1914-03-10

[Stage Direction]
Consideration in Committee of Bill No. 90, to amend an Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January 11, 1909, resumed from March 6. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 3-payment of expenses:
Mr. BORDEN:: The Bill was passed with the exception of the third section. It has been suggested by my right hon. friend that the Bill might be amended with advantage by striking out the word 'three' in the eighth line of subsection 3 of sectioi 7 of the present Bill and substituting therefor a larger amount. I have communicated with the commission, and I find that all the purposes which were in mind would be fulfilled by another amendment along the line suggested. I therefore move to strike out the third section of this Bill and to substitute the following section:
Subsection 3 of section 7 of the said Act is amended by striking out the word ' three ' in the eighth line and substituting therefor the word ' six.'


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: That makes
it $6,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL SENATORS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for two additional members of the Senate for the province of Manitoba.
Robert Laird Borden: The basis for this legislation is chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 1912. That is the Act providing for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. Section 7 reads as follows:
The province shall continue to be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members; provided that such representation may, after the completion of the decennial census of June, nineteen hundred and eleven, be from time to time increased to six by the Parliament of Canada.
There is a similar provision in the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts. The resolutions with regard to those provinces are also on the Order Paper.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not know that this matter was coming up to-day, so I shall have to speak from memory, as 1 have not here some .authorities which 1 had collected.


Robert Laird Borden: We can let the resolution stand.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will give my right hon. friend my objections, and he can give me his answer now or later on. In so far as the provinces of Alberta and . Saskatchewan are concerned, there is, in my judgment, no reason at all to question the authority of this Parliament to make the proposed 'addition to their representation in the Senate. That authority is to be found in the British North America Act of 1871. I have not the Act before me, but I know the provisions fairly well. It provides that we can create new provinces under such conditions as Parliament shall determine. In the Acts creating the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan we incorporated a provision to the effect that those provinces should be represented by a certain number of Senators, four I think, and that on a subsequent date after the next census, then that representation could be increased to the number of six.

Therefore, in so far as those provinces should be represented by a certain number of Senators, four I think, and that on a subsequent date after the next census, then that representation could be increased to the boundaries of Manitoba we inserted a provision jto the effect that the representation of the province of Manitoba in the upper chamber might be increased from its present number to six. But if this Parliament *had not the authority then, the proposed resolution-could not give that authority, and I do not find in the Act of 1871 any provision to increase the representation 'in the Senate except when we create a new province. Extending the boundaries of a province does not give us the authority. My contention is that the authority which my right hon. friend is trying to exercise must be found in Imperial legislation, and that Imperial legislation is contained in the Act of 1867 or in the Act of 1871. There is another Act, that of 1886, to which I shall refer later on, but for the present I rest my objection altogether on .the Act of 1871, which is .in these words:
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said Parliament.
This is the authority by which we can create new provinces. The terms are so broad as to moke it beyond question that we have the power to give to the new provinces almost any powers. In regard to alteration of the boundaries of a province, the next section says:
The Parliament of Canada, may, from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
I apprehend that under such conditions we can alter the limits of .any province with the consent of the province itself. But I see nothing in this which goes so far -as to say that in making these alterations we have .the power of amending the Confederation Act to the extent of modifying the representation of the province either in this House or in the Senate. The point
[Sir Wilfrid "Laurier 1
I wish to make is this, that so far as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are cone erne d we have the authority, and my right hon. friend is quite within his rights in asking that their representation in the Senate shall be increased; but so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, I do not know that this Parliament has that power, which, I think, is vested completely in the Imperial Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has brought to my attention .a question which was under consideration before .the Bill was introduced, .and I may say to him that it was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who has advised that it is competent for this Parliament to .increase the representation of Manitoba in the Senate to six. I will explain briefly the reason for that, .and I shall be glad to go into it more elaborately when the Bill is in committee. Just now I will only indicate what the position is according to the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, which seems to me well founded. The British North America Act, 1886, contained this recital:
Whereas it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to provide for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but is not included in any province:
Be it therefore enacted
and so forth, that:
1.	The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province thereof.
2.	Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed to have been valid and effectual from the date at which it received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the Governor General of Canada.
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act or in the British North America Act, 1871, has effect, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, and the number of senators or the number of members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of senators or of members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada for the representation of any provinces or territories of Canada.
As I understand the view of the Deputy Minister of Justice, as it has been expressed

in a short memorandum, it is that under the authority of the Act of 1886, when territories not previously included in any province and not represented in the Senate or House of Commons, are added to a province it is competent to make provision for their representation either in one House or the other and that, inasmuch as a very large territory was added to the province of Manitoba by the Act of 1912, it is considered competent, under the provisions of the Imperial Act of 1886, which I have just quoted, to provide for additional representation and that sucli provision may be made by this House. That is, shortly speaking, the view entertained by the Department of Justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: The opinion
of Mr. Newcombe is certainly entitled to great weight and authority and therefore I will defer an expression of my own view with regard to it until I have had an opportunity of looking at it more carefully. I suppose that my right hon. friend will pat it on the Table of the House so that we can have it?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: But I would
observe that the Imperial Act of 1886 was passed to empower this Parliament to give representation to the Northwest Territories. That Act was passed shortly after the rebellion of 1885. One of the grievances of the native population of the Northwest at that time was that they were not represented in this House. We passed a Bill to provide for their representation, not only in this House but in the Upper Chamber also. The Imperial Act was passed to validate whatever was done, or might be done, in this respect by the Parliament of Canada. The expressions quoted by my hon. friend from that Act are very broad and are to the effect that the Imperial Parliament authorizes what has been done and what may hereafter be done by the Parliament of Canada. This provision is certainly very broad, but it cannot be. extended, in my humble opinion, beyond the things which were contemplated at that time. If we were to give it such extension as has been suggested oy my right hon. friend, this Parliament would be able to give increased representation to the province of Quebec, and also to the province of Ontario in the Upper Chamber. We increased the territory of the province of Quebec last year and now it is the largest province in the Dominion, we made Ontario also a very large province and to-day, if this interpretation is to be taken in such a broad sense as my right hon. friend has
stated to be the opinion of Mr. Newcombe, you could increase not only the representation of Manitoba, but the representation of Ontario and Quebec and alter completely the whole basis of representation in the Upper Chamber. By the Act of Confederation the Upper Chamber was given a certain basis of representation while this Chamber was given another basis of representation. In this Chamber the representation was based on population, but in the Upper Chamber the basis of representation was arbitrary.
It was fixed by law and it was supposed to be permanent. Nobody contemplated, or could have contemplated, when Ontario was given a representation of twenty-four in the Senate, when Quebec was given a representation of twenty-four in the Upper Chamber, when the Maritime provinces were limited to a representation of twenty-four, which representation could not be increased because their territory could not be increased, that, in consequence of a possible addition to the territory of Ontario or Quebec, the basis of the representation of these provinces in the Upper Chamber might thereby be altered. The consequences seem to be extremely grave in their character and I doubt if the Deputy Minister of Justice has given that part of the case the attention which it deserves, because if my opinion on his interpretation is right, it means that to-day we can increase the representation not only of Manitoba, but of Ontario and Quebec. That seems to me to be altogether beyond anything that was ever in the contemplation of the makers of the Constitution. I quite realize that when we gave-representation to the Territories we should give them representation in the Upper Chamber. That was quite proper and the Imperial Parliament authorized and ratified it, but that it should be taken to mean an extension of our jurisdiction such as my hon. friend seems to suggest, is in my opinion, rather a forced interpretation to give to the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I can hardly agree with my right hon. friend that the interpretation which he has invoked is one that can be profitably employed, because I think I can show him that all of the evils which he has portrayed so vividly and forcibly could arise under legislation that he himself admits to be valid. There is no dispute, as 1 understand his point of view, that Parliament possesses that power in regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is true.



I486 COMMONS

Robert Laird Borden: You can never argue effectively as to the construction of a statute t>y contending that the powers thereby conferred may be abused.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Except for this reason, that once an Act is passed constituting either a territory or a province, that Act becomes part of the British North America Act and this Parliament has no power to amend it.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly the observation of my hon. friend is not very relevant to what I was about to say. I was merely pointing out that the so-called basis of representation in the Senate, which I have never considered as very reasonable or satisfactory- .


Wilfrid Laurier: It was arbitrary.


Robert Laird Borden: It was absolutely arbitrary. Without exceeding any power which is given to us in connection, with Alberta and Saskatchewan, this Parliament, if it had seen fit to do .so, could have given Alberta and Saskatchewan each a hundred members in the Senate. That would have disturbed any supposed basis of representation in the Senate but I suppose that those who passed the Imperial legislation, to which allusion has been .made, thought that they might safely entrust so extensive a power to a great deliberative assembly such as this in the firm expectation that the power would not be abused. It was not abused in connection with Alberta and Saskatchewan. I do not think that any abuse arises in this proposal respecting the province of Manitoba, because that province has a larger population than Alberta and practically the same population as Saskatchewan.
As far as the representation of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces is concerned, there does not seem to be any definite principle upon which it was fixed, as my right hon. friend has observed. Ontario was given 24, Quebec was given 24, and the Maritime provinces were given 24 members of the Senate. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick originally had 24 altogether, but it was provided by the British North America Act that upon the admission of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be decreased by two each and Prince Edward Island should be given four. Then a further provision was made with regard to an extraordinary increase in the 
Senate under certain conditions and upon certain formalities; and it was provided that each of these three districts-Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces-should be regarded as a distinct district for the purpose of any such increase, and that an equal number should be allotted to each of these three districts. Apart from that, it is very difficult to discover any principle upon which the constitution of the Senate was originally fixed. It was not fixed, as in the United States, upon equal representation from all the provinces. It was not fixed upon the basis of representation by population. It was, as my right hon. friend says, absolutely arbitary. I observe the arguments which he has made to which I shall give my best consideration, and which I shall bring to the attention of the Deputy Minister of Justice and to the attention of the Minister of Justice as well, and I shall be prepared to go more fully into the question upon the second reading, if that will meet with the approval of my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: I shall be very happy to place the memorandum, perhaps in a more elaborate form, on the table of the House, and I will send .a copy to my right hon. friend before the Bill comes up again.
The point of difference between us is a pretty narrow one. My right bon. friend considers that we could have given to that territory two additional members if it had not been -added to the province of Manitoba, but he thinks that when that territory is added to the province, we cannot increase -the representation in the Senate of the extended province, which consists of the former area of Manitoba and the area added in 1912. It simply comes down to that point, and I will give my best con-

sideratiom to my right hom. friend's opinion on the subject, and to the arguments which he has put forward in support of that opinion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was no
territory added for which this Parliament had jurisdiction to increase the senatorial representation.


Robert Laird Borden: It depends altogether on that addition.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I could not exactly follow the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in the distinction he made between the power given in regard to senatorial representation for a province newly [DOT]created and the power to give additional senatorial representation to a province when territory is added to it. I understand from the right hon. gentleman that he considers that the power to give senatorial representation to a newly created province results from the provision he has read of the Act of 1886.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the Act of 1871. That is the Act that gives power to make new provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not say anything specifically about senatorial representation.


Wilfrid Laurier: But that is
corollary to the making of new provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At all events, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, when it passed the: Act of 1886, seemed to consider that it was just as necessary in one oase as in the other for it to pass this ratifying clause. That Act provides that Acts theretofore or subsequently passed for two different purposes should be effective, and that:
The number of senators or the number of members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of senators or of members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada for the representation of any provinces or territories of Canada.
This, I say, applies both to the purpose mentioned in this Act and in the British North America Act, 1871, and the purpose of the Act of 1871 was to permit, not merely of the creation of new provinces, but of the addition of territory to existing provinces. Now, it seems to me that if that Act ratifies previous and future legislation fox tile purpose mentioned in the Act of 1871 and also ratifies legislation for the pur-

pose of this particular Act of 1886, it must be because both equally require such ratification and are equally ratified. It seems clear, and the only question possible would be that of the wisdom or unwisdom of confiding the power to us. It does seem to me that it applies as clearly to the Act of 1871 as to the Act of 1886.


Wilfrid Laurier: I regret to say I cannot agree with that interpretation at all. I have only to refer my hon. friend to the very Act of 1871 to show him that the power to create a province is plenary, that is, does not require confirmation by anybody. It provides:
The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof,- and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order, and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said Parliament.
It could hardly be made more clear that the powers granted are plenary: the British Parliament gives absolute authority to create provinces and to provide for their representation. Therefore, when, in the Act of 1905, we enacted that the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan should be represented on the floor of this House in a certain way, we had full authority to do so. On the other hand, we cannot increase the boundaries of a province except with the consent of the local legislature. Therefore, it seems to me, our powers there are limited. The whole question rests upon the interpretation of the Act of 1886. The terms of that Act are ambiguous, but I do not think they go so far as is claimed by the hon. minister, as I understand him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One of the purposes oi the Act of 1871 is to provide for increasing the territory of a province. The Act of 1886 says that any legislation enacted for the purposes mentioned in that Act or in the Act of 1871, shall have effect, and an increase of or alteration of the limits of a province is one of those purposes and that an increase of senators by any such Act shall take effect. According to the right hon. gentleman, so far as the exercise of powers conferred by section 2 of the Act of 1871 is concerned, there was absolutely no need for any ratification. But the fact that the Imperial Parliament by the Act of 1886 ratifies legislation enacted for the purpose of the Act of 1871 must mean that

such legislation was of a nature to require ratification. It seems to me that if we take the power conferred by section 2 as absolute, then the ratification of the legislation enacted for the purpose of the Act of 1871 by the Act of 1886 could only have been intended to apply to that kind of legislation enacted for the purpose of the Act of 1871 which was enacted under the power conferred. by section 3, and that is the kind of legislation under consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the Minister of Justice tell the committee what interpretation he puts on section 6 of the Act of 1871, which relates particularly to the province of Manitoba?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not precisely see
how that bears upon the question with which we are now dealing. Section 6 of the Act of 1871 seems to have declared that Parliament should not have the power to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba or to any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in this Dominion, except in the exercise of the power confined in section 3 to increase or diminish the territory of provinces, etc.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the position taken by the leader of the Opposition is a very substantial one. I am inclined very much to doubt the authority of Parliament to increase the territorial representation of Manitoba or British Columbia, upon the theory that as the Act establishing these provinces and providing for their representation in the Senate becomes a part of the British North America Act, any amendment to it is beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament. The idea i.s set forth in Clement's Canadian Constitution, in this way:
Upon the passage of an Act forming a new province, such Act at once passes heyond the competence of the Dominion Parliament, ancl the representation allowed such new province in the Senate is therefore incapable of increase or decrease except by Imperial legislation.
The Imperial Parliament alone is seized of the jurisdiction to increase the territorial representation of Manitoba or British Columbia. So far as the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, I think the jurisdiction of Parliament to make the increase is clear, because under the Act establishing these provinces provision was made for senatorial representation and for a further increase of that representation. That power, therefore, is
clearly within the jurisdiction of this Parliament under the provisions of section 2 of the Act of 1871, which are as follows:
The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province and for the passing of laws for the' peace, order and good government of such province, and for Its representation in the said Parliament.
That was the authority for this Parliament to establish the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and to give them representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons. When this authority is once exercised, our power and jurisdiction is exhausted and we cannot grant further representation. In the case of the province of Manitoba, which was established under the Act of 1870, provision was made for that province's representation both in the Senate and in the House of Commons. Section 3 of that Act provided for further representation of that province in the Senate when the population reached a certain figure. But I submit that when that Act was passed, providing for the representation of that province and for a later addition to that representation contingent on an increase of population, our jurisdiction became exhausted and we have not now the power to deal with it; that power rests entirely with the Imperial Parliament. Section 6 of the Act of 1871 particularly prohibits further legislation by this Parliament in relation to Manitoba. It says:
Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada, to alter the provisions of the last-mentioned Act of the said Parliament in so far as it related to the province of Manitoba.
The last mentioned Act referred to is the Act establishing the province of Manitoba. That section continues:
Or of any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualifications of electors and members of the legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said province.
This section specifically prohibits this Parliament from further dealing with the senatorial representation of the province of Manitoba. As I have already said, I think the reason is that once an Act is passed establishing a province, under which Act we exercise the powers granted us by

the constitution, those powers are thereafter limited and such Act becomes a part of the British North America Act. It is conceded that we have not the power to amend the British North America Act, and therefore in this case we must resort to the Imperial Parliament if any further representation is desired for any province.
I agree with the right hon. leader of the Opposition that the section of the Act of 1886 which the Minister of Justice invokes in support of his position, was intended merely to refer to the representation of territories in the Senate and in the House of Commons, and not to anything else. The representation of any province in the Senate would be insecure if the power rested with this Parliament to change arbitrarily from time to time the representation in the Senate merely because of an increase or diminution of territory. Therefore, this Parliament, once having exercised its jurisdiction in providing representation for the province of Manitoba, has exhausted that jurisdiction; such Acts are part of the British North America Act, and it is beyond our power bo amend them.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend has appreciated the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice. If he refers to the second part of section 2 of the Act of 1886, he will see that it is declared that:
Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act or in the British North America Act, 1871, has effect, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, and the number of senators or the number of members of 4 p.m. the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of senators or of members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of Parliament of Canada for the representation of any provinces or territories of Canada.
Therefore, in order to ascertain whether or not the Act of 1912 was within the competence of this Parliament, it is necessary to look at the Act of 1871 and what its purpose was. If you look at the Act of 1871 you see that it has a two-fold purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: From recollection, could the right hon. gentleman tell me if the Act of 1912, providing for the increase of the boundaries of Manitoba, was made part of the British North America Act?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it is not part of the British North America Act. It is an Act passed by virtue of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886. The purpose of 
the Act of 1871 was twofold: first, to enable this Parliament to establish new provinces out of the territories; and, secondly, to enable this Parliament to add to the boundaries of any province or to take away from the boundaries of any province. But it could not add to or take away from the boundaries of any province without the consent of that province. Therefore, as I have said, the purpose was twofold. But any Act passed for the purposes mentioned and set forth in the Act of 1871 is distinctly declared by the Act of 1886 to be valid and within the competence of this Parliament, with special reference to representation in the Senate and the House of Commons.


