in that industry was over $10,500,000, the output was nearly $7,500,000, the raw material consumed in the manufacture of woollens was valued at nearly $4,000,000, the amount paid out for labour was $1,725,000 per annum, the number of wage-earners employed amounted to 6,400, and taking an average of five per family these represented a population of about 30,000 people. These people are all consumers of Canadian products and help to make a market for the products of the farms. The making of blankets alone is by no menas an unimportant part of this industry. Then why not guard the manufacturer of blankets from the competition of cheap labour in England and the surplus products of trusts and combines in the United States ? In 1903 we imported woollen goods to the amount of $13,561,915, of which $10,171,597 worth came in under the minimum preferential tariff, not made from Canadian wool, but made from the wool of other countries almost entirely, and in countries where workmen are paid small wages and where foreign material is the basis of the output. An hon. member of this House, who stands very close to the government and sometimes talks for it in matters in which they do not wish openly to speak for themselves, delivered a short time ago in this House a speech in which he showed the unfair competition our "blanket makers have to contend against. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), speaking in this House on the 15th of June last, said :
I have the authority of Mr. Chamberlain, as well as that of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, that one-third of the people of Great Britain are at present underfed-that 13,000,000 men, women and children in the British islands have not sufficient to eat every day. I have here the statement of Mr. Chamberlain endorsing that of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, to the effect that out of every seven workingmen in Great Britain at the age of twenty-five who will reach the age of sixty-five, three will have to go to the workhouse.
Yet the Minister of Finance is bringing down a tariff to practically bring the workmen of this country into competition with labour in Great Britain, which is underpaid and underfed. Surely the hon. gentleman does not want to bring the workmen of this country to the same level as those of the old land, who are thus described by the hon. member for Labelle. Let us see the competition we have to contend against. In the first place the blanket manufacturer in Canada pays 25 to 30 per cent more for wages than the manufacturers in England. That statement I have on the authority of a gentleman who has made woollen goods both in this country and England. Practically the difference in wages wipes out the whole of the 23J protection which the
blanket maker is given in this country. Still the government is willing to allow our market to be invaded by the surplus of other countries as it was in 1903, when we received in blankets, flannels and counterpanes and coverlets, under the preferential tariff, $93,547 worth. I believe that the Minister of Customs will find that to be correct.


William Paterson: When I gave the figures to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock), I overlooked the fact that they were under the preferential tariff. Some have come from other countries as well. The total imports amounted to $44,000 instead of $39,000, but my attention is called to the fact that during the present year, so' far as it has gone, they have increased to $75,000.


David Henderson: Under the preferential tariff in these four articles of blankets, flannels, counterpanes and coverlets, We imported $93,547 worth, on which the government obtained a revenue of $21,737, much less than half the duty which was paid on the unhulled rice referred to by the hon. member for Bothwell. Notwithstanding that their tariff is a tariff for revenue only, they did not receive on these articles of woollen goods even half of the amount of revenue that they obtained from unhulled rice, an article which cannot be produced in this country, the production which employs no labour in this country and which is not the product of any raw material produced in this country. The imports of blankets may seem small, as the Minister of Customs said. From 1895 to 1903 however, the increase in the importation of blankets was 220 per cent. If you take the last four years of the Conservative tariff-1894 to 1897 inclusive -as compared with the last four years of the present tariff, you will find there was an increase in the importation of blankets of 100 per cent. And if you take the importation for the eleven months ending 30th June, 1904, amounting to $85,524, and add one-twelfth for the remaining month, you find that the total importation in 1904 was $92,651, again an increase over 1903 of 100 per cent. The importation of these goods is rapidly increasing, and they are likely to come in in much larger quantities in the near future. But. as the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has said, the fact that the importations are increasing is not the most dangerous feature of the case. The dangerous or troublesome feature is that amongst these goods that come in under the preferential tariff-yes. and under the full 35 per cent tariff-there are blankets at a valuation at as low as 16i cents per pound. Now, any of us who have ever been engaged in business know that a blanket at that valuation does not contain very much wool. If it contains any wool at all, it is

of tlie most inferior character ; it is at best, as the hon. member for Centre Toronto said, the sweepings of the mill-practically rubbish. I believe it is worse than that. I believe it is old carpets and old clothing picked and made into yarn for weaving these blankets. As the hon. member said, we prohibit the immigration into this country of people who are diseased but here we are allowing the importation of a class of goods which must of necessity bring into the country diseases which we are trying to keep out. Apart from the matter of wages and from the interference with the general trade of the country, this is a strong reason why the government should take action and defend our people against the inroads of disease from these infectious goods.


William Stevens Fielding: What method would the hon. gentleman (iMr. Henderson) suggest '!


David Henderson: I will suggest that before I get through. I shall be satisfied if the Minister of Finance will strike out these words 'blankets, flannels, counterpanes and coverlets,' and allow these goods to come in under the same duty as other woollen goods, and as they have done in the past.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has
no objection to disease if it pays a higher duty.


David Henderson: *will pobably tell us that it will increase tlie price to tlie consumers. Will bis present change not enhance the price of tweeds, clothing and overcoatings V Yet he is willing to allow additional protection on goods made from wools imported from other countries. Suppose it does increase the price of blankets. I would like to know if it is a good thing to have everything very, very cheap ? When a question of a judge's or a civil servant's salary is under discussion we are told that these are prosperous times and that the cost of living has increased, and so an increased price is rather an indidication of better times. The minister puts a high tax on rice. If a tax on blankets would increase the cost of the blanket to the consumer surely the tax on rice would increase the cost of rice to the consumer, yet the minister has no hesitation in putting 50 per cent on cleaned rice, so that when a woman goes to the grocery to buy a dollar's worth of rice she has to take one dollar to buy the rice and half a dollar to pay duty to the government. I think a well balanced flscal policy might be arranged, and would ask the minister to take the matter into his kind consideration. He would find that if he would take the duty off rice, and allow the familly cheaper rice, he could provide for all the increase that would be on the blankets that any family would want to buy during the course of the year, or perhaps a great deal more. The duty on one dollar's worth of rice would pay for all the increase there would possibly be on three pairs of blankets. The minister would by this change give help to the blanket industry, while it would not enhance the price to the consumer. Such a change would give the manufacturer a wider market and relieve him from the competition of inferior imported goods. He would have a larger output, the workmen employed by him would have more work and possibly an increased wage as well. The business man would be benefited owing to the increased labour employed and there would be an increase in general business. But the farmer above all would be largely benefited. He would not only have a better market in his own neighbourhood for the perishable products of his farm, goods he could not export, but would have the satisfaction of getting the highest possible price for his wool. As I have shown you already, the decrease in the price of washed wool in the province of Ontario between 1895 and 1902 was more than $400,000. You can readily understand that the farmers of this country by the reversal of this policy and by proper assistance to the manufacture of blankets are going to be materially helped, and if there is any class in the country we ought to assist, it is the agricultural class. I hope the minister will make the change which I think is eminently fair. In 1894 when the Conservative party Mr. HENDERSON.
last revised the tariff they placed blankets, counterpanes, flannels and comforters in the same class as cashmeres, doeskins, tweeds, dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 25 per cent ad valorem. They remained in that class until 1897 and in the tariff of that year blankets, comforters, counterpanes and flannels were again included along with tweeds at 35 per cent less preference. Nearly all the other goods are now receiving the benefit of this 30 per cent minimum tariff, and I ask why blankets should be taken out of that class or treated differently. There is a strong reason indeed why these goods ought to be put upon the 30 per cent list along with tweeds and cloth. I think the mere fact that they are made of Canadian raw material is a reason why this industry should be assisted to an even greater extent than the others. What was the policy under the Conservative party ? Then the blankets had 40 per cent ad valorem protection while tweeds had 32 per cent. The Conservative party considered the interests of the farmers. Articles made from the raw material produced on the farm were protected by 8 per cent more than the articles produced from imported raw material, but the present government changes all that and places the article produced from the Canadian raw material on a 23* per cent basis and places the other goods at a rate of 30 per cent.
Instead of putting blankets produced from Canadian raw material 8 per cent higher, they are being reduced to a rate of duty nearly 7 per cent lower than the other goods with which they haye been classed for the last eight or ten years. I hope the Minister of Finance will listen to my appeal. Even at this late hour, I hope he will repent, and if he does he will merit the gratitude, not only of the blanket-makers of Canada, but of the" farmers who are engaged in producing wool. I hope the hon. gentleman will do something in the interests of these people, and that he will do it now. Why withhold the remedy until the patient has become unconscious ? Blankets are made in the constituency which I have the honour to represent by" honest and intelligent manufacturers who are engaged in that enterprise. They were woollen manufacturers in Great Britain, and they were woollen manufacturers in Montreal until they were starved out under the Mackenzie government. They have been operating for many years in Ontario. These gentlemen tell me that whilst they have plenty of work to do they are making no money. A man has the right to make money out of his enterprise and industry, and the Minister of Finance should not impose upon him conditions which prevent him doing that. If our blanket manufacturers come in competition with these underpaid and underfed people in Great Britain who are making cheap goods, the Canadian manufacturers should have some