Mr. GERMAN:: Does the right hon. gentleman mean that that refers to an increase of senators? Is that not exclusively confined to representation in the House of Commons?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


William Manley German: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The expression in the
Act of 1886 is:
-and the number of senators or the number of members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of senators or members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of Parliament of Canada for the representation of any province or territories of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is for territorial representation, is it not?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not. I am endeavouring to make it plain that it was not. Let us get back to the Act of 1871 alluded to here. That Act had a twofold purpose:	it enabled this Parliament to
create new provinces, and it enabled this Parliament, with the consent of any province, to add to or take away from the territory of that province. The Act of 1886 declares that any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada for the purposes set forth in the Act of 1871 shall be valid, and goes on to make distinct allusion to representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons. As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice the English language could not be plainer than the statement of authority conferred on this Parliament which is set forth in the legislation which I have just quoted.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the case in regard to Ontario and Quebec, whose area has been also largely added to? Have they also a

right to increased representation in the Senate because of increased area?


Robert Laird Borden: No, but this Parliament, in its wisdom, could have given them increased representation if it had seen fit to do so. [DOT]	__


William Manley German: Without amending the
British North America Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: The fact that this Parliament put a section in the Act last year providing that the representation of Manitoba should be increased is absolutely meaningless if my right hon. friend's contention is correct. The same thing could be done for Ontario and Quebec, but the fact that it was not done in one case or another is not to the point. If we had the power to do it for Manitoba, we have the power to do it for Ontario and Quebec today. If, in consequence of the fact that we have increased the boundaries of a province, we have a right to increase its representation in the Upper Chamber, we have the right to do it for Ontario and Quebec just as we did it for Manitoba last year. This shows to me that the section of the Act of 1886 must be construed strictly.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is again arguing from consequences.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: He says the consequences of certain legislative power being unwisely exercised might be detrimental, and therefore the power does not exist. That is not good logic.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is.


Robert Laird Borden: As I pointed out, the Parliament of Canada could to-day, if it saw fit, give twenty-five or fifty representatives in the Senate or House of Commons to the handful of people scattered in the Northwest Territories. In that respect our power is unlimited.


William Manley German: So you could.


Robert Laird Borden: We could. Therefore the argument as to consequences is not very good; otherwise it would be competent for our friends opposite to say: No, you could not do anything of the kind, because no one could ever have contemplated such a dreadful result as would be brought about by action of that kind. As I said before, the fact of the granting of a very wide legislative authority is not a reasonable ground for saying that the fair intent of the words should not be followed. It would
be possible for Parliament to abuse any of these legislative provisions, but that legislative authority was conferred upon this Parliament in the expectation that the trust thereby imposed on this Parliament would not be abused.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly the Imperial Parliament contemplated, when it gave this Parliament power to give representation to the territories, that we would exercise our powers wisely.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: We could
abuse that power. What I contend is that, so far as the increase of territory is concerned, the Imperial Parliament did not give the power to abuse, but to use. My contention is that the Imperial Parliament when it gave the power with the consent of the legislature, to increase the territory of a province, did not thereby give power to increase the representation; because if this were true we would have had to contemplate the possibility of increasing the representation of Ontario and Quebec, bio one contemplated that, and that is the basis of my argument, that, as a fact, we have no such power. It was not contemplated. The consequences would have been as l have stated; no one wants these consequences, and therefore I say the Act has to be interpreted literally as enacted by the Imperial Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: We not only contemplated it, but we did it, because two years ago, when the Act extending the boundaries of Quebec was before Parliament, we provided that the new territory then added should have representation in Parliament in addition to the sixty-five members to which Quebec is entitled under the British North America Act. That is an exact illustration of what my right hon. friend says could not be done. We not only contemplated it, but we did it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: And did it with his
assent ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And if it was proper to do it in that case I do not see that my right hon. friend could have any objection to doing the same thing in respect of the other Chamber in this case. It was founded upon the same provisions in the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, we did it, to be supplemented by imperial legislation, just as the representation of the territories in 1886 was supplemented by imperial legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my right hon. friend contend that the Act which we passed with regard to the territory of Quebec is invalid P


Wilfrid Laurier: No; but if we had put in any clause giving increased representation, that clause would have been invalid unless supplemented by imperial legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: We did pass such a provision, and it is now in the statute. It provides for the representation of the territory added to the province of Quebec. It passed this House without any dissent, without anyone questioning our right to do -so. What we are doing to-day is founded precisely upon the same principle as that which was applied in the case when we made that provision with regard to the province of Quebec.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. When we increased the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec we did it with the consent of the legislatures of those provinces, and that was our authority.


Robert Laird Borden: So we had also the consent of Manitoba.


Wilfrid Laurier: If we had put a clause to increase the representation of Quebec or Ontario there would have been strong objection. When my right hon. friend put in a clause for the increase of the representation of Manitoba to six members, there was no objection. That should have been implemented by imperial legislation just as the Act of 1886 giving representation to the Senate was implemented by imperial legislation. We have exhausted our authority now, and we shall have to go to the Imperial Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I relied on the fact that the imperial legislation of 1886 dealt not only with Acts passed before that date, but also with Acta that might be passed in future for the same purpose. Therefore it has the same effect of validating our action as if we passed this Bill to-day and then sought imperial legislation to-morrow; that is, assuming that my construction of the statute is sound.


Frank Oliver: It seems to me that there is a difference between the authority of Par-

liament in the case of the Senate and of the Hou9e of Commons. Under the British North America Act, the representation of the population of Canada by provinces is fixed according to a certain system providing for increase or decrease under certain circumstances. But there is no such provision in regard to representation in the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: The same authority, but not the provision exactly.


Frank Oliver: I will have to accept my
right hon. friend's statement, but at the present time we have under consideration the readjustment of representation of the House of Commons, but we have no readjustment of the representation in the Senate under consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I was speaking of legislative authority.


Frank Oliver: I am assuming that there is a difference in the authority because of the different exercise of authority. At the present time we are reducing the representation of the Maritime provinces in the House of Commons, but we are not reducing that representation in the Senate. I have always assumed that the reason was that the principles upon which senatorial representation i3 founded, are different from those upon which Commons representation is founded, and I assume that the increase or decrease of membership in the Senate, was not on the same lines at all under the control-


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is quite
right. There was no provision for reducing the representation of any province in the Senate.


Frank Oliver: Then, there is a radical
and absolute difference between the two conditions. The reason for the constitution of the Senate was that the constitutional and special rights of the smaller provinces and certain sections of the community should be protected. If it is within the power of this Parliament to increase or decrease the representation of Canada m the Senate at will, then the protection that the Senate was intended to guarantee to the smaller provinces and certain sections of the community is, I think, very largely minimized. The principle laid down to-day by the Minister of Justice and the right hon. the leader of the Government seems to create a very dangerous condition. If it is possible to increase the representation in the Senate of the provinces of Ontario and

Quebec at the will of this Parliament, that is a condition which should receive serious consideration at the hands of the people. I understand that the principles laid down by the Premier and Minister of Justice as applying to Manitoba are equally applicable to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is mistaken. It would have been competent for us when we passed the statute increasing the boundaries of those provinces to have
provided for an increase of the representation of those provinces in the Senate; but after the Act has once been passed it would not be possible for us to do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: That settles
it.


Robert Laird Borden: When I speak of increasing, I of course allude to a provision for increase. I do not mean to say that it has to be done by legislation at the time. Just as in the case of a new province, so in the case of a province whose boundaries are extended, provision in the statute constituting the province, or provision in the statute adding to the boundaries of .a province, may of course be implemented by the Parliament of Canada according to the conditions therein laid down, and to my mind there is no distinction between the case of creating a province and the case of adding to a province so far as that particular feature is considered.


William Manley German: I think the right hon.
leader of the Government settled the law himself when he said that when the number of senators was fixed by the additioa of a territory to the Dominion of Canada that number of senators could not be increase! by the Parliament of Canada; but he says: If you add to the territory, you can increase the number of Senators. Is that the suggestion of my right hon. friend?


Robert Laird Borden: Provide for the increase.


William Manley German: For its increased representation in the Senate according to its increased territorial area. If that is the proposition of the right hon. gentleman it seems to me a very singular one. The light hon. gentleman must know that when Manitoba was made a part of the Dominion of Canada its representation in the Senate was fixed by Act of Parliament, and that representation cannot be changed, assuming that its territorial area is not changed. Does the right hon. gentleman say that Manitoba's representation in the Senate can be changed by any Act of this Parliament?


Robert Laird Borden: It was absolutely irrelevant to my argument to say any such thing, and I have not said any such thing.


William Manley German: I understood my right
horn friend to say that. I myself cannot imagine why there should be any dispute about the interpretation of the British North America Act and its amendments. The Act of 1867 provides that Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime provinces shall have certain representation, which is fixed, and I apprehend that my right hon. friend will not say that that representation could be changed excepting by an amendment to the British North America Act. And further, (reading):
If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six members be added to the Senate,-
That may be done. But that does not arise in this particular case. Again:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
The number of members of .the House of Commons-that is expressly stipulated; and the numbers of senators is also expressly stipulated; but I submit, with all deference to superior opinion, that this Parliament cannot increase the number of senators provided for by an Act which brings a territory into the Dominion as a province. That is fixed. Your authority is settled by section 52 of the British North America Act:
The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament-
And the leader of the Government and the Minister of Justice will agree with me that the number of senators cannot be increased except by amendment to the British North America Act. By the Act of 1867, the number of senators from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were to be reduced by the number of senators which Prince Edward Island was to have. They were only to nave the same number as Ontario and Quebec bad. (Reading):
British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members and by six members in the House of Commons.
I would like to ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Government, if he thinks that the representation in the Senate of British Columbia could be increased without imperial legislation. The Order in



Council under wmch British Columbia was admitted into the Dominion of Canada, says that:
British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members and by six members in the House of Commons.
The British North America Act provides that the representation in the House of Commons can ' be changed by this Parliament, but it does not provide that the number of senators can be changed. I would ask my right hon. friend if he thinks the representation of British Columbia in the Senate can be changed without an amendment to the British North America Act.


Robert Laird Borden: When the case of British Columbia comes up I will give my hon. friend the answer.


William Manley German: Very well. Then, we will go on to the case of Manitoba which is under immediate consideration. My right hon. friend will have to have a much larger amount of law than I believe he will be able to find, to establish the fact that he can increase the representation of British Columbia in the Senate without an amendment to the British North America Act. He may be able to do it; his ingenuity is considerable, I will admit that. The Act passed in 1871 provides:
Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting- the powers of the Parliament of Canada to establish provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted into the Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of such provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said Parliament:
Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lord Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
2.	The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces-
3.	The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province.
There is nothing in the Act to provide for representation. Representation is provided for absolutely by the other Act.
4.	The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province.
Section 5 of the Act of 1871 has nothing to do with this matter. That is conferring upon Parliament the right to establish new

provinces and to increase the boundaries of those provinces. What_ does the Act of 1886 say? The British North America Act, 1886, says:
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province thereof.
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make provision for the representation in the Senate of any territories and I agree absolutely with the leader of the Government when he says-perhaps in a moment of weakness-that they exhausted their powers when they fixed the representation in the Senate. 1 agree with him absolutely because you fix the number of senators upon taking in a province, you can fix the number as you choose and, when you do so, you exhaust your powers under the Act and you cannot increase the representation. Section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1886 says:
Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act, shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it received the assent in Her Majesty's name, of the Governor General of Canada.
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act or in the British North America Act, 1871, has effect, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, and the number of senators or the number of members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of senators and of members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada for the representation of any provinces or territories of Canada.
The number of senators or the number of members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act-the Act of 1867-is increased by the number of senators or the number of members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada for the representation of any such provinces or territories. That is the Act which introduced the territories into the Dominion, of Canada. The British North America Act specifies what the representation shall be. It gives to Parliament the right to fix the number of representatives in the Senate by the Act which brings the territory into the province, but the Parliament of Canada having fixed the number, cannot

change that number except you amend the British North America Act.
Manitoba is exactly in the same position as British Columbia. Alberta and Saskatchewan are each entitled to two senators now. My right hon. friend could increase the number of his Tory friends in the Senate by appointing two more from each of these provinces, but I submit that he cannot legally increase the number from Manitoba or British Columbia. I am borne out in that view by the opinion of Sir Allen Aylesworth, whose opinion I asked in the matter, and, without any desire to be controversial but simply to give that opinion, he said that in his mind there was no doubt about it. I will venture to say that if my right hon. friend will seek to force through this Parliament an Act to establish senators beyond the legal right of this Parliament to do so, his action will be reversed by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: After the exhibition of juridical sophistication which we have had upon this question, would it not be a good idea to present here the views of the plain people of Canada in regard to the Senate? We have in the Senate an absolutely irresponsible body and the people of Canada recognize that fact. In the mother country they had an absolutely irresponsible, hereditary second Chamber and they found it necessary, by the aid of the Parliament Act and of the King, to>
greatly alter .and diminish the powers of that irresponsible body. To my mind, the people of Canada are to-day disposed to think that until the Senate is made more amenable to public opinion there should be no further increases in the membership of that body. They believe that we should cease to appoint additional members to that body until there is a substantial reform of the Senate and until it is brought more or less under the influence of public opinion.
There is not another such irresponsible chamber in the world to-day like the one we have in 'Canada. In the United States they have a Senate, but it is elected by the states. In other countries they have senates or second chambers which are elective by the popular vote in larger constituencies than are allowed for the popular chamber. My contention is-and I think I reflect the views of the people of Canada- that the question of more concern to us is the reform of the Senate, the bringing of 95J
that body more within the purview of public opinion, and in some way the making of senators not appointive for life, but elective for comparatively short periods, either by the vote of the provinces or by the vote of the people in larger constituencies. That is the question which confronts the people of Canada to-day. It is a question that has been under discussion for a great many years, and we trifle with it and pass it over. Following my argument of yesterday, in which I had not much success, I think that it is coming home more and more to the people of this country that some kind of constitutional revision is necessary, .and that necessity applies more to the irresponsible Senate that we have to-day than to anything else.
Why should we have in a democratic country like Canada an irresponsible Senate as an essential part of the parliamentary machine? It may be that a venerable age makes a man a wiser legislator. I do not agree with that. I believe in democratic government in this country, in the parliamentary machine being responsible to the people, and most of all in the views of all the people of Canada being crystallized in law by means of legislatures that are responsible to the people.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Is my hon.
friend a single chamber man?


William Findlay Maclean: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend believe all that he says?


William Findlay Maclean: I believe that and a good deal more.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why do you
not move?



J496 COMMONS

William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman support me if I move? I am looking for recruits now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will support you in anything democratic. I am a democrat to the hilt.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope my right hon. friend is a wool-sock democrat and not a silk-stocking one. If 'he will undertake to support me in that proposition, or if he witll support me in a broader proposition and say that the time has come for the revision of the Constitution of Canada-* and I think it has come

that will be one of the prominent matters to be taken up.
I do not want to proceed in a hasty manner in regard to it. Such revision would 'have to commence with calling a conference' of the provinces, and it is high time that we called that conference and put in a protest, on behalf of the people of this democratic country, and in this democratic age, against the continued existence of an irresponsible body as part of the parliamentary machine of Canada.


Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon):: While I agree to a large extent with What the hon. gentleman has just now said, in respect of amending the Constitution of the Senate,
I do not think that it is a proper time to discuss that subject in connection with the resolution now before the committee. I do not agree with the argument that, when this House has once passed an Act concerning a matter entirely within its jurisdiction, that its legislative power respecting the matters contained in that Act is exhausted. What it has a right to enact it has power to amend and to alter.


William Manley German: It has not.


James Albert Manning Aikins: If it had the power to
add a number to the Senate, as representing territories, that power is not exhausted merely because it has once acted in respect thereto. As I understand, however, from the hon. the junior member for Halifax, (Mr. Maclean), and also from the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that their view is that, this Parliament having acted in respect of the extension of the boundaries of Alanitoba, its porwer has ceased and it cannot now add to its representation in the Senate. I do not concur, in that, but at all events its consideration is not necessary in this particular case, for the right was reserved in the statute increasing the boundaries of Manitoba, just as it was when the province of Alberta
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier.]
was created. The reserving sections are the same. In Alberta the provision is:
The said province shall be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members, provided that such representation may after the completion of the next decennial census, be from time to time increased to six by the Parliament of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no
doubt about that.


James Albert Manning Aikins: In the statute of 1912,
chapter 32, adding to the boundary of the
province of Manitoba, there 13 this provision :
The province shall continue to be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members ; provided that such representation may, after the completion of the decennial census of June, 1911, be. from time to time increased to six by the Parliament of Canada.
Wherein lies the difference?
Air. GERA1AN: That is Alberta and Saskatchewan?