protection against sueli unfair competition I hope the Minister of Finance will grant my request, and I would like he would do it without my moving that these four items which he proposes to except should be stricken out.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret I am not able to accept the hon. gentleman's proposition at this eleventh hour, or a little later than the *eleventh hour. Much may be said in favour [DOT]of the change that has been made with reference to other woollen goods, that would not apply with the same force to the duty on blankets. Even the figures quoted by my hon. friend do not make a very conclusive case, because they show that the importations are comparatively small in proportion to the quantity of blankets made in Canada. What the hon. gentleman has said,and what others may say, on this matter will form a proper subject for inquiry by the tariff commission. We shall approach the question with open minds, and if a case can be made out for dealing with the blanket industry, as we have dealt with other Canadian industries, we will be quite prepared to give it the same consideration.


James Clancy: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has made out an extremely strong case, and I think the government should even now accede to his request. If it be true that an undesirable class of shoddy blankets, made out of rubbish, are imported into this' country, either they must take the place of our own goods, or Canadian goods have to be sold at an unremunerative price to meet the competition. I regret that the government should seem disposed to adhere to this policy without apparently any good reason. Why do they not give the Canadian blanket manufacturers a chance with the manufacturers of tweeds ? I believe that in view of the strong reasons advanced by the hon. member for Halton the government should encourage Canadian manufacture, and not encourage the importation of this rubbish. Even if only $40,000 worth of these blankets were imported, that would be quite a tidy little trade to reserve for the farmers and manufacturers of Canada. The Minister of Finance has said that the tariff commissioners may get their hearts softened in this matter, but the tariff commissioners will be the cabinet ministers, and in view of the [DOT]strong case made out by the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to-night, they have sufficient light now to do at once What is in the interests of the Canadian blanket manufacturers. I fancy that the woollen manufacturers cannot look forward for very much encouragement from what the hon. gentleman has said to-night. I think it is manifestly unfair that these two articles particularly, blankets and flannels, are left out of the class to which they belong. I may say that I had a letter only a few days ilgo from manufacturers in the town of
Sarnia, stating that they had made representations to the government, that although they were doing a fair volume of business, they were not making any monev, for the simple reason that they had to sell their goods at a low price, because they had to compete with a cheap and inferior class of goods.


Richard Blain: I wish to endorse the statements made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). I am sure that it is a surprise to a considerable number of people in Canada to find that in this revision of the tariff no further protection is given to the blanket industry. In my own county there are two establishments that manufacture blankets, and we had requests from them to say something on the subject when the revision of the tariff came up. I wish to express my disappointment at the blanket industry being omitted from this revision. I am quite sure that that industry requires some further protection. There is in my county a very large blanket manufacturing establishment which has been more or less idle for a good many years. It is not altogether closed up, but it runs only for a little while at a time, and its owners had hoped that in this revision of the tariff some interest would have been taken in the blanket industry, so that they would have been placed in a position to manufacture successfully the blankets required for our Canadian people. I will not pursue the subject further than to ask the hon. minister if he expects that this increase of the duties on tweeds, &c., will increase the price to the consumer, he having made the statement that the reduction of the duty on window glass would decrease the price to the consumer ?


William Paterson: I will only add to what the Finance Minister said, that in the consideration of the question of woollens, the question of blankets and bed comforters came up ; and if the representations placed before us by the gentlemen who represented that industry had borne out what has been said by the hon. member for Halton and others who have spoken to-night, that it was in the same condition as the other industries, these items would not have been left out of the revision ; but I certainly gathered from the woollen men, whom I met many times, that there was not the same danger to the manufacture of these lines that there was to the others. One very large manufacturer said to me personally : We want no change in the duty on blankets ; we have the market now, and if there is no money in the business, it is because we are cutting prices on one another-and I have no doubt they are selling very close, in competition among themselves. That Lears out the argument of my hon. friend

that if you have competition at home, it will keep the prices down to a fair level. With reference to the other question of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) it is not necessary to go into it at present, as we want to get on with the resolutions. At any rate, he would not take my opinion. Let us discuss that next year.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has answered my question by saying that the reduction of the duty on window glass would decrease the price to the consumer. Having made that statement, will he say that the increased duties he is placing on certain articles will increase the price to the consumer ?


William Paterson: Will the hon. member answer it himself first, and then X can tell him whether I agree with him or not ?


Richard Blain: I think I am asking the hon. minister a straight and fair question.


William Paterson: I am asking the hon. gentleman what he thinks. I have as much right to ask a question as the hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: I suppose the hon. gentleman has. Here is a proposition to increase the duties on certain articles to be consumed by the Canadian people. The hon. gentleman has met deputations from all parts of Canada and had opportunities of informing himself which we could not possibly enjoy. With this information before him, he ought to be able to tell us whether in his opinion the increased duty will increase the price to the consumer.


William Paterson: I can tell the hon. gentleman that the importers represented to me that they had sold their goods for future delivery, based on the duty then existing, and that if they were made to pay increased duty, their sales would result in a loss to them instead of a profit. Consequently they argued with considerable force that it was not fair that the increase of duty should apply to such goods.


Richard Blain: Then I understand the hon. gentleman to say that in his opinion the increase of duty will increase the price to the consumer ?


William Paterson: The importers thought so.


Richard Blain: Then I suppose it is fair to assume that the hon. gentleman was convinced by their arguments ?


David Henderson: The fact is that the blanket manufacturers, as a rule, are smaller than those of the tweeds and cloths, and the blanket men practically relied upon the manufacturers of the other lines to present their case along with their own. And I believe that the larger manufacturers having secured what they wanted rather neglected the blanket men. It may be quite true that a manufacturer told the hon. gentleman he Mr. PATERSON.
did not require further protection on blankets, but I understood that he was a man who was engaged in manufacturing very extensively another line of goods and that his blanket factory was only a small affair compared with the other. He could therefore afford to sacrifice the smaller industry and make larger profits out of the more extensive lines.


James Clancy: I would ask the hon. minister if the representations made to him with regard to blankets were made by persons who were also engaged in other lines or if any were made by persons exclusively engaged in the making of blankets ?


William Paterson: I had interviews with a great many individuals and deputations. Some of the deputations represented what was termed the woollen section of the manufacturers, which takes in blankets as well as other classes. They claimed that there was a necessity for an additional duty in the case of certain lines, in which the market was being taken from them to a very great extent. Their claim was borne out by the facts that not only had the importations of these lines largely increased, as shown by the customs returns, but that the manufacturers in this country, as shown by the census returns, had largely decreased. My impression is that in the case of blankets the importations were trifling and had not increased, whereas the manufacture had.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman call to mind whether any persons or firms engaged exclusively in the manufacture of blankets had made these representations ?


William Paterson: The party I refer to is the president of a company interested in a number of lines, including blankets.


Richard Blain: May I ask if the many small establishments that manufacture blankets were consulted, or what opportunity they had of bringing their views before the government ?


William Stevens Fielding: The same opportunity as others had. We did not go out to seek them, but those who desired to do so came to us.


William Paterson: The firm in the constituency of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) made no representations, so far as I know, in reference to this matter. They may have appeared when the tariff of 1897 -was being prepared.


David Henderson: I think the hon. minister is correct. The particular firm he refers to understood that they were looked after by the association who appeared on behalf of all the wool manufacturers, and consequently did not trouble the ministers individually.


Richard Blain: That is easily understood, because when other changes were made in the tariff there was no taking out of these

articles, but in this change special legislation rather against the manufacturing establishments is introduced. In other words the blanket manufacturers were left out of the genera] revision of the tariff which took place in days gone by.
Mr. PATERSO-N. Let me explain that. This was thought the simplest way. Instead of enumerating tweeds, doeskins, and so on, we referred to the item 293, which covered these items and excepted the items that were pressed by the importation.
Goats for the improvement of stock under such regulation as may be made by the Minister of Customs-free.