James Albert Manning Aikins: Alberta and Alanitoba.
In both cases the same reservation was made.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
the point at all. The point is this, and we have so argued:	There is no doubt that
when we create a province we can give it such powers as we choose; but when we increase the boundaries of a province, there is all the difference. If we pass this resolution, our contention is that it will have to be implemented by Imperial legislation.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The provision of the British North America Act, 1886, is:
The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the representation in the Senate of any territories which may for the time being form part of the Dominion
of Canada, but not included in any province thereof.
Undoubtedly that part which was added to the province of Manitoba came within that provision; it was a territory, and so a province was created with this added territory. I submit there can be no question that this Parliament has the power to add to its senatorial representation.


William Manley German: AVhile personally I am not opposed to increasing the number of senators in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta or in British Columbia, it is merely a question of the legal right of this Parliament to perform this act. There is a very decided, distinct and positive difference of opinion among leading lawyers, evidently so, because my right 'hon. friend is a leading lawyer, and the Minister of Justice also, and they appear to have an opinion in

favour of the legal right of this Parliament to increase the representation in the Senate. There are just as good lawyers as these gentlemen, notwithstanding their great ability, who hold an absolutely different opinion and do not think that this committee should pass a resolution on a controversial subject such as this and send it to the Senate for their approval or disapproval until we have had a judicial decision in the matter. Let the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decide it. Manitoba will not suffer through the delay of a year, nor will British Columbia. Alberta and Saskatchewan can get their increases without question. Then, why not let the matter stand and get a judicial decision which will be a settlement of the whole question and a settlement irrespective of party politics? Notwithstanding what my hon. friend from South York ((Mr. Maclean) says, I think that would be the reasonable course. With many of that hon. gentleman's remarks I agree. Personally,
I think the memb'ers of the Senate should be elected for a term of seven or nine years and for sessional districts, and I would support that hon. gentleman or any other in making a proposition of that kind. But that is not the matter under consideration. The Prime Minister is face to face with this problem; he is sending to the Senate, which at the present time has a majority of Liberals, a proposition designed to secure in that body a majority of Conservatives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: Hon. gentlemen opposite can shout, but down in the bottom of their hearts they know that that is what they are after and they might as well admit it. But I say, irrespective of party, that this matter ought to be settled by judicial opinion. Let it go to the Supreme Court of Canada, if desired. But I do not think the Prime Minister and the Government should attempt to force through this House of Commons a proposition as to which there is a positive difference of opinion on legal and not on political grounds, many able lawyers holding that this Parliament has no jurisdiction to increase the representation in the Senate of Manitoba or British Columbia. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should not try to force this resolution through this House at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bill will be introduced and an opportunity will be afforded
for a discussion either on the second reading or in committee. Before that discussion comes on, I shall lay on the table the opinion of the Department of Justice, and we shall take the whole matter into consideration.


Mr. MARCIL:: I have no intention, not being a lawyer, to discuss this question from the legal standpoint. But,following the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) and for Welland (Mr. German), I feel that Manitoba is well represented at present in the Senate by four hon. gentlemen, two belonging to one political party and two to the other. I heard this question of the constitution frequently discussed while I sat in the Chair which you occupy, Mr. Chairman. That discussion certainly proved one thing, and that is, that lawyers fail to agree in a majority of cases, and that in case of doubt arising the question should be submitted to the proper tribunal. Many instances might be given illustrative of this view. By way of illustration, I have here a document relating to a question cognate to the present one. A petition was presented last week by the Bishop of Keewatin and the Roman Catholics of that district which is to be represented by the new senators, asking that some means be found to secure to them the school rights to which they were entitled when they were brought into the new province of Manitoba. This is a question which I hope the Government will take up. Outside of all party differences this is a question of justice and fair play. As set forth in this petition by the right rev. gentleman, there can be no doubt as to the rights of that small minority; and, as it has always been understood that the main purpose of the Senate is to protect minorities, this question should be investigated at the same time as the question now under discussion. Let some constitutional means of redress be found, so that in that great western country of which all Canadians are so proud it shall no longer be said that a small minority such as this are deprived of their rights.
Resolution reported, read for the first and the second time and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100, respecting the representation of the province of Manitoba in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House went into Committee, Mr. Blondin in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for two additional members of the Senate for the province of Saskatchewan.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, respecting the representation of the province of Saskatchewan in the Senate.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House went into committee, Mr. Blondin in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for two additional members of the Senate for the province of Alberta.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill 102, respecting the representation of the province of Alberta in the Senate.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. T. White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. J. J. CARRICK (Thunder Bay and Rainy River):: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply I would like to draw attention to a subject which I believe to be of vital importance to the industrial development and commercial life of the Dominion of Canada. I refer to our Canadian iron and steel industry.
A few weeks ago I placed a resolution on the Order Paper under which I proposed to draw attention to this subject, but in view of the fact that so many other notices of motion preceded it, I did not think I would Have an opportunity of bringing the matter up for some time, so, with the consent of the Prime Minister, I dropped the resolution and wish to take the matter up now. The notice of motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it would be in the best interests of Canada that the development and utilization of Canadian iron ore deposits should be more fully encouraged 
than they are at present; and that this House will approve and support any legislative measures proposed by the Government that would tend to so desirable an end.
The iron and steel industry is second only to agriculture in the foremost countries of the civilized world. Iron is the cheapest and most abundant of heavy metals; it is the strongest and most magnetic of known substances and perhaps, the most indis-pensible of all materials to human progress, excepting the water we drink and the air we breathe. It enters into every industry; it is the basic fibre of our national existence. It is indispensible to the tiller of the soil, to the hewer of wood, the manufacturer of flour, foods and feed, the miner of coal, the builder of street cars, motorcars, telephones, telegraphs, steamships and railways. All need iron both as instrument and material and all would fail if iron failed. Without iron we could have no important industries; it is the basic fibre of our industrial existence.
Another exemplification of the great need . for assistance to the iron industry is found in the fact that during the fiscal year 1913 there were imported into Canada iron and steel products amounting to the enormous sum of $141,000,000. This importation constitute? nearly one-quarter of the total amount of imports into the Dominion of Canada during the fiscal year 1913. What would it mean to the development and prosperity of Canada if this vast amount of iron and steel, or even a substantial portion of it, were manufactured in our own factories and steel plants, and from our own iron deposits?
Another reason why this matter should engage the attention of the House is that the iron situation in Canada to-day is in a languishing and deplorable condition. Instead of making progress, instead of developing our natural resources, we are steadily retrogressing. During the past year we produced 50 per cent less Canadian iron ore than we did ten years ago, but the imports of foreign ores have increased over 250 per cent. Canadian blast furnaces are closed down, and we are keeping busy United States furnaces and United States steel plants by importing their products. The blast furnace at Port Arthur represents an investment of over $1,000,000. The citizens of that city were so anxious to help that industry and the development of iron in their district that they guaranteed _ the bonds of the company to the extent of $200,000. This huge furnace-a modern plant, constructed by British and Canadian

capital and assisted by the credit of the city of Port Arthur-has been closed down for two years. Nor is this a solitary instance. The blast furnaces at Midland, Parry Sound, Deseronto and Londonderry are closed down. These plants represent an investment of millions of dollars; they gave employment to thousands of our Canadian citizens; they paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. To-day they are all idle; they are in mourning for the passing of an infant industry which, with sufficient assistance, would have developed into giant proportions. These huge idle furnaces, with their great towering steel structures, are sepulchral monuments marking the sad record of loss and disappointment, of blasted hopes and shattered fortunes.
Our Canadian industries have been unable to withstand the competition of the older and more strongly established industries of the United 5 p.m. States. The United States and other foreign countries have so protected their industries that they have secured their own home markets for them, and have been able to use Canada as a dumping ground for their surplus products.
During the past week the Hamilton Steel Company closed down its large plant, turning 1,300 men out of employment. What a severe blow it is to a young and thriving industrial city when 1,300 men are turned out of a single industry- men who are depending upon their weekly wage for the support of themselves and their families. I only hope that in the case of the Hamilton company it is but a temporary closing down. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company last week passed their dividends. The directors said that this was on account of a depression in the iron situation, but in view of the fact that $141,000,000 worth of iron and steel products were taken into this country last year, there must be a great demand for them at the present time. I understand that only two out of the six furnaces in Sydney are in operation. Perhaps my hon. friends will tell me that the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company has had a very successful career; that they have paid satisfactory dividends, and are not entitled to any special consideration. I understand, from what I consider to be very good authority, that the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company have made very small returns out of the manufacture of iron and steel, and that they have made the bulk of their profits in the

shipments of coal and iron ore to German and United States furnaces, which ore, I may say, is mined not in Canada, but in the neighbouring colony of Newfoundland. Last year the Canadian Iron Corporation went into liquidation. This corporation lost millions of dollars because they were unable to withstand the keen competition of United States furnaces and foreign steel plants. The failure of the Canadian Iron and Steel Corporation was a greater factor in the financial circles of London than any other individual occurence of the year in discrediting Canada and Canadian investments.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the failure of the Canada Iron Corporation due to the lack of sufficient protection, or to the financial operations of the directors of the company?


John James Carrick: I believe that if the industry had had sufficient protection it would not have got into financial trouble.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that apply also to the furnaces at Midland and Londonderry?


John James Carrick: The Londonderry furnace, I understand, is a subsidiary of the Canada Iron Corporation. The money invested in the Canada Iron Corporation was practically all raised in England, and the loss of these millions of dollars to the British investor is such a serious blow to the present and future development of the Canadian iron and steel industry generally that if we desire to revitalize and rehabilitate this industry, to stimulate and foster its development in the interests of all sections of our community, we must enact some legislative measures, provide some form of adequate protection, or else our Canadian industry wi-11 remain in its present languishing condition, while we are keeping busy foreign iron mines, foreign furnaces, foreign steel plants to supply the ever-increasing requirements of Canada.
I have often thought of the two streams that bind together Canada and the old country; the stream of products from Canada to Great Britain and the stream of capital from Great Britain to Canada. Let this latter stream cease to flow and our Canadian industrial life will inevitably wither and shrink, and in my opinion we cannot continue to secure British capital for this great industry unless we change our attitude towards the present iron and steel situation in Canada.

When in London last fall nay attention was repeatedly called toy British financiers to the very unsatisfactory condition revealed by our trade returns; our imports are so much greater than our exports. The balance of trade is very unfavourable to Canada. The latest return compiled by the Government shows that the total value of our imports for the fiscal year 1912-13 (including bullion and specie) was $686,00.0,000; the total value of our exports, $377,000,000; or, in other words, the balance of trade against Canada amounted to over $300,000,000. To settle this difference we must either draw on our own resources or borrow the money from the old country, because the difference in the balance of trade must be paid in cash. The question of the balance of trade has not hitherto received 'in Canada the general attention paid to it in the older countries, .and consequently, perhaps, it 'is not so generally understood; but it must be realized and admitted that it cannot toe to the advantage of a country to import large quantities of any class of .articles which could and should be manufactured within its own borders from its own natural resources by its own workmen. In his remarks at the last annual meeting of the shareholders ol the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Sir Edmund Walker called attention to these facts and said:
We again draw attention to the large proportion of our imports which consists of iron and steel in various forms, not only as raw materials, hut as manufactured goods. The total value is about $140,000,000. May we once more point out that in the main these articles are used in building or in equipping the country for its future and that such purchases differ in effect from the import of foodstuffs and other rapidly perishing objects. At the same time we regret that the greater part of these iron and steel goods is not made in Canada. To the extent to which by making these goods in Canada we could have lessened the debt represented by the securities we have sold to pay for the difference between imports and exports, we have burdened ourselves for a long time to come.
The question will naturally present itself to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we have in Canada the raw material necessary for iron and steel development. Have we iron ores, limestone and coal? Sir, we have them all in abundance. We have iron deposits in the Maritime provinces, in Quebec, in Ontario and in British Columbia. We have large bodies of limestone for fluxing purposes in the Maritime provinces and in the lake Erie and Georgian Bay districts. We have large coal deposits in both

eastern and western Canada and coal can be delivered along the ports of the great lakes at a maximum freight rate of thirty cents per ton.
In the district which I have the honour to represent we have, by actual diamond drill test and development work, proved up millions of tons of iron ore in the Atikokan and Mattawin ranges. In the Atikokan range we have nineteen million tons of ore and twenty-eight million tons in the Mattawin range. In the Michipicoten district of Algoma twenty million tons of iron ore have 'been proved up by actual diamond drill test and development work. In the Woman River district nineteen million tons have been proved up and in the Sudbury district the Moose Mountain properties contain one hundred and ten million tons. This Canadian iron belt, part of which geologists state is an extension of the greatest iron belt in the world, that of the Missabi and Vermilion ranges, alone contains 200 million tons of iron ore, already proved up and capable of being turned into seventy-five million tons of pig iron, a quantity sufficient for all Canadian requirements for fifty years. And, Sir, when we recognize the fact that mining is conducted at from 1,500 to 2,000 feet below the surface in the Vermilion range to the south of the Canadian boundary, it is evident that we may confidently anticipate vast additions to our known iron ore resources when greater development work is undertaken.
Now, Mr. Speaker, does it not strike you that it would be admirable legislation for this Government to do something to foster the development of these great natural resources, so that instead of importing, as we did last year, one hundred - and forty-one million dollars worth of iron and steel products, we would be able to produce a large proportion of this amount in our own country, in our own factories and from our own mines, and thus give employment to thousands of our Canadian workingmen instead of keeping busy foreign mines, foreign factories and foreign steel plants to the advantage of foreign workingmen.
Fully two-thirds of this great iron ore belt of Canada is low-grade magnetite, running from 32% to 36% metallic iron. By magnetic treatment the silicious and earthy impurities can be removed and the metallic contents raised to over 65%, which makes a high grade ore quite suitable for furnace use. This method of treatment has been successfully carried on for years in Norway, Sweden, and New York state. The Moose Mountain Company near Sudbury

has also erected a large concentrating plant for treating these low-grade ores. Next in importance are the large deposits of high sulphur ores which require entirely different treatment to the low-grade magnetite but which when treated are as valuable as the best ores used in the blast furnace. Instead of magnetic separation, specially constructed furnaces are used in which the ore is roasted at a very high temperature which burns or drives off the sulphur contained in the ore. In both cases of ore treatment expensive plants are required and operating costs are necessarily high before the ore is treated and ready for furnace use; the cost ranging from 65 cents to $1.50 per ton, according to ore treated. This additional expense must of necessity be added before this ore can be considered the equal in quality of the imported ores. Consequently our Canadian ores are at a disadvantage compared with the foreign ores, to the extent of 65 cents to $1.50 per ton. The foreign ores are shipped direct from the mines to the furnaces and require no special treatment. When our Canadian ores are subjected to special treatment through the Wedge roasting furnace or other modern process, they are raised to the same high standard as the foreign ores and can be used in the manufacture of all iron and steel products that are imported into Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this vast district which joins together the East and the West is to-day the unproductive part of Canada, but with the development of its iron resources and the investment of millions of dollars in iron and steel plants, and with the employment of thousands of men in the pursuits connected with these industries, this whole section would flourish and become an industrial and productive bond, linking together the East and the West to the advantage and added prosperity of both.
During the past year and a half, Sir, I have visited the Old Country several times, seeking capital for an iron and steel industry. We have in the district of Thunder Bay and Rainy River vast and valuable iron ore deposits and the practicability of using them has been conclusively demonstrated. The city of Port Arthur is anxious for a steel industry, as its credit is tied up with the existing iron furnace in Port Arthur to the extent of $200,000, and it is, I believe, willing to give further assistance to help establish this industry within its borders. In our negotiations with English capitalists, three of the leading iron and steel experts of London have visited, inspected and reported upon the iron ore deposits of the Rainy River and Mattawin districts, and thousands of dollars have been paid out for expert reports and advice, and I can assure this House that if adequate assistance is given to the iron mining and iron and .steel industries, I am now in a position to secure, and will undertake to give the Prime Minister evidence that I can secure at once, ten million dollars for a steel industry in Port Arthur, which will make use of our local Canadian ores for the manufacture of its products. The district in which I live, Mr. Speaker, is but one among the many in Canada that contain great iron ore beds, for the known deposits extend through the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and who can say what further deposits remain yet to be discovered in the many remoter regions of this vast country? I believe that if sufficient encouragement is given to our iron and steel development, the results in the Rainy River district will be but indicative of what will happen practically over the whole of Canada. Iron ore mining will be stimulated; idle Canadian furnaces will be put into operation; the erection of new furnaces and steel plants will be undertaken; and this whole industry will thrive and flourish, reaching eventually that degree of importance in the commercial and industrial life of Canada to which it is most undoubtedly entitled, an importance which in the foremost countries of the civilized world, accords it to-day rank second only to agriculture.
Let us now turn for a moment and look at the iron development in the three countries which are in the lead with respect t

1 this particular industry. In the year 1847 Great Britain led the world in the iron and steel industry. Her industries had been built up and placed on a sound footing through protection. At that time the British economists were satisfied that Great Britain would still continue to lead the world. Then Great Britain adopted free trade, and with what result? Both Germany and the United States under high protective policies have fairly outstripped her in the race for supremacy.
Fifty years ago the United States imported practically all her iron and steel. Her infant iron and steel industries were at that time in a languishing condition. She then adopted a high protective tariff with the. result that to-day the United States leads the world in the production of iron and steel. In 1902 the United States produced thirty-five million tons of iron ore and in