James Clancy: I understand that this is for the benefit of an industry to be established in the province of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Some enterprising gentleman down there is bringing in Angora goats with a view to breeding them. I should welcome a new industry, of course, but the conclusion is forced upon us that the hon. minister is rather selfish in the matter. I understand the founder of this industry has been in Mexico and has made the business somewhat successful, and the Minister of Finance makes this change in the tariff to start him in business. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us the secret.


William Stevens Fielding: This government has conferred a great many blessings on the section of the Dominion from which I come, But, when the list is made up, I regret to say, I shall not be able to include the establishment of the goat industry. I have not heard anything about it except the suggestion that it is of more importance to some hon. gentlemen on the other side than it is to me. That may or may not be correct.


David Henderson: Seriously, in what part of the Dominion is it expected that this breeding of goats will be carried on ?


William Paterson: There is a farm in Quebec where it is carried on. But the first time this was brought to my notice was by a request of parties in British Columbia. They asked that goats be admitted free by Order in Council. But we had no authority to do that. This is to allow these goats to come in free as sheep and all other animals are allowed in free at present.


James Clancy: Is the Minister of Agriculture likely to claim credit for the establishment of this great industry and to expatiate in his .campaign literature on the benefits he has thereby conferred on the people ?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) has already such an overwhelming list to his credit of benefits conferred upon the farmer that I do not know that he needs to include this one.
Free-molasses, the produce of any British country entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff, when produced from sugarcane and imported direct by vessel from the country of production in the original package in which it was placed at the point of production and not subjected to any process of treating or mixing ; the package also to be free : provided, however, that this shall not apply to molasses to he used for the purpose of distillation.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to make a change there. Instead of the words, ' this shall not apply to molasses to be used for purposes of distillation,' we propose to make provision that molasses may be transferred in bond under excise regulations for the purposes of distillation. In that way we get the excise duty on the article when manufactured. It is a more convenient way of serving the same purpose. I propose also to add :
Molasses admitted to entry under item 441 of said schedule A, shall be imported direct from the place of production (or its shipping port) under regulations made by the Minister of Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Printing presses, rotary, of a class or kind not made in Canada-Free.
["I wish to make a change there. Instead of the words, ' this shall not apply to molasses to be used for purposes of distillation,' we propose to make provision that molasses may be transferred in bond under excise regulations for the purposes of distillation. In that way we get the excise duty on the article when manufactured. It is a more convenient way of serving the same purpose. I propose also to add :\nMolasses admitted to entry under item 441 of said schedule A, shall be imported direct from the place of production (or its shipping port) under regulations made by the Minister of Customs."]
William Stevens Fielding: We propose a change there alsol, not in substance but in words. The object of the item, as was explained, is to encourage the importation of the larger class of printing presses for the newspapers of the country without interfering with any presses of a class made in Canada. We thought the word ' rotary ' was a convenient word to use, and I think it was recommended to us by some persons in the trade. But on further consideration we are advised that the word fails to serve the purpose we have in view, and we propose to substitute the words ' of not less value than $1,500 each.' The effect of that is that the smaller class of presses under $1,500 in value and which are made in Canada-though none are made yet so high as that-will not come in under this item ; but the larger ones which are not made in Canada will be admitted free.


David Henderson: Then all presses of the value of $1,500 and over will be subject to duty V


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
MJr. 'CLANCY. Why are the smaller presses subject to duty while the larger ones are not ?


William Stevens Fielding: For the reason that the smaller class of presses is made in Canada already, and our own manufacturers will ultimately make presses of a higher value. Rut we are adapting ourselves to the conditions of to-day in that respect. The item is qualified by the expression ' of a class not made in Canada,' and I think the item in



the amended form will be satisfactory to the industry in Canada and equally satisfactory to the newspaper people who wish to import the larger class of presses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Our manufacturers may ultimately wish to make more expensive presses.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the highest value of presses how made in Canada is $700 or $800. So in allowing this margin we are making reasonable provision for the growth of the industry.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and item agreed to.
Well drilling machinery and apparatus of a elass or kind not made in Canada for drilling for water and oil, not to include motive power -free.
['I think the highest value of presses how made in Canada is $700 or $800. So in allowing this margin we are making reasonable provision for the growth of the industry.']
William Stevens Fielding: I want to add after the word ' oil,' the words ' for prospecting for minerals.'