1913 sixty million tons. The iron and steel industry of the United States to-day is the largest individual industry of that great republic to the south of us. More money in capital is invested in her iron and steel industry than in any other of her industries. The total amount of iron and steel produced in the United States last year was valued at $1,755,000,000 and this industry gave employment to 375,000 persons and paid out over $265,000,000 in wages. If we take into consideration all the more highly elaborated articles that are produced from iron and steel, the total capital investment in the iron and steel industry in the United States, taken from the latest census report of 1909, is $3,573,000,000; the total value of the products produced is $3,163,000,000 ,and the average number of wage earners is 1,025,000.
In 1890 Great Britain produced eight million tons of pig iron and Germany 4,600,000 tons. In 1912 Great Britain produced 8,900,000 tons and Germany 17,800,000. Germany at the present time is the second greatest producer of iron and steel in the world, and through the protection which she has afforded her industries and the special freight rates granted by the Government on the national railways to iron and steel products, she has developed iron deposits which do not average any higher in metallic contents than our Canadian ores. Mr. Dawson in his history of the iron and steel development of Germany states that ' their iron ores do not average over thirty-five per cent metallic iron.'
Now let us look at the iron ore situation in Canada. In 1902 Canada produced 400,000 tons of iron ore and in 1912, 216,000 tons, or a reduction of forty-six per cent. In 1902 Canada imported 560,000 tons of iron ore and in 1912 she imported over two million tons of iron ore, an increase of over two hundred and fifty per cent.
Next let us bake the manufacture of pig iron in Canada. In 1912 Canada manufactured one million tons of pig iron practically all from foreign OTes and she imported 272,000 tons of pig iron; or a total of 1,272,000 tons of pig iron was used in Canada last year. To produce this amount of pig iron would require 2,500,000 tons of iron ore, 750,000 tons of limestone and 2,100,000 tons of coal; which makes a total tonnage of 5,350,000 tons. This alone to the navigation and transportation companies equals the freight in tonnage on nearly two hundred million bushels of wheat. It is nearly as great a tonnage as was shipped in grains of all sorts through the lake 
ports of Port Arthur and Fort William during the navigation season of 1913, which amounted to 205,000,000 bushels.
At this point, Sir, it occurs to me that you may perhaps wonder how, seeing that the manufacture of pig iron and certain steely products has increased in Canada, I can justify my declaration that the industry is in a languishing and deplorable condition. I am aware that the manufacture of pig iron in Canada has increased; that the output of steel rails, steel rods and other steel commodities has increased; that one or two establishments in close proximity to ample markets of high-grade foreign ore have been able to increase their production and by the use of that ore to keep their heads above water. But, Sir, I would ask you to recall the 250 per cent increase in importations of foreign ores, the fact that in ten years our imports of iron and steel products have amounted from $33,000,000 to over $140,000,000, the still greater sum of $300,000,000 against Canada in the balance of trade when over a quarter of our importations consists of iron and steel products, the many furnaces now standing idle, the vast ore beds unmined and unexploited; and I think you must admit that my statement is justified and in no sense an exaggeration.
What has been the attitude of the Governments of Canada towards the iron industry? Both Liberal and Conservative Governments have been favourable to a policy of fostering and developing this industry. Regardless of differences in policies on other questions, regardless of cleavage within parties, there has been an earnest endeavour by both parties to stimulate -this great industry. At times, it is true, that there was a difference of opinion as to how the best results could be "obtained, but from the history of past legislation it must be admitted that this industry received support from both great political parties in Canada. But, Sir, neither party went far enough and neither party gave to the industry the protection necessary to enable it to entrench itself securely, to withstand the competition from more strongly established foreign industries, whose governments secured for them by hign tariffs their own home markets and who were thus able to make use of Canada as a dumping ground for their surplus.
In the year 1883 the Conservative Government passed legislation authorizing the payment of a bounty of $1.50 per ton on all pig iron manufactured from Canadian ores.

la 1894, Mr. Foster, our present Minister of Trade and Commerce, introduced a Bill increasing the bounty to $2 per ton. In 1897, after the Liberals came into poweT, they reduced the customs protection, in some cases as much as 75 per cent and in others from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, and in 1897 Mr. Fielding introduced a Bill increasing the bounties to $3 per ton on all pig iron manufactured from Canadian ores and autnorizing a bounty of $2 per ton on all pig iron made in Canada from foreign ores; or, if pig iron were produced from a mixture of Canadian and foreign ores, then the product would be entitled to the bounty of $3 and $2 respectively on the proportions of Canadian and foreign ores used. In introducing the Bill to increase the bounties on pig iron Mr. Fielding said:
The object is, to some extent at all events, to make amends to the iron interests for, the loss they will undoubtedly sustain by the lowering- of the duties. I have no doubt there are in the minds of some of the hon. gentlemen objections to the system of bounties, but we have thought that as these interests were established and large capital invested in them, it was only reasonable that we should give them a chance to see what development might be possible for a few years longer. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion, in lieu of the higher duties which were formerly received, to ask the House to grant them increased bounties-
Mr. Fielding and the Liberal party when in opposition were not in favour of bounties, but when they came into power they recognized the importance of the iron industry to the development of the country and were anxious to stimulate and encourage it. They increased the bounties, therefore, to a higher figure than had ever before been paid in Canada and Mr. Fielding said that the object was
-to some extent at all events to make amends to the iron interests for the loss they will undoubtedly sustain by the lowering of the duties.
Mr. Fielding was perfectly correct. The iron industry did undoubtedly sustain a great loss through the lowering of the customs duties; a loss which shattered the hopes and blasted the fortunes of many Canadians. But the late Government was earnestly desirous of helping the iron development and in 1897, 1899, 1904 and 1907 brought down legislation mitigating, at least to some extent, by means of bounties the loss to which the iron and steel industry was subjected by the lowering of the customs duties. Again I repeat the words of Mr. Fielding:
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion, in lieu of the higher duties which were in force, to ask the House to grant them increased bounties.	_
Sir, the greatly lower duties to which Mr. Fielding referred are still in force, but the bounties are no longer being paid.
In 1907, in introducing further bounties on finished products, Mr. Fielding said:
X think it will be generally admitted that if there is any industry in the country which deserves encouragement-if we are to adopt the principle of aiding any industry by protection in the form of bounties or of customs duties or in any other form-it will hardly be questioned that the iron and steel industry should receive the favourable consideration of the House. A country which possesses large resources and fails to develop them, would certainly not be a progressive country.
Mr. Fielding also said:
There is, I think, an erroneous impression that the iron and steel industries are protected to a particularly large degree. I think that is a mistake. X have no doubt that some of our farming friends will be surprised if I tell them that the protection afforded to the iron and steel indutry is not so great as the protection afforded to some line of agricultural products, but such is the case.
The Finance Minister of the late Administration then gave figures showing the low rates of customs duties on iron and steel products, and said:
These are very low rates of duty. They would not be considered a protection in any other line of industry and if there were not any bounty to supplement them, they certainly would not be any substantial protection to the steel industry.
Mr. Fielding then closed this part of his argument by stating that he believed that every dollar paid out in bounties came back to the treasury of the country. He said:
In view of the results which have been accomplished by the continuance of this policy for many years, first under one Government and then under another, even if it had cost the country a very considerable sum of money, I think a good case can be made out to justify the outlay having regard to the importance which the iron and steel industry will always bear to the development of the business of the country. But, I think it is as capable of proof as most things are capable of proof in an argument of this character, that every dollar which has been paid out of the treasury for some years past in connection with the development of the iron and steel industry has come back to the treasury from the general development of the country in connection with the establishment of these great industries.
From legislation which was introduced by the Conservatives up to 1896 and from legislation introduced by the Liberals subsequent to 1896., it has been clearly

A resolution was passed last week by The Canadian Mining Institute, a nonpolitical organization which deals with all the mines and ores in this country. The resolution sets out that:
The Canadian Mining Institute, in annual meeting assembled, beg to direct the attention of the federal Government to the fact that the iron ore industry of Canada is handicapped by reason that there have not yet been found, in this country, extensive deposits of the same high grade ore as are easily mined in the neighbouring republic, in Newfoundland and Cuba and which necessitates the importation of 94 per cent of all iron ore smelted in Canada; whereas, it is the conviction of the Canadian Mining Institute that such deposits ought, by increased endeavour to be found, therefore we most respectfully request that the Dominion Government will, through its proper channels, provide the necessary means for the accomplishment of this most desired end, the realization of which will add more than anything else to the economic wealth of the Dominion.
The Canadian Mining Institute say that the development of our iron ore deposits will add more than anything else to the economic wealth of the Dominion of Canada.
I desire also to read a resolution placed on the Order Paper of the provincial legislature by Mr. Gamey, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the iron industry is one of prime importance and its satisfactory development within our borders a matter of national concern; mat, notwithstanding the fact that there are immense deposits of iron ore in Ontario and the other provinces of the Dominion now lying Idle or but little worked, the great and growing market for manufacturers of iron and steel, and also the demand for iron ore for smelting purposes, are largely met by importations from abroad and especially from the United States; therefore, be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the development of Canada would be stimulated and public interest promoted by the granting of such a measure of assistance by the Parliament of Canada as would place the iron and steel industry of this country on an assured and permanent footing.
In conclusion, I would point out that the granting of special aid by the Government to important industries is and has long been a settled policy in this country. I could turn to our steamship and transportation lines, to our fisheries, to our lead mines and even to our agriculture, and show you how this industry has been fostered by subsidies and land grants and the development of our natural resources encouraged by bounties, high duties, hatcheries, experimental farms and various other means. But I would not weary the House with figures, for surely an industry which is the foundation of every other industry-which is the basic fibre of our in-

dustrial activity; which in the foremost countries of the civilized world vies in importance even with agriculture-surely the encouragement of such an industry is worthy of being judged on its own merits. We consider ourselves a progressive country. The pulses of our nationality beat fast with youth and ambition. We claim that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. Yet, in spite of the example of what has been accomplished in other countries, in the face of our vast iron resources lying idle and neglected, in the face of our idle blast furnaces, in the face of the 141 millions of imports of iron and steel products which could be and should be manufactured in this country by our own workmen from our own resources, what are we doing to take advantage of our opportunities? What are we doing to prove our progressiveness? What are we doing to promote the welfare of this supremely important industry? I repeat the words of the Hon. Mr. Fielding:	' A
country which possesses large resources and fails to develop them, would certainly not be a progressive country,' and with confidence I leave the answer to my questions to the judgment of this House.


Michael Clark: I could not help reflecting, as I listened to the questions which my hon. friend put to the House just before he resumed his seat, that the answer to them would have been very different if the result of the last election had been different. He said: What are we doing to develop the industries of the country? Well, I must say that under this Government we are not doing very much. But if the result of the last election had been different, the answer to these questions would have been different. We would have been opening the markets of the world to our produce; we would have been setting free industries, and we would have been making a prosperous Canada. That is what we would have been doing.
My hon. friend has told a tale, in the most able manner from his own point of view, and in a very pleasant manner, which must be harrowing to the soul of every patriotic Canadian. I could not help regretting that he did not tell this tale before the Speech from the Throne was composed, because I almost think that if that tale had been told before the Government had composed the Speech from the Throne, they would not have talked about a slight depression in Canada. I wish that the Prime Minister and my hon. friend the

Minister of Finance had consulted my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) before they made their speeches on the Address. I can not help thinking that, if they had had the information which my hon. friend has just given to the House, they would have been very much less severe in their speeches upon my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition when he attempted to place a truthful picture of the conditions of this country before the Parliament and the people. ' Deplorable and depressed condition of the industries of Canada ' is what we hear from my hon. friend from Rainy River and Thunder Bay. Well, it took the advocates of the National Policy eighteen years to produce that state of affairs before, but we have got a much more clever Government in power; they have done it, their own friends being witnesses, in two years. I deplore this, but I wonder if my hon. friend doe3 not think that there is a perfectly natural explanation in his own remarks of how this condition has been brought about. He voted, and he induced h:s constituents to vote, for the depression of *iie industry of this country which he himself admits is our primary and greatest industry; for he only claimed the iron industry to be secondary to the great interest o! agriculture. Why did he seek the support of the people to depress that industry? Does it not occur to him that if he took the deliberate step of shutting up the markets of the world, or keeping shut up the markets of the world, against the agricultural products of this country and so depressing Canada's primary industry, the secondary industry as a natural result was bound to be depressed also? Why, the very thing he uses in his classification and description of industries gives him the clear explanation of all the phenomena which are so depressing to him as they are to all of us.
In this connection I could not understand my hon. friend being so much put out by the importation of a huge amount of iron in various forms from foreign countries, especially the United States. For I recollect an argument used two and a quarter years ago, and elaborated at great length in this House by possibly the most brilliant ornament of this House, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), whom I am glad to see back from his wanderings, and that argument was that reciprocity would be a bad thing because it would exhaust the natural resources of Canada. I submit to my hon. friend that
if we were saving up our own resources, his object was to exhaust the resources of other countries. And when this exhaustion is going on, is it not a matter of rejoicing- and especially when you are exhausting the resources of the country for which you have no particular affection, and .with which, by the way, we wanted ' no truck or trade.' Well, that by the way.
Now, I should like to elaborate just a little the arguments on bounties and upon this whole matter. My hon. friend's speech is an apt demonstration of the fact that there can be no greater anachronism than to apply the term ' national ' to the policy of protection. It is not a ' national ' policy, it never was; it has always been sectional, and selfish at that. It must have been observed by every one present that while my hon. friend set out with a number of figures and references about the iron trade, he gravitated, slowly perhaps, but absolutely surely, to Thunder Bay and Fort William, and he ended there. That is to say, he was sectional in his very thinking. He was not thinking of Canada in the long run; he did premise his speech with that to make it respectable-and very respectable he made it-but he got to Thunder Bay and Rainy River and Fort William, and that is the place he was talking to in this debate. Protection is always sectonal. There are people in Nova Scotia who support this policy, but to do it they have to forget Canada and think only of Nova Scotia. And so with portions of Ontario. What a misnomer to apply the term 'national' to such a policy. It is sectional as to locality, and I think it is sectional in another sense, because I think it is meant to benefit a particular section of the community. The suggestion of my hon. friend is made to benefit a very particular section of the community and I am not sure that that section will receive a great deal of sympathy from the great mass of the people of Canada at this time, and it certainly is not likely to receive a great deal of sympathy from the farmers who are the exponents and practisers of the primary industry of the country and who were prevented from making greater gains in their business by a trade 'pact which would not have harmed any man, woman or child in Canada, but would have helped the great industry which now comes before us for help. I am not sure there are not some sectional investors behind this project. I am told that the stock of iron and steel companies is not quite as good a thing as it was. I do not follow these things very

much myself; I am in the happy position of not being troubled with surplus wealth- and 1 use the word 'troubled' advisedly, for it is nothing but a nuisance; it causes people to think wrongly in their economics and to act wrongly in life, and the love of it, we are told, is the root of all evil. But I read the papers and get some information, and I understand that there is a great decline in the value of the stocks of these companies.	I am sure
the inhabitants of Canada who are absolutely most anxious for something to be done along the line suggested by my hon. friend are precisely these investors. I do not want to hurt any investors, but I am not anxious to help them at the expense of other people and at the expense of the industries which have made and are making Canada, The fact of the matter is that if an industry is in that particular position, and if it be true-and I have no reason to doubt w-hat my hon. friend says-that it requires from seventy-five cents to $1.50 per ton more to handle iron ore in this country than in the United States, then I gather from the facts that these men made investment in a business which was very bad to invest in in this country at this juncture of its development-and when Canada gave bounties to that business it embarked upon a losing concern-and that these people deserve no particular consideration from this country. The whole system of bounties, the whole system of protection, receives its severest condemnation in the facts my hon. friend gave me in this connection. He asks us in effect to take money from industries which are paying because they are suitable to the country and which pay under freedom and without the help of protection-he asks the Government of this country to go to these paying industries which would most surely build up the prosperity of the country and abstract money from them to hand it over to an industry which, the very facts he gives us show, is not suited to the stage of development at which Canada has arrived. It cannot be demonstrated according to sound economics that it is profitable for Canada to go into that industry. FaT better-follow the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and keep these particular resources and make the exchanges we are making and can make of an immense surplus of agricultural produce for every kind of surplus that is produced more profitably and easily in other countries of the world. The result will be that both countries will be richer by the transaction.
[Mr. M. Clark. 3
I wonder if my hon. friend, when he quoted the language of Sir Charles Tupper about the support of the iron trade being necessary to attract capital to this country, ever thought in what form that capital reaches us. From his saying that the balance of trade against us needs to be settled in cash, I really inferred he thought that he got money sometimes from another country and that this surplus capital that we bring into Canada comes in the shape of money. If he did think that, or does think it, or if any other member of this House thinks it, let me at once disabuse his mind of that thought.
Every particle of the borrowed money that we bring into this country comes in in the shape of those very goods which my hon. friend wants to debar. The other day Mr. Asquith took the chair at a lecture delivered by one of the first economists of Britain upon this very question, and on that occasion both the chairman and the speaker were emphatic in the declaration that every particle of borrowed capital that came to this country came in the shape of goods. So that the Government, in a protectionist country such as Canada, is really the greatest foe of its own theory and its own policy of protection. All the surplus money that we have been bringing into Canada, except what comes in as settlers' effects, comes in in the shape of goods. My hon. friend seems, therefore, to land himself into a contradiction on that point. He says we have got to build up the iron industry at home in order to attract the necessary capital from abroad, but a great deal of that necessary capital is coming in in the shape of the very iron and steel products connected with the industry which he wants to build up at home. That is a sample of the economic contradictions that abound whenever you take up the subject of protection, because the whole thing is an economic fallacy from beginning to end; it is wrong, and no amount of practice of it will ever put it right.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