James Clancy: The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) pointed out tbe other day That there was an establishment near Petrolia that is making all classes of goods of that character. Why make one law for printing presses and another for the next item ? It is difficult to settle a dispute as to what is made in Canada and what is not. Where did the demand come from to put this on the free list ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it came from auy particular person. It was represented in a general way that this would be in the direction of encouraging the oil business. I think the origin of the item was some representation made by hon. gentlemen from the Northwest Territories.


James Clancy: I am informed there is a capital establishment engaged in the manufacture of every class of goods used for the purpose of drilling for oil. I do not think there has been any demand from these persons for this change. The change may be in the interests of the Northwest Territories, at the same time it is striking a blow at establishments in our own country manufacturing apparatus used in drilling for oil.


William Stevens Fielding: With these words ' of a class not made in Canada ' I think there will be no trouble.
Whale oil soap-free.


David Henderson: Why is that put on the free list ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is used by the farmers in spraying trees. It is not produced in Canada.


David Henderson: I thought we had some of the best whale fisheries in the world.


William Stevens Fielding: We have not returns from Hudson bay yet.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: Going back to the item artificial teeth-I understand that artificial teeth at present are subject to a duty of 20 per cent. The proposition is that from now until 1895 the duty shall be 10 per cent, and after that they may come in free. Has the government reached the conclusion that artificial teeth cannot be manufactured successfully in Canada ?


William Stevens Fielding: Practically, yes. I think they are only manufactured at one large concern in the United States.


Richard Blain: What are the drawbacks which prevent them being made in Canada ?


William Stevens Fielding: I fancy it is an article which can only be made on a large scale, with a profit. At all events, I have never had any intimation from anybody in Canada desiring to enter into the business.
On resolution 5,
Resolved that schedule C (prohibited goods) shall he amended by adding the following [DOT]-
642. Stallions and mares of less value than $50 each.


Mr. BOYD.: I would like to ask the minister what representations were made to him that induced him to let in stallions only worth $50 ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think some proposals were made for a larger figure, but. very few of us in this world get all we ask for. It was thought that this modified figure would meet the reasonable demands of people who were specially concerned in this business. It was in obedience to an agitation chiefly from Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.


Nathaniel Boyd: I protest against this item for the reason that no stallion that is not worth more than $50 should be allowed into the country at all. The price should be a great deal higher than that.


William Stevens Fielding: This puts them on the prohibited list.


Nathaniel Boyd: A $50 horse 1


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Nathaniel Boyd: What sort of a stallion will you get for any figure above $50, even for $100 ? The Horse Dealers' Association, I am told, decided on $75. But $50 is altogether too low for any stallion.


Mr. SCOTT.: Stallions are prohibited.


William Stevens Fielding: Below that value.


Nathaniel Boyd: A $50 stallion would be far better out of the country than in it, even a $100 stallion. The idea is that a registered stallion is admitted free ; any stallion that is registered iu any class, a Clydesdale or thoroughbred, is admitted free. Under this proposition, if they are not worth more than $50 they are not admitted at all, $50 is not high enough to exclude stallions.

889S


William Stevens Fielding: Resolved, that it Is expedient to provide that the Inland Revenue Act be amended as fol-dows :-
That paragraph (a) of section 130, as enacted by section 4 of chapter 19 of the statutes of 1897, be repealed, and the following substituted therefor [DOT]-
(a.) When the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than.ninety (90) per cent, hy weight, of raw or unmalted grain, or when manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses, or other saccharine matter, not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Syke's hydrometer, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon, one dollar and ninety cents.
That paragraph (b) of section 192, as enacted by 57-58 Victoria, chapter 35, section 4, be repealed, and the following substituted therefor :-
(b.) On every pound of malt imported into Canada and warehoused, when taken out of bond for consumption, an excise duty of one and one-half cents ; except that malt imported into Canada, crushed or ground, shall be subject to a duty of two and one-half cents per pound.
That these resolutions shall take effect on the 8th of July, 1904.


Mr. BRODEUR.: There is an amendment which I wish to propose as an addition to this resolution, as follows :
Provided that all crushed or ground malt actually purchased on or before the 8th day of July, 1904, at any place out of Canada, for importation into Canada on evidence to the satisfaction of the Minister of Inland Revenue of the purchase having been so made, and all crushed or ground malt in warehouse in Canada on such day, may be entered for duty at the rate of duty in force immediately before the said day notwithstanding any increase in excise duty under the said resolution, but this proviso shall cease to have force and effect after the thirty-first day of August in the present year.