SECOND HEADINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 80, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
* Bill No. 97, to incorporate the All Red Line Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. White for Committee of Supply and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Garrick, resumed.
Michael Clark: In the hurried remarks that I made before dinner, I referred to the balance of trade which had been spoken of by my hon. friend from Rainy River. It has been pointed out to me that the statement I made might easily be misunderstood. I said, very hurriedly, that when we borrow money from England we import the whole of what we borrow in the shape of goods. I might have been misunderstood as indicating that we get these goods from Great Britain. Of course, that would be an impossibility because the balance of trade does not run that way as between Great Britain and ourselves. Everyone who has an elementary knowledge of these matters knows that the exchange is not always an exchange directly between the two countries concerned. It might take place through a great many countries. We borrow money from England, and that money comes to us in the shape of a draft. The draft represents capital which is in Great Britain and which, so far as cash value is concerned, remains in Great Britain. The draft, wherever it goes first, arrives ultimately in Great Britain and becomes an order upon the British market for goods. That is the point. The draft may first go to the United States and buy goods from the United States, but in that case the United States does not give away goods to Canada for a piece of paper. It passes the draft on, and the draft gets back ultimately to the country from Which it came, where the exchange value resides and where the goods are bought.
I want to say a few more words on this	question of bounties.	The
fundamental objections to bounties are two in number.	The first is that
they are of necessity unjust to producers in lines other than that to which the bounty is paid, and equally unjust to the consumers of the country. On the face of it what can justify taking money from the masses of the people to encourage production along a certain line when that money would go farther in the purchase of the required goods in some other country? What actually happens is not that the money would go further, but that some other products of Canada would go 96
farther, because in the commercial exchanges between countries, if we import iron and steel, jve inevitably export something else which we can produce more easily than we can iron and steel, to purchase the iron and steel. That is the inevitable process of trade. The money comes from somewhere to pay this bounty; it does not drop from the heavens; and where alone can it come from, where does it come from? It comes from the consumers of the country who are themselves producers in other lines. No one can shift that position; it is a position of the most absolute injustice as between one industry and the other industries of the country.
That is how the cost of living is raised. We appoint commissions to inquire into the cause of the high cost of living. There is no doubt whatever about what is the cause of the high cost of living, as I said in a previous debate in this session. If at this time we wanted to meet the real trouble that is afflicting the Canadian people, we should introduce bounties on beef and not on iron and steel. We have no beef in this country; our beef has all been drawn off from us. I submit to the hon. member for Rainy River that there was a great deal of beef used in'this country before any iron and steel, and, like agriculture, it is a more primary necessity of the human being. Now, I put it to my hon. friend, representing an industrial community while I represent an agricultural-if he will be a Canadian for a moment and not an inhabitant of one particular district in Canada- if he proposes seriously to this House that we should take money from the whole of the Canadian people to hand over-and we have already done it to the tune of seventeen or eighteen millions-to the industry in which his constituency is interested, by what process of logic or of justice does he refuse to me the same consideration for the industry of Alberta, which is largely a beef industry? If we look to the needs of the people, there is more need to encourage the production of beef than the production of iron and steel, and I would ask my hon. friend on what ground he would refuse the one and not the other. It is impossible to meet that argument in any other way than to say, as my friend must at this moment feel inclined to say: I will give you a bounty on beef too. If he would make that admission I would say that we had better not begin the process at all. I will produce the beef 'and he can produce the iron



and steel, and we will both be self-respecting and self-reliant Canadians.
Viewing this thing from the national rather than from the local aspect, there is a grave reason in tihe present condition of Canada why we should support agriculture as the primary industry of this country. Nothing is more serious at the present time than the depopulation of our rural districts. I made a trip recently in the province of Nova Scotia and I found a splendid set of people, but I found that their population was almost stationary. We are told that the rural population of Ontario is declining. Many here know of a time-I have read and heard of it-when the people were leaving eastern Canada by the hundred thousand for the United States. To-day we can carry this process farther west. I was shocked to receive a paper the other day from a point in Southern Alberta, which said that it stated with reluctance, although it had to state it as the truth, that in the district of Grassy Lake there were 20 per cent fewer people than there were two years ago.


William Findlay Maclean: Of farmers?


Michael Clark: Yes, it is a farming
district. The process is going on under my own eyes. I cam count the number of men who have left the district in which 1 have lived ever since I came to Canada. In some cases they have gone to our cities, in other cases to the United States. I submit that is a very serious condition. Careful observers of human affairs in other lands are looking at what is going on in Canada and trying to learn lessons from it.
I want to read an extract from an article by Samuel Evans, chairman of the Grown Mines, Limited, South Africa, on protection in British South Africa. I think all who are Imperialists will want to hear what this prominent citizen of South Africa has to say upon the .subject:
The tendency of population to gravitate to cities is no doubt characteristic of modern civilization, but the experience of Australia and Canada-
And I submit that when calm thinkers of British South Africa are studying our economic conditions we surely ought to be studying them here.
-the experience of Australia and Canada appears to show that this movement is accelerated by protection, as protection bolsters up industries which are carried on in towns, and it handicaps the farmers by taxing their requirements in order to foster such industries.

That is the comment of a highly cultured South African upon conditions which he has learnt there are prevailing in Canada, and I submit that that is something which should make us who are responsible for the Government of Canada, each in his own degree, think very seriously indeed before we listen to a suggestion such as my hon. friend has thrown out; because his suggestion is specifically to do this very thing which is condemned by Mr. Evans: It is to bolster up an industry in a town at the expense of the rural population and the agricultural interests of the country.
The second objection to bounties is that they are doubtfully helpful to the industries that receive them. That would, I think, follow from theoretical reasoning upon the point. I have given these reasons to the House before. If I wanted to spoil a boy of mine I would not need to lay traps to lead him into immorality; I would only need to give him plenty of money to spend and the boy would be spoilt. The same law applies to human beings of a more advanced age, and applies to the industries of the country. I referred just now to the fact that I was in Nova Scotia recently. I think I told the House in the only previous remarks I have addressed to it this session, that I found that all this money that is being paid into the steel industry of Nova Scotia is by no means as successful as it should be. Two shops were closed at Sydney when I was there, and I applied to the courteous manager who showed me over the works, as to the cause. He said it was because they had no orders; but I learned of another very interesting thing: that since the orders fell off for the production of the heavier plant of that steel works, the capable people managing the works had immediately turned their attention to the production of nails. I was very much interested to see that they turned out splendid specimens of all classes of nails, from the finest to the very largest spikes. I ask the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to this-he knows it all in theory, or at least he knew it a long time ago when he used to read Adam Smith, but I am afraid he has not read that author in recent times as much as he should have done-I wish to call his attention to this concrete example of what the absence of bounties has done for this industry. Here is a case where the federal bounty, or at any rate, the failure of the lines in which they had been operating as a result of the bounty, led to these people falling back on their own ability and in-

genuity, which after all are the qualities on which men should rely in life, and introducing a perfectly different line of production and doing it as well as it is done anywhere in the civilized world. That proves positively what the effect of these bounties is upon industries. I should like to ask my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Car-rick) or any one who follows in this discussion to. tell me how any amount of bounty will produce orders. My hon. friend is beginning the development of his country at the wrong end. I can quite understand how the payment of bounties by the million will raise tne price of stock, especially for speculative purposes. If it was known here to-night that the bounties were going to be given, I should expect to see a rise of the stocks-a watery rise-noted in to-morow morning's paper. I can understand that, and I can understand how you can pay dividends out of bounties, if the bounties are big enough. This is not the first country in which these economic follies have been indulged in. In the country from which I come, years before I was born, they used to pay dividends to fishermen for catching fish, and it became a familiar saying that the fishermen went to sea not to catch the fish but to catch the bounties. But I cannot see how bounties would enable this steel works to get orders. I may be blind, but I would be glad if somebody would tell me how bounties are going to bring orders.
The fact is, in my humble, opinion 'that free access to the United States market two and a half years ago would have gone far to obviate the necessity of my hon. friend making the speech he did this afternoon, whether we have regard to the condition of the country which he described as existing or to the remedy which he proposes for that condition. If we had got that market two years sooner than we did, there is one thing certain, and that is that we would have got a better price tor our stock two years sooner than we did.
I do not know what the Government a-e going to do about the matter of markets below the Tine, but if they want to develop this country they must develop foreign markets. That is the way to build up your steel industry. We who are occupying those vast areas which constitute a heritage such as no country in the world ever came into are not out there for sport. The people who are raising cattle are not out there, as I have told some audiences in this country, to conduct zoological gardens. The only reason they produce cattle is that they are 96}
able to sell them, and if you close the market against their product you shut down the lands, you lead to the result which I have pointed out as existing down in Southern Alberta, and if you close down the primary industries the secondary industries can never graw up. These are two main objections to bounties: they are unjust, and they are not helpful but a hindrance to the industries to which they are given. It is inevitable, according to human nature, that such should be the case.
I cannot help adding that the proposition of my hon. friend is particularly inopportune at this period of Canada's history and in the condition which we all unfortunately know to be prevailing at the present time. I am the last man in the world to want to exaggerate that condition. One of the most pestilential by-products of the tariff reform agitation in Great Britain was that people came from Great Britain with false ideas about the empire and said things condemnatory of our land which were extremely bad hearing for Britishers living abroad Therefore I should be the last in the world to wish to follow an example of that kind. I do not think it is the part of a good patriot to decry his own country or to paint in too dark colours the condition of that country, and certainly he is not a patriot who does it for political purposes. My hon. friend opposite, however, has made it inevitable that I should put it up to him that this ia a most inopportune time for the very reasons which are to be found in his statement as to the condition of the country. I think that if he had reflected a moment he would have thought of the old proverb that it is no use begging from those who a"e ready to steal. I have already pointed out to him that this money must come from somewhere, and I do not know an industry that could not do with a bounty at the present time.
Thanks to the President of the United States and his tariff, we have a little help in the matter of cattle in Alberta, and vfre are able to stand on our own feet in that province; but it is a questionable thing if wheat can be produced at the prices which are being paid for it. Surely, if that be the case, my hon. friend must see that an application for bounties on wheat would be a much more sensible thing to think about than an application for bounties upon iron ore. People cannot eat iron ore. The production of iron is a secondary consideration altogether. We need iron, and steel, butT it is not necessary that we should make them. It is absolutely necessary that we should raise food, and if bounties are


Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: Do not take that back.


Michael Clark: M,r. ARTHURS: Has my (hon. friend the. figures of what the workingmen in England receive 'in similar industries?


Michael Clark: I am so used to my hon. friend's interruptions that I would be glad to go into the question with him. I do not mind a diversion if we are both in order. I am a little disappointed, however, when any one on the other side wants to make capital by running down the mother country. It is a revelation of a new side to my hon. friend's .character.


Mr. STEVENS:: Answer the question.


Michael Clark: I will get to the question. With regard to the remuneration of labour, if that is what my hon. friend wants me to go -into, I shall be very glad to -take a little excursion with him. I would begin my excursion by -saying -this, that there are in the British House of Commons forty labour members who -are the aristocrats of the world of labour. At the head of them is my old personal friend, Mr. Burt, who, if he is spared until next month, will have sat in th-e House fox forty years, who was -described by Lord Grey, our -late Governor General, as the finest gentleman he ever met, who was raised to the Treasury Bench by Mr. Gladstone, -and who is the father of the House of Commons. He and -the others who constitute the forty labour men hav-e had it for their duty, on behalf of those who first sent them to Parliament, to study labour -conditions the world over.
They have not missed a point in the case; they have studied it with the best brains they could bring to bear upon it; and every one of them is as bad a freetrader as I am, because he knows -that protection does not raise the wages of labour. If my hon. friend is not content with that little excursion, I can give him numbers of other facts upon which he can build more correct information and opinions with regard to -the remuneration of workmen under protection.


Mr. ARTHURS:: We would like to have the figures.


Michael Clark: I will give my hon. friend the figures. Forty labour members-there is a figure; does he -set his judgment against the whole forty? But I will give him some figures from nearer home. The hon. member does not seem to be impressed by the labour members of the British Parliament.
I will call gentlemen of -more august posi-IMr. M. Clark.]
tion from nearer home. I am glad I have been diverted to th-e question of how far protection, whether in the shape of bounty or of tariffs, raises the wages of workmen. This question has been discussed in the United States for the last sixty years, and until lately they believed what the hon. gentleman still believes. My hon. friend is a stand-patter, but the worst thing about a stand-patter is that while he is -standing pat the world moves away from him. In the last presidential election in the United States this question of wages was dealt with by three very important citizens of that great community. In the first place, Mr. Roosevelt had something to say -about it, as he will always have -something to say about affairs -if lie happens to be around at the time. Mt. Roosevelt, who had been a high pri-est in the protectionist temple for a good many years, -said: I want to see more of the rewards of industry finding its w-ay into the pay envelope. I would like to ask the hon. member for Parry Sound what Mr. Roosevelt meant 'by that. If hi-s words meant anything, th-ey meant an admission on his part that enough of the wages did not get -into the pay envelope.


James Arthurs: Did he-


Michael Clark: Let my hon. friend not
deal with half a case. He will have the chance of speaking all night, if he wishes, after I have finished. Mr. Taft came along, and he dealt with the question in which my hon. friend is interested-and let it not be forgotten that he was holding office at the time as the high priest in the protectionist temple. He said: ' Mr. Roosevelt says that he wants more of the rewards of industry to go into the pay envelope. I want to tell him it cannot be done.' It is bad enough for Mr. Roosev<Bt to state that it is not being done, but Mr. Taft said it could not be done, and added:	' And I
want to tell Mr. Roosevelt that until he shows how it can be done, hi-s programme is for show and not for sale.' These are very high authorities for my hon. friend from Parry Sound. But he wants figures. Well, I propose to give him figures, from the third of the gentlemen to whom I have referred, the successful candidate for the Presidency. Mr. Woodrow Wilson came along in the same election and went down to Lawrence, in Massachusetts, and he said to the people there: ' They have been telling you for generations that protection raises your wages; you get a dollar a day and you are paying thirty cents a pound

for beefsteak-I hope my hon. friend is getting the figures; more figures than steak for these workmen. I am not giving my own language, but am quoting from the present President of the United States about the beautiful results to the workmen of the United States that flow from this so-called national policy. Mr. Wilson went on: 'They say protection raises your wages; I see that it raises the cost of your food, but I do not see that it raises your wages; and you are in a position to tell these who come along with the statement that it does raise your wages, that that is a grand piece of humbug.' I commend that to my hon. friend as a point from which he might begin to study economics so far as they teach the effect of protection upon wages.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It sems to me that this debate is degenerating into an abstract discussion on free trade and protection, and that it is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on; go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say to
those hon. gentlemen who say 'Go on ' that that is not respectful to the Chair when endeavouring properly to discharge the duties imposed by the rules of the House.


Michael Clark: I have the utmost respect
for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and when I have appeared not to show that respect it has been under very peculiar circumstances. I was led, you will admit, by an interruption into this discussion. At the same time, perhaps I might say that there is not a very remote [DOT] connection between the advisability of giving bounties and the effect of bounties or other form of protection upon wages. I submit to the House that if we could prove that protection decreased the wages of the workmen of this country, that would be a very good reason for most of us, those who want the votes of these workmen at any rate, to be careful how we went in for too much protection.


Robert Laird Borden: Inasmuch as the hon.
member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) did not propose any motion, the discussion is on the motion to go into Committee of Supply; and, as I understand it, that is quite unlimited and any subject can be discussed.


Michael Clark: I am always a stickler for rule, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and I much prefer to take my directions from yourself than even from my esteemed
friend the Prime Minister; and it is the more convenient for me to do so on this occasion, as I had nearly got to the end of what I wanted to say.
I think I have gone over every point advanced by my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) in support of his ideas and propositions, excepting one. He said, ' I want to develop the resources of the country,' and he gave that, I presume; as a reason for his support of bounties. I submit to my hon. friend and to this House that there is a proper method of developing the resources of the country; and Providence has so shapen us that when we take the right road we follow not only the path of justice but the path of utility. We have tried in Canada this system of developing our resources for forty years, more or less. I have had occasion to point out in this House that during the eighteen years while the so-called National Policy was in operation it failed to develop Canada's resources; it failed to such an extent that its authors, in the person of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, had to desert it and to reduce tariffs in the year 1894.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nonsense.


Michael Clark: Hon. gentlemen say, 'Nonsense.' The foreign commerce of Canada in 1895 reached the magnificent figure of $224,000,000-that is the year before the authors of the National Policy went out. In 1883, twelve years before, the foreign commerce of Canada was $230,000,000, or $6,000,000 more than it was twelve years later, in 1895. When I say that that policy failed to develop the industries of this country, my friends say I am talking nonsense. They say so only because they do not bring sufficiently instructed minds in the history of even their own country to the consideration of these political problems. The other party came into power, and their first act, despite anything that is said to the contrary, was to lower tariffs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: The hon. Postmaster General receives my last remark with a shrug of incredulity. Was the introduction of British preference not a lowering of the tariff? Was the placing of cream separators and scores of other articles on the free list not a reduction of the tariff ? I have no desire to take an unfair advantage of an opponent in argument or in anything else, and I admit freely that for years after that there was no very hard work put in

at the reduction of the tariff. But another attempt was made to do it, and I would like to say, in defence of my right hon. friend and leader, that when he did not go further with the preference at the time to which I refer, there was much to excuse him, because he was run up against the high Dingley tariff of the United States, and naturally it was easy, under those circumstances, to appeal to the pride of Canadians. But he did introduce a British preference; he did make these reductions. That was a departure from the National Policy, and it was like grease to the rusty wheels of our trade-our commerce developed by the hundred millions. For two and a half years we have had a government of stand-patters in power, the lineal descendants of the authors of the National Policy, and we have the account of the country as it is to-day, given not by myself, whether as a partisan or not, but in the appeal which my hon. friend makes and in the facts by which he bolsters his appeal.
I submit that policy of my hon. friends opposite is no National Policy. A National Policy should have the object of supporting the great agricultural industry of Canada, not by way of education only-although I do not despise education. After all, if you educate the farmer you will educate him to produce more, and if you do not find the market for his produce your procedure is a very illogical one, to say the least. A national policy is a policy of supporting, first, the great industry of agriculture- which is the stem of the industry of a country-supporting it by facilitating production; supporting it by facilitating the disposal of that production. Any thoughtful man can see that if you build up a prosperous agriculture in a country evidently destined by Providence to be the greatest agricultural country in the world, everything else will follow in the train of that development. If you build up the agriculture of the West, the railroads will build themselves. If you build railroads, surely you will build steel works, and if you build up agriculture, railroads and steel works, you will build up shipping, and you will make a great and prosperous country-a country which will yet, I trust, put into the shade all commercial undertakings and successes, great as they have been, of the little country from which we all have sprung and of which we are all so proud.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: I had hoped and expected that the hon.

member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would incidentally have referred to the iron question and to the speech of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Carrick). At well regulated intervals he did make reference to it in point of word, but not in point of argument. The hon. gentleman has gone over his old-time speech which the House has heard again and again: free trade as against protection. People are judged by what they do; if there is a consistent protectionist in this country, it is the hon. member for Red Deer. He is the most consistent protectionist in this House to-day, because he followed a protectionist government in this country for three 9 p.m. sessions and never dared to challenge the voice of the House in respect of reducing the tariff on a single article. I ask the hon. gentleman now, yes or no, if, during the time of the last Parliament, he ever dared to move for the reduction of the tariff in one particular?


Michael Clark: I will answer my hon. friend by staying closer to the question of bounties than he himself does. I made as strong a speech against the bounties when my right hon. leader was in power as I consider I have made to-night, and as a result of that speech my right hon. leader did not renew the bounties.


William Humphrey Bennett: The assertion of the hon. gentleman is that the effect of his remarks was to swerve and change the whole policy of the Government.


Michael Clark: I am sure my hon. friend will allow me to take back the word ' result.' I ought to have said that the removal of the bounties followed, thus making my story absolutely accurate. I apologize to my hon. friend for the error.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad that the hon. gentleman has backed up a little, because he certainly did say at first that his speech had the effect of changing the whole policy of the Government. Now we know that it was not his speech alone that had this effect. The hon. gentleman told the House that he had been to Sydney, and one would have expected that, right at the seat of the iron industry, he would have denounced the bounty as he denounced it to-night. But when he went to Sydney and saw these large concerns, he 'became an apologist for protection. He used these words:
I do not advocate a thing until I am convinced that it is right.

* The reason, therefore, why he did not advocate a reduction of the tariff was that he did not believe it to be right to do so.
I am not going to say anything further with regard to the remarks of my hon. friend, because he has not dealt with the iron situation in this country at all. 1 will grant that he has said something with regard to bounties. Whilst I favour to a certain extent the suggestions of the hon. member for Thunder Bay, I am going to ask the Government to make further concessions in favour of the iron industry of Canada. I do not propose to go over the mass of figures quoted by the hon. member for Thunder Bay: the silent smelters throughout Canada speak more eloquently than any figures can as to the present condition of the iron industry. If he (the hon. member for Red Deer) had visited some of the towns in which there are large smelters which have been closed down, he would address himself much more seriously to the question of protection or of bounties for the iron industry in Canada than he has done here to-night. We are protectionists in every town in Canada; I speak more particularly of the towns of Ontario. We are bounty givers, too. Where is the town in Ontario that at some time in its existence has not given a bonus to	an industry of some kind?
That was a bounty-fed institution. If we gave a bonus to a furniture factory, a smelter or any other industry or gave it favourable terms by way of loans, that was a bounty and a direct tax on the people. So I say if a bounty is given on iron produced in a country, not on pig iron but on iron ore, it has at least its novelty to commend it to the people of Canada. My hon. friend censured the hon. member for Thunder Bay for being purely local in his proposals. Such a policy would not be of local advantage at all. It would benefit Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and every province in this Dominion wherever iron ore is to be found, including many counties in Ontario. So if the benefit that the hon. member anticipates would accrue from a bounty on iron, I say it would inevitably be of advantage not only to Ontario and that district of Thunder Bay, but to the whole country.
My hon. friend from Red Deer referred to the concerns at Sydney and other places throughout the country and pointed out that the province of Nova Scotia to-day was simply cursed by poverty. I am perhaps using stronger words than he used but that is the effect of what he said; he spoke as if
the province was plague stricken by reason of its trade and that the people there were bled white. I make the statement that the employees and their families in two large concerns at Sydney aggregate nearly one-sixth of the whole population of the province of Nova Scotia and if you were to remove these miners and toilers in and about these concerns, where would the farmer in the province find his home market? He will not find either the hon. gentleman behind him from that riding or the hon. gentleman from Welland who has a smelter in his riding arguing that protection, by iron bounty or protective duty, is a curse and affliction to any part of the country in particular.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay to the fact that his town had bonused or assisted a smelter and that it was now shut down. Reference was also made to the concern at Sydney. I want to make the statement that that concern, for a long time past, has existed not by reason of the fact that it is making profits out of the manufacture of iron but because it has been selling ore and coal. It is stated openly that during the strike troubles in London last year the Sydney mines sold $200,000 worth of coal in London. While it is quite true that they passed their last dividend, no doubt if it had not been for their sales of ore and coal in past years, in all probability they would have passed their dividends long ago.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Dominion Iron and Steel Company never sold any ore until last week.
Mr. BENNETT; Then I was mistaken.


William Findlay Maclean: The Nova Scotia Steel Company did.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon: member for
Halifax has accentuated the position by stating that now, for the first time, the Dominion Company is selling its ore rather than manufacturing it. Why? Because it is not a paying proposition to manufacture it, while it is to ship it in the raw state. We had an experience along this line in Ontario. Some members will remember that year after year the lumber industry in the province Of Ontario was languishing because the export of saw logs from Ontario to the United States was permitted. I remember the first session I was here in 1892 advocating that the Dominion Government should impose an export duty to prevent any saw logs going out of the country. I was not supported by hon. gentlemen on


James Arthurs: I have no desire to detain the House at any great length, but I desire to raise my voice in accord with the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Carrick) in an endeavour to bring about a better condition in the iron industry of Canada. I am somewhat in accord with the member for East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett), as I do not altogether believe that a bounty is the best solution of this problem. In all probability a specific duty would be of much greater advantage to the iron industry at the present time. I represent a county which is interested both in the iron ore and smelting industry, and I believe that the solution offered by my hon. friend of giving a specific bounty on the iron ore mined and smelted in Canada would perhaps meet some of the difficulties. Several of our smelters, ordinarily employing large numbers of men, are now lying idle, and it is unquestionably true that the idleness of these large furnaces and the fact that their former employees are in the ranks of the unemployed, has helped to create that unfortunate state of affairs touched upon by the member for Red Deer.
The industry I am interested in is somewhat unique in Canada, namely, a charcoal iron furnace. This industry is peculiar in that it is the only smelter in Canada using Canadian fuel. There are about II chemical plants in Canada to-day producing wood alcohol, with a by-product in the form of charcoal. The surplus must be used for smelting purposes. In my riding $600,000 or $700,000 has been invested in a strictly modern plant of this kind, having a capacity of about 36,500 tons a year. This plant to-day is idle, not because it is not using Canadian ore, but simply because of trade conditions south of the boundary. These men find
that by importing pig iron from the United States they can fill their orders in Canada at less cost than if manufactured in Canada. This state of affairs is not perhaps the result of conditions in Canada, but due to slack times and a period of over production in the United States. I saw the balance sheet of this particular company which shows that they are losing over $2 per ton on the iron smelted in their own smelter. As a matter of fact pig iron is sold in the state of Michigan at the low price of $12.75 per ton; it cannot be produced in Canada for that. As I said there are eleven charcoal plants in Canada employing a large number of men and using 500 cords of wood per day. The wood is purchased from the farmers in the vicinity at an average price of $4 per cord. It is waste wood which cannot be utilized for any other purpose and mostly comes from land afterwards used for agricultural purposes. The amount of capital invested in this industry alone is about $6,000,000. If they could not find a market for their surplus charcoal in these smelters, they would have to close down so that one industry is directly involved in the other. Six million dollars may not be a large sum, but when you consider that 182,000 cords of wood are used every year ;by these charcoal plants, it means a very considerable sum to the farmers of this country, about $730,000. This is altogether outside of the sum paid by these chemical plants for labour in handling wood, transportation, and other expenses. The industry with which I am more intimately connected, and I think it is true of the iron industry generally, is face to face with a problem which I have not heard touched upon to-night, and that is that our Canadian ores are necessarily at a disadvantage as compared with American ores, especially those of Michigan, which are mined at a very low cost, 10 or 15 cents per ton. Their ore is simply shovelled out from the earth by steam shovels, whereas Canadian ore is largely refractory and is mined at considerably more expense, and must necessarily be treated before being available for smelting purposes. The experience of all Canadian smelters is that it costs from 25 cents to 40 cents and sometimes 80 cents per ton more to smelt Canadian ore than American ore. The result, as has been shown by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay, is that the output of ore in Canada, notwithstanding almost unlimited deposits, has been steadily decreasing until it has reached the very small amount of 200,000 tons per year.

During the last fiscal year we imported from the United States 94 per cent of the total ore used in Canada. It may be wrong to grant a bounty in this case, but I cannot see any reason why these men should not he encouraged to build up a Canadian industry solely. It is not a question for me whether a bounty is granted or a duty is imposed on pig iron; it is simply to encourage the production of ore in Canada. I have looked into this matter quite closely and given it a good deal of study on the spot, and it does not seem possible to havb smelters treating Canadian ore unless they have some advantage other than they have at the present time over ores imported from the United States.
I had a little controversy with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). He informed us that there was a very large number of men unemployed in the city of Vancouver, and he said that they had gone elsewhere, but he did not say where they had gone. As a matter of fact, the American figures show that there are five men unemployed in the United States to every one there is in Canada. He might have told us that the average wage in the United States was $1.75 a day, and he might have told us also what the wages are in Great Britain, where they have free trade which he advises us so strongly to adopt.
I hope, in conclusion, that the Government will find some means, either by bounty, as proposed by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay, or by a specific duty on pig iron, to build up one of the great basic industries of Canada. My hon. friend from Red Deer has granted that it is the second largest industry and next to agriculture in Canada. I think this industry is worthy of encouragement. It is a mistaken idea on the part of most of the farmers in Canada that they are paying to-day large sums as duty upon iron ore. The majority of the farmers do not know that 99 per cent of the duty upon iron entering into agricultural implements is being rebated by this Government. I think that one of the best things to do would be to withdraw that rebate, or, if the Government think it better to leave that, then let them, for the time being at least, give us a .substantial duty on Canadian ore mined in Canada and smelted in Canada for Canadians.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, after the elaborate arguments made by my hon. friends on both .sides of 
the House, I will only take .a moment, but I cannot allow the discussion of this matter to go by without pointing out the illogical position which has been assumed by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) and the hon. member .for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick), who demand some protection for the industries about which they have been speaking. I *sympathize with those hon. gentlemen. I understand that these iron industries in their constituencies have, for well known economic .reasons, closed down. Because they are closed down and because they are suffering I sympathize with them. I sympathize with the men who are suffering, but I think it is because my hon. friends think they are going to suffer politically that they come hero and make this proposition. They say that this Government should help out these unfortunate people by granting them a bounty, that must he paid by all the farmers and all the other producers in Canada, or by the withdrawal of the rebate to the manufacturers of machinery. But the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) says that will only amount to $2 or $3 on a binder. But no matter what proposition they put up it comes out of the farmer in the end. It comes out of the farmer also in tne way of a bounty which makes him pay $2 or $3 more for his binder and in the same proportion for all the machinery which he uses on his farm. It only goes to show the result of establishing an industry which is not native to tne place in which it is established. If you go back to the beginning of the industries which have been referred to by the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject, you will find that in every case they were put up as money-making propositions by the men who put them up and not for the purpose of money-making by their operation. I do not know tne history of them but I venture to say that these industries were floated by promoters.
I will venture to say that there is more water in their stock than money. I will venture the assertion that they could be financed if they only had to pay dividends on the money invested.


James Arthurs: Speaking for the industry in my riding, I will say that the statement of the hon. gentleman is outside of the fact and it is not at all true. Every dollar's worth of stock is absolutely paid up, dollar for dollar.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is equally
true in regard to the industry in my constituency.


John James Carrick: You will find the same
to be true in connection with the steel works in my constituency.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will admit that my
hon. friends are sincere in what they say but that does not change my opinion at all. You show me a protected industry in Canada, capitalized for $5,000,000 or $6,000,000, that has not $2,000,000 of water in it, and I will show you a white blackbird. However, from all the information we can get with regard to these things, there .seems to be one steel industry in Canada that is able to live and make money. They say that it has passed its last dividend, but x the Nova Scotia Steel and Iron Company has not passed its dividend. It is paying a six per cent dividend on its common stock.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it not true that the smelter of the Nova Scotia Steel and Iron Company is shut down?
Mr. CARVEL.L:	I think that is true to
some extent but that does not alter the fact that the Nova Scotia Steel Company has been able to do business and pay dividends


William Humphrey Bennett: Selling ore and coal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not selling Canadian
ore, but selling Newfoundland ore. My hon. friends say that they want that to be changed, that they want to get these industries going. My contention is that these industries have been placed where they have no business to be placed.. We have a false system of economics built up industries all over Canada which cannot .succeed except by tariffs or bounties, something which is not native to the country, something, which was put up by promoters for the purpose of making money in building and not in operation. But we have one place where there is a real business proposition that has not had to close its doors. Although there have been one or two blast furnaces blown out at Sydney, all the rest are running and doing a good business. As my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said, when the bounties were cut off they commenced to make nails. They commenced to manufacture the raw product. On account of the enormous production which we have had in the steel industry practically all the output of the steel industry has been in the form of rails, because that is the cheapest form in which steel can be turned out in Canada and in every other part of the world and because we have had an enormous railway development in Canada for the last ten years. On account of the railway development which has been going on in Canada these industries have been turning out steel rails at a price $3 or $4 more than the ordinary price in the rest of the world. But you .say that the Government have been putting up money for the building of these roads and therefore they might as well pay an extra price for the rails and with that particular branch of it I am not very much inclined to find fault. Now, unfortunately, railway construction has practically ceased. The rails are all bought and laid on the Grand Trunk Pacific, the rails are practically all laid on the Canadian Pacific railway in their double-tracking as well as on their main line and the rails are pretty well laid on the Canadian Northern. There is no further demand in large quantities for rails. The result is that the Canadian Steel Works have had to close down, not because they have not been able to mine their ore cheaply enough, not because they did not get their coal at the proper price, but because they have not the market. Can any hon. gentleman opposite tell me how a bounty on the production of iron ore will create a demand when the market does not exist? That is the whole question. My hon. friends do not realize that from an economic standpoint they are trying to butt their heads against a stone wall. If you have not the market, you cannot sell the goods. If you give a bonus, there is no doubt that you might start up an industry for a year or two, but in another year you will find yourself up against the wall again, because you will have your yards full of material and no market for it.