William Stevens Fielding: This is to apply to theje duties the same proviso as applies to those we have just passed.


Richard Blain: I think the minister might give some explanation as to this.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to the duty on spirits, the only changes is to provide for a duty on spirits made from domestic molasses. Under the Act as it is to->day we levy a duty on spirits made from imported molasses, but there is no provision as to duty on spirits made from domestic molasses. It is not very clear that we have the right to levy that duty. As we now have some spirits made from domestic molasses, it has been found necessary hy the depart ment that we should have a special proviso in the Act.
As to the section with regard to malt flour, I may say that there is no provision in the Act covering this article. Malt flour may be used in breweries and distilleries as well as whole malt, but there is no provi-282}
sion for a duty on malt flour, and this resolution is intended to cover that deficiency in the Act.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second times, and agreed to.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 172) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1897. He said : This Bill has been drafted by the law clerk of the House, who assures me it is an exact transcript of and gives effect to the resolution we have adopted. I would be glad to have my hon. friends facilitate the passing of this Bill to,-night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second times, and House went into committee thereon.
['FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 172) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1897. He said : This Bill has been drafted by the law clerk of the House, who assures me it is an exact transcript of and gives effect to the resolution we have adopted. I would be glad to have my hon. friends facilitate the passing of this Bill to,-night.']
David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I have hardly heard a word of what you have been saying. I had thought of moving to strike out these four items with regard to blankets and other goods, but you have passed them over without my knowledge. Would it be in order to go back to them ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) could not increase duties, and if he made such a motion it would have that tendency.


David Henderson: The people in my constituency will want to know why I did not move to strike that out, and I wished to have an authoritative statement as to the reason why.


William Stevens Fielding: I assume the responsibility of saying that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) could not move such a motion.


David Henderson: Just what I thought, but now I have the opinion of a minister of the Crown.


James Clancy: Could we not move that the duties on woollen goods be uniform.


William Stevens Fielding: No, because if you make them uniform it would increase some of them.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 173) to amend the Inland Revenue Act. He said : This Bill is based on the resolutions we have adopted with regard to the articles that come under the Inland Revenue Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and Bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Stevens Fielding: At an early stage of the sitting I moved the second reading of Bill (No. 164)

from the Senate, to amend the Companies Act of 1902 and, in the absence of information, I withdrew the motion. This is not a government Bill, though it is placed in the government orders in the name of the Minister of Justice. I understand that the objections which were made to it have been in part withdrawn, and, if there is no objection, 1 will move the second reading of the Bill now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the first part of the Bill, it seemed to me, after the explanations, that there was no objection to it. It was explained to me that the object in amending the Companies' Act was that whereas a $100 share could be reduced to a $25 share, there was no provision for increasing $25 shares to $100, and it was proposed to do that by putting four in one. To that I thought there was no objection ; but to the other part of the Bill the same objection remains as before.


Mr. COWAN.: I may say, with reference to section 2, that owing to the peculiar drafting of the Companies' Act, there is a doubt whether any company formed for the purpose could engage in the construction of a railway, and this provision is for the purpose of clearing away that doubt. It is not for the purpose of increasing or enlarging the powers of an ordinary company. I may say that the fact was drawn to my attention that a prominent barrister of Toronto, a friend of lion, gentlemen opposite, had some difficulty in this regard owing to the wording of the Companies' Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that if you wish to amend the Act in that direction, there would require to be other amendments to safeguard the interests of the people ; and at this late stage of the session I think it would be better to let the Bill drop. It was not intended, and has not been the case for many years, that railway corpora tions could form themselves into construction companies.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There is no intention in this Act specially enabling a railway company to form itself into a construction company. But there is doubt whether any company formed for the purpose of constructing a certain line of railway, or tendering for its construction, could do so. The banks have refused, in the case mentioned, to advance the capital.