John James Carrick: Last year we imported
$141,000,000 worth of iron and steel products. Is that not market enough?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not had time
enough to-night to go over the figures accurately, but I have done so generally. I have the trade returns for the first six months of the present fiscal year. Practically ninety per cent of these imports are manufactured articles, the very thing that I am discussing. I have not the time to go into it, but I fiud here that in six months we have imported only about $2,000,000 worth of pig iron. For the whole year that would be $4,000,000 worth of pig iron, a mere bagatelle as com-

pared with $141,000,000 worth of imports. 1 do not believe that we have imported $10,000,000 worth of the raw products in the whole year. Prom the figures that I have here, I find that we have imported: Bar iron and steel, $2,500,000; cast iron, practically $500,000; gasolene engines, $2,000,000; steam engines, $330,000; steel billets, $800,000; steel bridges, $600,000; pig iron, $2,000,000, and so on. The pig iron is the only raw product of all the articles that I have mentioned; the others are manufactured goods. In Sydney they are commencing to waken up; they see that they cannot sell their products to any great extent in the condition of raw material, and therefore they are commencing to manufacture; they have been making rods on a small scale; they are making them now on a larger scale. They are converting these rods into nails; they will go on and convert what they are now making their rails out of into rolled goods, angle bars, fabricated material, and they will develop their industry. When they do that, they will find a sale for their products, but is it fair that the people of this country should be compelled to pay millions of dollars annually in order to support industries in Ontario that are not native, that should not have been established, that were established for money making schemes, and that are not in operation? To show what can be done in the case of an industry which is native, 1 have a clipping here taken from this morning's Citizen which to my mind is an answer to the whole question. I find here that the Sydney concern have this week closed a trade by which they are selling 15,000 tons of pig iron delivered in Philadelphia. It is like taking coal to Newcastle, but they are doing it. The article is as follows:
Canada Pig Iron-Sydney, N.S., to benefit by American contract.
Philadelphia, March 9.-Part of the pig iron which R. D. Wood and Company will cast into pipe in their forty thousand ton Italian aqueduct contract will be brought from Canada. It also makes the first foreign-made iron of any amount to be contracted for or to he imported into the United States under the n*w tariff. This particular iron will come from Sydney, N.S. About 15,000 tons is understood to have been contracted for to he delivered at docks here for about $13.50 per ton. A first cargo of this Nova Scotia pig iron will be shipped promptly hut the hulk of it is to come next fall.
I think that is an answer to the proposition of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River. When you get down to rock-bottom economic business, when you establish a steel industry at a place where it can thrive, when you put it in a position 
where it can compete with the rest of the world, it can live either with or without a bounty. My hon. friend says:	Give us
markets; that is what we want. The very moment the United States market is thrown open, the Sydney industry has no difficulty in selling 15,000 tons of pig iron delivered at Philadelphia at $13.50 per ton. Take off the duty on rails and the Sydney people will be able to sell their rails to the United States. It is a well known fact that in tne last year the Sydney people have secured, in competition with the world, a contract for an enormous quantity of rails to be delivered in South Africa and to some extent in Australia, All that you have to do is to give us the markets and -we will make the article.


John James Carrick: Is the pig iron you refer to made out of Canadian ore?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly not. It is made out of Newfoundland ore. What do I, or what does anybody else care what it is made out of. It is made in Canada. All the work in connection with that ore is in Canada except the digging of the ore, which is a very small proportion of the cost of the work. My hon. friend knows that very well. It is true that Newfoundland ore is a high-class product; it runs from 55 to 70 per cent of iron, whereas the ore he wants to bonus is only 35 per cent iron. What is the use of taxing the farmers, the professional and the labouring men of Canada in order to keep an industry going which uses 35 per cent iron ore? It only shows the curse of protection wherever it gets a foothold in any civilized country. My hon. friend is perfectly sincere in wanting us to tax ourselves to keep an industry going which cannot go economically, but what is the use of doing it? Yon will only keep it going for a year or two, and then it will be up against the wall. In a year or two more protection, more bonus, more tariff will be wanted. It is the inevitable result. You never sin against the proper laws of economics but you pay the penalty. Just so long as you keep on pampering these unnatural industries, just so long shall we pay the penalty, and just so long shall we have to tax ourselves in order to keep them going. If there is one proposition to which I am opposed more than another-and the only reason why I wished to speak to-night was because of the proposition put forward by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River and my hon. friend from Parry Sound-it is that we

should withdraw the drawback from the manufacturers of farm machinery. In the interest of every farmer of Canada-and I represent a constituency composed of farmers, and I do not care whether I represent them or not-I think it would be a crime against those people to withdraw that drawback and compel them to pay more for farm machinery than they are doing now. They are paying enough when they are paying what those machines cost in the United States plus 17J per cent. That should 'be a sufficient tax on the Canadian people without compelling them to pay two or three dollars more a machine in order to keep going a few Ontario industries, which should never have been created and which probably will never be a success.
In conclusion I can only say: let the ordinary laws of commerce work out this question; let the industries in Canada which can exist, go on and do the business. My hon. friends do not ask any protection or bounty for the steel industries in the Maritime provinces, because they know that those steel industries import their ore from Newfoundland.


Mr. CARROLL:: It is going to hurt them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is going to hurt
them? Oh, no, it is simply-I was going to say piggishness, but that might be offensive, -but it is the idea of Ontario that Ontario is the Dominion and that whatever is good for Ontario" must be taken by the rest of the Dominion whether it is good or not. If they are going to make a proposition to give a bonus on iron, why cannot they give it to everybody? Why give it only to the low grade ores of Ontario and not to the men who produce iron in the Maritime provinces? I should be as much opposed to a bounty to the Maritime provinces manufacturers as to a bounty for the Ontario manufacturers. It is wrong in Ontario, wrong in the Maritime provinces, wrong anywhere in Canada, because it is wrong in principle, wrong economically; and I do hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) who has been listening to this discussion, will take note of some of the points that have been made. I hope he will not be the man to add $2.50 to the cost of every binder the farmers of this country have to buy. I hope he will not be the man to increase the taxes of the people beyond what they can possibly stand, in order to keep going a few industries in Ontario which are not properly located, which ought probably never to have been started and which could never make
a success of it even if we gave them twice the bounty the hon. gentleman has been asking for.


William Manley German: I do
not propose to add much to this discussion, but as we have in the county of Welland a blast furnace of considerable dimensions and of no little importance, I should like to express my views on this very important question. I had not the honour and pleasure of hearing the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) in the remarks he made before dinner, but I understand that they were in support of the idea of the Government giving a bonus to the iron industry. I wish to be put on record as being in general not in favour of bounties; but I do think that something should be done, notwithstanding my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in regard to the industries of Ontario, to increase and benefit, if possible, the iron industry not only in the province of Ontario, but of the Dominion at large. Because it is one of the great industries of this country, and we have enormous mineral resources awaiting development. Whether this encouragement should be in the form of a bounty or otherwise I do not at this time pretend to say. The Minister of Finance is the responsible gentleman in the management of the financial affairs of this country, and when his proposition is submitted to Parliament, I shall be prepared to discuss it with due care and with the best intelligence I can bring to bear upon it. But I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to one thing-and this is what I really rose to my feet for. Under section 288 of the Customs Act it is provided:
The Governor in Council may, under regulations made for that purpose, allow, on the exportation of goods which have been imported into Canada, and on which a duty of customs has been paid, a drawback equal to the duty so paid with such deduction therefrom as is provided in such regulation.
The meaning of that is that if a concern manufacturing iron imports into Canada a thousand tons of iron and makes it up into manufactured goods and exports those goods, the concern can get a rebate on the whole of the iron exported. But if it makes up that iron with four thousand tons of Canadian iron, they get a rebate on only one-fifth of the material used. Now, I submit to the Minister of Finance that he does not need an Act of Parliament to do this. Subsection 2 of this section provides:
In cases mentioned in such regulations, and subject to such provisions as are therein made,

)
such drawback, or a specific sum in lieu thereof, may be allowed on duty-paid goods manufactured or wrought in Canada into goods exported therefrom.
Now, the Minister of Finance is a lawyer and knows the Act. And I will venture to say that his commisioner of customs will advise him that in his opinion it does not need an Act of Parliament to do what is proposed. And I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Finance that regulations should be passed. But if he thinks they could not be passed by Order in Council, then let him bring in a Bill to assist the iron industry in Canada and I will be pleased to support it, and I believe it will come as near to aiding the iron industry as this suggestion of the hon. member for Rainy River.


Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: This discussion has more than a passing resemblance to a debate on the Budget, and consequently I shall not participate in it to any great length. I am very much obliged to my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) for bringing the matter to the attention of the House, if for no other reason than for the very able and illuminating discussion it has brought forth. The matters which have been drawn to my attention by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German), and some other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, together with those which have been brought forward among hon. gentlemen opposite will, of course, receive my best attention. If we do not reach a wise conclusion upon matters of the tariff, it will certainly not be because we have been denied the advantage of variety of opinion.
My hon. friend from Rainy River has referred to the depressed condition of the iron and steel industry, which he described truly, I think, as secondary only in importance to the great basic industry of agriculture. And before I pass from that remark of his, I should like to call attention to a statement made in the course of his speech by my hon. friend from Red Deer, in which he stated that agriculture is the primary industry and that every other is based upon it, and cannot flourish unless agriculture flourishes. In substance, I think that is what he said. And then he proceeded to describe the condition of prosperity as to its industries which Great Britain had attained under a free trade policy. Without commenting upon that, I desire to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to a report ' On the Emigration from the Rural Districts of England and Wales,' published

under the authority of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1913. I will read for the hon. gentleman's information a brief paragraph from that publication:
Agriculture in this country is not an expanding industry capable of absorbing the full natural increase of population. On the contrary, the area of farmed land steadily declines. Since 1901, about 388,000 acres have been withdrawn from agriculture altogether, and about 1,060,000 acres have been withdrawn from arable cultivation. The levelling up of the general intelligence and education of farmers has led them to greater resourcefulness in the economy of labour and greater willingness to use labour-saving machinery and appliances. It might also be expected that the better education of the farm labourer would have made him individually more competent, but it may be doubted whether this factor counts for much in reducing the number of labourers employed.
In fact, complaints are general that labourers still in their craft are less numerous than formerly. From the employers' point of view, any shapening of intelligence due to literary education does not compensate for lack of technical training.
I refer to this merely to show to my hon. friend that it does not necessarily follow that the development of agriculture depends upon an application of the theory of free trade, even as it exists in England to-day.
It appears that there is somewhat of a depression in the steel industry in Canada. I think it is quite possible to draw altogether improper conclusions from that fact. In Canada, and indeed throughout the world, during the past year there has been a more severe and long-continued financial stringency than has existed within the memory of any hon. gentleman within the sound of my voice to-night. It was absolutely inevitable that that financial stringency should be followed by a great trade-slackening throughout the world; otherwise the condition would never be relieved. It was inevitable that the flow of money from the great international centres should be checked and that, in consequence of the curtailment of credit involved and the dimin-ishment of capital available for business enterprise, there should be a slowing down of trade and commerce in all the countries of the world. The slackening that has been experienced is not peculiar to Canada; it is manifest in the United States, where it is estimated that over a million men are out of employment. In the city of Pittsburg not long ago the furnaces were shut down, and it was estimated that over 100,000 men were walking the streets. The condition referred to by the hon. member for Thunder Bay is not, as I' have said, in any way

peculiar to the Dominion of Canada; in fact, I am convinced that Canada has come through this crisis better than most countries which have experienced the financial stringency of which I speak.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell) has referred to a slackening in railway construction. To a certain degree, that was inevitable by reason of the facts to which I have drawn the attention of the House, namely, the shortage of money in the great money centre, London. In addition to that', as the hon. gentleman pointed out, the three transcontinental lines have been almost wholly completed, and consequently there is not at the present time as great a demand for sfeel rails as there has been. But in connection with these assertions of the hon. member for Carleton, I should like to point out that it is by no means to be concluded that the demand for steel rails in Canada is going to cease. Railroads are never absolutely completed; they are always building, and they always will be building. We cannot, therefore, look forward to a condition in the near future in which railway building in Canada will have ceased; there will be a continuous demand for rails and for the other supplies required by railway companies. But the point I am making is that the slackening which is affecting the steel industry, and, indeed, all other industries in Canada, is precisely what we might expect, having regard to the financial conditions that have prevailed during the last year and a half. It has been called to my attention that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company has passed its dividend. That is not the first time it has done so. If I recollect rightly,
10 p.m. this company for many years did not pay dividends upon its preferred stock. The common stock of this company at one time stood as high as 80, and afterwards dropped as low as 10.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was nearly all watered.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says so,
but I do not think it was all watered. However, that is not in issue. I am the first to admit the importance of the steel industry; no industry has had more careful attention on my part during the last two years than this, because I realize that it is a basic industry. The falling off in the building trade is also to be ascribed to the stringent money conditions which have prevailed throughout Canada. That phenomenon was manifest in 1908, and, I think, in 1904; in other words, it is simply economic history repeating itself. I am not 97
answering in any antagonistic fashion the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Thunder Bay, but I am seeking to explain, on economic grounds, the conditions that prevail at the present time in respect of this great basic industry.
With regard to the steel and iron imports, to which attention has been called, amounting, I think, to $140,000,000, it must be borne in mind that Canada is a borrowing country. We have borrowed $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 per annum in the London market for a number of years. That money is not brought into the country in the form of gold. Any hon. gentleman can readily ascertain for himself, if he looks up the gold imports, how much does come in as gold. I do not say that all the $140,000,000 of our imports in iron and steel represent money borrowed abroad, but a considerable portion of it undoubtedly does, because international balances are generally settled not in gold, but in commodities. We import a certain amount of goods from Great Britain. We import a certain amount of goods from the United States. It may be that Great Britain is sending us in the form of goods some of the money that we borrow, or it may be that Great Britain is paying us through the indebtedness of the United States to Great Britain, the United States paying that indebtedness by sending her goods to Canada. So that, considering the amount of our importations in this line, I think we should not be unduly anxious, because if the money did not come in that form it would come in the form of gold. Suppose we are borrowing $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 a year, and our importations are very small. Let us assume we were manufacturing all these goods that we now import; if the time should come when we would not be able to borrow $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 on account of money conditions, then we would indeed have a condition of inflation in Canada. I do not say for one moment that the steel industry does not deserve at all times the attention of the Government, and that attention I have tried, and will continue, I hope, to give it. But I do say that, from the fact that so many hundred million dollars' worth of commodities come into Canada, you cannot argue that the tariff is necessarily wrong; you have to take all the facts into *consideration. I would be disposed, therefore, to agree with what has been said by an bon. gentleman in the House, that a very considerable portion, at all events, of these commodities necessarily come in in



connection with the borrowings of Canada. I believe, differing in this respect from the 'hon. member for Red Deer, in a policy of reasonable protection for this country. I think a mistake is made by economists in saying that free tiade is right at all times and for all countries, and I think, too, that protectionists are wrong in saying tha,t protection is right at all times for all countries. I think the question of what tariff suits a country is a question of expediency and common sense, having regard to the requirements of that country; and I say that Canada, as a matter of fact thrives under a reasonably protective policy and has done so ever since 1878. It is perfectly apparent to any student of economics and of tariff history in Canada, that the protective policy of 1878, fathered by Sir John A. Macdonald, was an absolutely inevitable policy for this country. This country could not have got on at that time without it. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was not in this country at that time. I am satisfied that if he had had the experience of the 70's he would have modified to a large degree the views he expresses so freely with regard to free trade and its manifest advantages to this and other countries. The farmers of Canada at that time had absolutely no market. They were shut out, after the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, from the markets of the south; and any of us who lived in that period-most of us were boys at the time-realized the conditions then existing, when the farmers of Canada had no markets for their products and it was absolutely necessary to build up the industries of Canada in order to establish large cities to give employment to our workingmen and to provide a new market for the farmers of Canada. Therefore the National Policy was truly called the National Policy because, as a matter of fact, it was for the advantage of the workmen and the manufacturers and the farmer and certainly not the least of all for the farmer.
It is true that a number of furnaces in Canada at the present time are out of blast. Our attention has been called to the fact that the Canada Iron Corporation has ceased operations. I think I could demonstrate to the House, if the occasion arose that it was not the tariff that put the Canada Iron Corporation out of business; there were other factors that entered in, but it is not necessary to discuss them now. As to the Ati-kokan Company I suppose that one factor entering into its suspension of operations was the character of the ores which it had to treat. But the hon. member from Port

Arthur would be able to speak more authoritatively with regard to that. The hon. member for Red Deer has spoken of our borrowings and he read an article from the Daily Telegraph commenting on our borrowings and asking as to our impending liabilities. So far as our borrowings are concerned, I would say to the hon. member for Red Deer, although he did not appear to me very critical with regard to them, . that all the borrowings of this Government .this year have been brought about in assisting in connection	with enterprises inaugurated by the late Government.	The first year this Government took office we reduced the national debt by $136,000. That was upon the estimates of our predecessors, and I take no credit for that. The next year, when we had abnormal revenues, instead of spending them all we reduced the debt of Canada by $25,000,000; and it was a very wise thing to do under the circumstances, because the $25,000,000 was available to take care of the three per cent bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the care of which we inherited from our friends opposite. That was one of the babies we found on the doorstep. We have taken them all in and taken good care of them and we hope to raise them to be healthy infants, if possible. But I do not think we should he blamed by hon. gentlemen opposite for doing so. We have been borrowing in connection with subsidies granted to the Canadian Northern railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How much are you reducing the debt this year?


William Thomas White: I will give you that in a moment. My hon. friend must not be impatient. That was also a situation that we found confronting us, a line promoted from Montreal to Port Arthur with a guarantee of $35,000,000. I need not again call attention to the stringent conditions that prevailed last year and the importance of not having railway construction interrupted. 1 say that our borrowings have been not to meet either current or capital expenditures this year, but to meet the abnormal and unusual situation which we found confronting us in connection with the railway situation of Canada. My hon. friend asks about the debt to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I ask how much you
reduced it this year.


William Thomas White: We have not reduced it at all this year, the net debt will be increased this year for the reason I have
march 10,1914
given. But I will say to my hon. friend that the net debt of Canada will be less on the 31st of March than it was when this Government took office, and it will be less because last year, when we had an abnormal revenue we did not expend it all, we had a surplus of $25,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You could not.