Samuel Barker: This Bill was introduced into this House by the hon. member for -South Essex ; it reached the committee stage. I think ; it then disappeared, without being passed by this House ; it was afterwards introduced in the other House as a Senate Bill ; and now it comes back here for approval. Can the hon. gentleman explain that ? It is a very unusual occurrence. I may say that when the Bill was in this House an amendment was suggested and put in the hands of the Minister of Justice. I Mr. FIELDING.
saw no objection to the'principle of the Bill at that time, but unless there is some very good reason, I think we might let this Senate Bill stand till the morning. I have not seen it since it came from the Senate, and if there is no objection to it. I think there will be no difficulty in the Bill going through tomorrow.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I may say that the Bill was introduced by me and was subsequently withdrawn. I was advised that the Senate, having had before it the Companies' Bill in the first instance, and having gone thoroughly into it, the Bill having been in charge of the Secretary of State, this Bill had better go to the Senate. That being done, the amendment was introduced in the Senate, and it has come to this House in that way.


Samuel Barker: Is it in precisely the same terms as the hon. gentleman's Bill ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Precisely the same. In fairness, however, I want to say that the hon. the leader of the opposition thought that possibly the amendment was almost as ambiguous as the Companies' Act, and that it should apply only to companies whose charters gave them the right to contract. That was the intention and my hon. friend the Finance Minister proposes to amend the Bill to that extent, namely, that the right of construction shall apply only to companies whose charter gives them that special right.


Samuel Hughes: Why is that necessary ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Because of the ambiguous wording of the Companies Act. The Minister of Justice doubts if it is necessary, but the banks refuse to finance these companies until this amendment is made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This was done by a construction company before. It was criticised very severely, and for many years it was never attempted to revive the same thing. It was held to be a most vicious principle, and what happened confirmed that opinion. It is just as unsuitable to-day as then. Another thing is the Bill was introduced in this House and either defeated or dropped.


Mr COWAN.: It was only delayed in order' to make the meaning perfectly clear that any ordinary company should not engage in railway construction but onlv a company incorporated for that specific purpose.


Mr SPROULE.: What justification was there for introducing this Bill in the Senate when it was either dropped or defeated here ?


William Stevens Fielding: Hon. gentlemen misunderstand the question. The general Companies Act provides that companies may be incorporated by letters patent for certain purposes. Then the Act makes exceptions.

It excepts the building and operating of railways, telegraphs, telephone lines and the business of banking. The intention was that you could not constitute by letters patent a company to construct, operate and manage a railway or telephone line, but I do not think the exception was ever intended to apply to a private company desiring to contract for the building of a mile of railway or for the supply of telephones. It is capable, however, of that interpretation, and we want to remove any doubt.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The objection was this, that when you formed a construction company the directors of the railway company became members of it. That was not intended by the Companies Act, and it was because that was done that severe criticism was raised and the thing has not been repeated since. I am not quite sure, but I think the Companies Act was amended to prevent that. If this Bill goes through, other amendments will have to be introduced to prevent the directors of a railway company becoming the directors of a construction company.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill does not touch that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this Bill passes, they would be permitted.


George William Fowler: It is certainly a very vicious principle. This Bill has not been distributed.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it has.


George William Fowler: Printed in English and French ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It must have been printed in French, because it has been passed by the Senate.


George William Fowler: The Bill is not so marked. This laxity in the observance of our rules is a very bad thing.


Haughton Lennox: I would suggest that the matter stand over until morning.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection and I move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

['We are in the hands of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I may say, however, that there are urgent reasons why the Minister of Marine should leave tomorrow and I thought we might pass the remaining items of his department.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: There will be-discussion on the items.


William Stevens Fielding: That is all the more reason why he should be here.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman does not leave the city I understand, till one o'clock to-morrow. So, he can have the morning hours.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will guarantee me that we shall get through the whole thing-


Samuel Hughes: No guarantee-the minister may be kept back a bit.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) need not be so bombastic. It is understood that at eleven o'clock to-morrow we can go on. 1 have not many items to discuss and I think I can satisfy the House concerning them.
Motion withdrawn.



William Stevens Fielding: Is it the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite that we should adjourn now ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think so.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I move the adjournment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose supply will be the first thing taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


David Henderson: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who leads the House if he expects prorogation to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: No. But I think there is an expectation that we may close up our business to-morrow, if we work hard, and that prorogation may take place at noon on Wednesday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 a.m. Tuesday.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 9. 1904
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is one o'clock and time to go home.


William Stevens Fielding: We are in the hands of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I may say, however, that there are urgent reasons why the Minister of Marine should leave tomorrow and I thought we might pass the remaining items of his department.