William Thomas White: We could not? I admit that we could not take those aeroplane flights in expenditure that hon. gentlemen opposite were capable of. I do not believe that we could inaugurate an enterprise estimating it would cost $60,000,000 and find it would run into $200,000,000, but in our humble way we do fairly well sorhetimes. And in the fiscal year 1913 we reduced the national debt of this country, the net debt, by $25,000,000. In doing that we followed a good example. My hon. friend from Carleton is a Biblical student, and he lemembers the story of Joseph. Joseph was Pharoah s Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the good years he saved up corn, and in the lean years there was corn in Egypt. Last year we saved $25,000,000, and this year we had it available in the year of stringency. We were following Biblical precedent. I do not know of anything quite like it since the days of Joseph.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I supposed there has been some improvement in the last four thousand years.


William Thomas White: To come down to the question at issue, after all this digression, there are two ways that have been usually availed of to give encouragement to industries. Both have been touched upon to-night. One is by way of bounty and one by way of tariff duty. It has been suggested by at least one hon. gentleman that the rate of duty upon pig iron should be raised so as to keep out foreign pig iron altogether. I know that that view obtains in many quarters, but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that, on the whole, it is better that products which are raw materials to such a variety of industries as is pig iron, should bear only a reasonable rate of duty. The duty upon pig iron to day is $2.50. I am not saying whether that rate is reasonable or not, whether it is too high or too low, I am simply stating the fact that the duty on pig iron to-day is $2.50 a ton
I desire to give the House a few figures showing the bearing that this question of an increase of duty upon pig iron has upon a large list of manufactures, because pig 97 i
iron is basic to so many industries. An increase of the duty upon pig iron would in the first place involve a consideration of the question of an increase in the duty on agricultural implements; about $20,000,000 worth of agricultural implements are produced in Canada every year. It would also affect automobile production, $7,000,000; cars and car shops, $16,000,000; electrical apparatus, $15,000,000; and foundries and machine shops, $45,000,000 production. 1 have had an opportunity during the last two years of discussing this question with men engaged in many different industries, and while it has repeatedly been brought to my attention that the duty on pig iron is low, on the other hand, many men have regarded the duty on pig iron as high. However, I am not dealing with the question of the duty upon pig iron now. That is a matter for the Budget. I simply bring this forward to show the wide lange of products that would be affected by an increase in the duty on pig iron. The addition of a dollar a ton in the duty on pig iron would increase the cost to the manufacturers about 7 per cent. About a million tons of pig iron are used in Canada every year. The amount used in steel furnaces-I am speaking of the year 1912-is about 700,000 tons. Importations into Canada amount to 272,000 tons, and imported iron ore, which is the subject under discussion, about 2,000,000 tons. So much for duties.
I am aware that a great difference of opinion exist3 on the question of bounties. I should not be surprised if that difference existed on both sides of the House. Bounties are not by any means unknown in Canada. They have been granted by both political parties. I think the hon. member for Thunder Bay stated that Sir Leonard Tilley brought forward a measure in 1883 granting a bounty on pig iron manufactured from Canadian ore. The bounty was $1.50 a ton, falling to a dollar a ton after three years. The bounty was continued practically until the nineties, when it was raised, I think, to $2 a ton. Upon the accession to power of the late Liberal Government a bounty of $3 a ton was granted on pig iron manufactured from Canadian ore, and I think $2 a ton was granted on pig iron manufactured from foreign ore, which would of course include the ore from Wabana, Newfoundland. My hon. friend from Red Deer, who is capable of taking a very broad view of anything that he gives his attention to, was down in Cape Breton in

company, strangely enough, with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Here was my good friend the free trader whose hero is Cobden, the apostle of Adam Smith, in company with my hon. friend from Pictou, who sometimes at least is a protectionist. I could not help thinking what an ill-assorted union it was, but they seemed to get along peacably down there. What view the people of Nova Scotia held with respect to their joint views on the tariff I leave to the imagination of the House. My hon. friend says that he was courteously received at the plant at Sydney, and these were the reflections which the works compelled in his mind. He said that the bounty having been cut off, the managers turned their attention to the manufacture of wire nails. My hon. friend was arguing against the principle of bounties as I understood him, and the inference seemed to he that that plant would not be manufacturing wire nails if a bounty were given to-day. He asked how a bounty could help them get orders. I think my hon. friend's imagination failed him at Sydney, because if it had not been for the bounties, not only would they not be manufacturing wire nail^ to-day but I doubt very much if the plant would have been in existence. That is the point I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. friend from Red Deer. Does he think that this enterprise on which there has been expended something like $20,000,000 would ever have been established and got under way unless bounties had been given? I am not arguing in favour of bounties in connection with established industries. I am simply putting forward this view for the consideration of the House. In large enterprises where the result is not certain, inducements of an exceptional character have usually to be offered. Capitalists are timid before entering on an enterprise requiring the investment of many millions of dollars, and involving the problem, say, of refractory ores, the difficulties of financing, and the vicissitudes of money markets, and exceptional inducements have to be offered. So far as I am concerned I would not lay it down that bounties are always wrong by any means, nor would I lay it down that bounties are always right. It is a question of the problem before you, and your action should be determined by whatever may be judged to be proper and right under the circumstances. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) although a free trader and a follower of Adam Smith-I am not sure that he does not stand as high in the ranks of free  .
traders as my hon. friend from Ded Deer- did not hesitate to give bounties at Sydney. That is no blot on his free trade escutcheon, but I may say 1 have difficulty in reconciling my right hon. friend's free trade professions with his protectionist practices. It is not given to many men to undergo so many changes in their fiscal views as my right hon. friend has experienced, and still retains his poise when the matter of tariffs is under discussion. However, my right hon. friend has been able to do it. Let me say also to my hon. friend from Red Deer that when he was down in Cape Breton he saw the thousands of workmen there in connection with that enterprise. If he had looked further he would have seen that the farming industry had prospered very much as the result of the establishment of the steel industry there, \yhen I was down there some years ago I noticed that the farmers in Cape Breton and all through Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were a very prosperous community indeed. They, have all been benefited by the establishment of the steel plant at Sydney. Therefore, I think we cannot absolutely condemn bounties on principle when considering all the facts of the situation.
Speaking to the question brought forward by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick), there is no doubt that the strength of Canada is in her natural resources and among those natural resources one of the most important is her mineral wealth. I have been very much pleased to see the progress which Canada has made in mineral production during the last ten years. I think that the mineral production now is about $140,000,000 and that it is more than twice what it was in 1900 and 50 per cent more than it was in 1909. Of course that mineral production is very largely in silver, nickel, gold. But up to date there has not been very much development, in fact, there has been very little development, of the iron ores of Canada. I have often wmndered why this is because one would have judged, having regard to the area of Canada and the variety of its geological formation, that iron would be found in varying qualities and in large ore bodies. I still believe that it will be found because I think that all Governments have been slack in the matter of prosecuting our geological investigations. The fact is that as far as Canadian iron ore is concerned the results have been disappointing.
I have spoken of the bounties that have

been given for the last thirty years, from 1883 up to 1911, for the encouragement of the development of Canadian iron and ore. Yet, the result is that this last year the total production of Canadian iron ore is only 300,000 tons valued at about $600,000. A little while before my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Bainy Biver brought this to my attention I had looked into the matter and I was told by a steel manufacturer with whom I discussed it that the trouble was precisely what has been touched on by my hon. friends from Thunder Bay and Parry Sound, that the Canadian iron ores are refractory and that it costs more to smelt and manufacture them than it does ores which are brought in from abroad. The iron producers and steel manufacturers of Canada would rather buy Canadian ores provided they served their purpose equally well but by reason of their being refractory, by reason of the additional cost of their treatment, which has been stated by one hon. member at from 65 cents to $1.50 and by another hon. gentleman at from 65 cents to 80 cents, these ores have not been used to any great extent. I am sorry that I was called out of the House during a part of the speech of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Bainy Biver. I do not know whether he gave the House any information as to whether or not better processes have been invented for the treatment of these ores because it would seem to me that before this question could be properly considered and I intend to take up this matter and give it my most careful consideration, this point should be thoroughly inquired into.


John James Carrick: There are two new processes, the one with a Wedge roasting furnace and the other the Greenwold furnace, which have demonstrated conclusively that low grade magnetite ore can be used.


William Thomas White: That is very important to me, for this reason, that if there was no promise that by improved processes Canadian ore could in time be produced as cheaply as the ores which are now imported, the giving of a bounty would not be a temporary matter if the industry was to continue to thrive, because unless the ore could be treated as cheaply, or almost as cheaply, as foreign ore, the same necessity would exist for the bounty at the end of the neriod for which it was granted in the first instance as exists at the present time. But my hon. friend states that new processes have been invented, and that we have the promise that, in so far as Canadian ores are concerned, they will make them available for the purpose of our manufactures. My hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Bainy Biver truly said that in 1896 or thereabouts we had been dependent upon the importation of iron ore. The iron and steel production of Canada has increased many fold; it is ten times what it was at the beginning of the century, and yet at the same time our Canadian ore production has remained almost stationary. At Sydney they use ore from Wabano. 1 remember that at the time the .steel company was established at Sydney, among the considerations that recommended the enterprise to capital was the fact that iron ore could be obtained at Wabano and delivered at Sydney at $1.25 or $1.50 a ton. They had there the limestone, the flux, and coal for coking purposes. There they had all the elements for the oper, ation of a successful steel plant. They have established a very large industry there. Any slackening of trade in connection with it, I hope, will be temporary.
My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., has .said that they have been engaged in the production of steel rails. It is true, and it was until the end of last year, that the steel companies of Canada threw their energies almost entirely into the production of steel rails. That was their chief product, because it was the most profitable. The plant at the Soo had a merchant mill, capable of turning out comparatively small *steel products up to the 35 lb. per lineal yard mentioned in one of the items of the tariff, but they did not operate that mill *all the time. They devoted their .energies to the more productive part of the works and manufactured steel rails. But conditions in the steel industry are changing. It has been brought to our .attention, as indicated by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., that the steel companies have to consider varying their production, and that they will not be able to depend entirely upon the output of steel rails. I have no doubt they will meet that situation, and we have under consideration all that h involved in connection with the tariff. I may say here that the steel industry has not by any means escaped attention; on the contrary, it has been given a great deal of attention. This is not a budget occasion, and I do not propose to discuss or consider the matter of the tariff with regard to it.
Now, I have said more than I had really intended to say. I will take under very
*3530

careful consideration, and the Government will be glad to give the best attention, to the facts brought before the House by the bon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River. It goes without saying that it is desirable, so far as may be feasible, to develop the native industries of Canada. Whether the situation brought to our attention may be met by tariff or other changes, I do not at this moment say, because the facts which my hon. friend lias brought before the , House he had not previously brought to my attention, but they will have our best consideration.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett) and my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) have also brought to my attention certain matters which I may say have been before me for a considerable time, and have had and are still receiving consideration. Further than that I- think it is unnecessary for me to say.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The discussion brought on by the address of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) naturally led to the whole discussion of the status of the iron and steel industry in Canada at the present time. I have listened with a good deal of attention to the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who has discussed everything under the sun except the question as to what the action of the Government was to be in reference to the steel industry. He has told us that for the past two and a half years the iron and steel industry has been absorbing his attention. With all deference to my hon. friend, he has given very little evidence to the country in the two and a half years that he has occupied the position of Minister of Finance that he has ever given the slightest attention to the iron and steel industry of this country, so far as performance on his part is concerned. In regard to the request of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River, I am bound to say that I do not think that he can congratulate himself that he has got any results from the assurances of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The steel industry in this country is to-day in the worst position that it has been in for thirty years. My hon. friend speaks about depression in other countries and depression in Canada and congratulates himself that Canada is passing, through this period of depression wonderfully well ' and better than other places. He cannot lay that flattering unction to his soul with any degree of satisfaction if he fancies that 
by making that statement to the House he is carrying any message of hope or satisfaction to the artisans and wage-earners connected with the steel industry who are out of employment from one end of this country to the other.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance during tire debate on the Address undertook to say that the statement of my leader in regard to the labouring men in this country being out of employment was inaccurate. Every one knows that the business people of this country during the past year have been saying: Oh, when the autumn comes, business will revive. When the autumn was approaching and there was no sign of business reviving, they said: After ttie end of the year, you will find things will be all right. The men, who were out of work and unable to secure adequate means of support for themselves and their families, hung on to the hope that after the end of the year they would get employment. When the festive season approached, it was said : Wait until the springtime comes. Now they are telling us that perhaps in the autumn there may be .some change in the situation, and Canada can look forward to prosperity returning. For two and a half years my hon. friend has been like a veritable fly on the wheel, absolutely incompetent to deal with the situation in this country, and absolutely refusing to do so. Of what use is it for him to say to the Canadian people that he has been considering this question for two and a half years? How long does it take this Government to propose or to accomplish anything?
My hon. friend indulged in some gibes at the expense of my right hon. leader about his position in regard to .the tariff. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself walked side by side, behind the gentleman who now Jeads the Opposition in this country, every day and every month until he went out of power in September, 1911. Oh, these wonderful changes that are harrowing the soul of my hon. friend! He was strangely dumb in regard to the subject. Nobody ever heard any protest from the present Minister of Finance when during the fifteen years of prosperity in Canada under the right hon. gentleman who was then Premier, my hon. friend supported him every day. What has he been doing since? The same tariff which was in force in 1911 is in force to-day, absolutely untouched in the slightest particular, having the ratification in two Budget

speeches by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Finance. The tariff that the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition brought forward in 1907, is still in force to-day, in spite of all these little pleasantries about the change of position, these gibes about Cobden metals and such remarks on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. When his followers complain to him about the iron industry in the Soo or at Port Arthur, my hon. friend assures them that the best consideration that he can give them to-night is that he has been thinking about them for two and a half years. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance came into office under the assurance private and public given to the different industries in this country that anomalies would be removed, and that the difficulties which it was alleged the Liberal party had failed to correct during the time that they were in power would all be fixed up. There was not to be any more trouble about the various industries. When they came into power, everything would be all right; but they have not stirred a hand or written a line of tariff from that time up to the present. Although to-day the soup kitchens are open in the cities of this country, although not only in the iron and steel industries but in all the other industries of this country from one end of the land to the other men are out of employment and looking for work, these gentlemen stand there with the tariff that the Liberal party put into force in 1911 and say: We are thinking about you. Previous to 1911, they talked great things. And, the Minister of Finance is in a curious position. He gave no assurance to anybody. He was not the man, previous to my hon. friend's coming into power, who said:	Oh,
we will fix up the tariff. He gave no assurance. He is absolutely untrammelled in the slightest degree. It is perfectly legitimate for him to stand behind the tariff of Mr. Fielding, because that is what b.' always stood for. He never promised anybody anything, and of course he can say to Che different gentlemen interested in the iron industry:	I am free on
tins question; 1 am thinking about you ana thinking very hard; whether I will do anything I cannot tell you; but in the meantime, do not say to me that I ever promised you anything because I never did. That is the exact situation. When I hear my hon. friend, as he has done twice during this session, allude to my leader's views in regard to a tariff policy, I think
that it is about time he stopped that kind of talk in this House. For a gentleman whose line of political faith has been so late in changing, I do not think it lies in his mouth to say anything to hon. gentlemen on this side as to what their policy may be. It does not help him at all with the men whom he has disappointed up to date when he takes that attitude. He is not a free trader, he says, and he is not a strong protectionist; he is an opportunist; he wants to do what is best for the country. That is a laudible ambition, a safe ground for him to take, considering his past record. The trouble with him is that he never does anything. He is standing pat. When he talks about my hon. friend from Red Deer being a free trader and coming down to Nova Scotia with me and discussing public questions there, I think he has been long enough with the Liberal party to know that there is no party leash that binds any man's conscience to any theory, -whether it is free trade or any other theory.
Everybody knows that my hon. friend from Red Deer has strong personal views in regard to this question, but everyoody knows also that both parties recognize that the way to raise revenue for this country is by means of a tariff. My hon. friend from Red Deer knows that.
There aie a good many things upon which my hon. friend and I agree, and one of them is that this Government during two years and a half of its existence has shown the greatest incompetence and inability to deal with the affairs of this country of any Government since Confederation. As to whether my hon. friend from Rainy River is going to get anything in the way of assistance for this iron industry, the Sphinx has spoken. And what has he said? Is there to be any bounty?-he told us he is not opposed to bounties in principle. But in the Rainy River district he tells us the ores are very refractory, very high in sulphur, and very low in iron and difficult to deal with, and this has to be thought of.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And if he grants it he will have to continue it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But still, the hon. gentleman is liable to change. I do not pretend that his laws are like to those of the Medes and Persians in that respect. What I complain of about with my hon. friend is that he and his party came into power appearing to a large portion of the population as ready to remedy all the grievances they had. And no attempt is

made to remedy these grievances. This country is in the worst position, so far as trade is concerned, that it has been in for the last twenty-five or thirty years.
Some hon. MEMBRS: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And saying it is not so does not prove that it is not so. Let the hon. minister go to any industrial city and he will find men out of work who have never been out of work before. The situation is one which it is up to him to deal with. These pleasantries of his across the floor may be very interesting in debate, but the people want to see whether this Government and its. Finance Minister stand by the tariff of the Hon. W. S. Fielding, or whether they have pluck enough to make a tariff of their own.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: This debate has taken a turn which I had not expected, and the Minister of Finance made a statement which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. Speaking of the quality of the Canadian ore he gave very little encouragement to our friends on the other side who are trying to gain the interest of the Government in the development of the Canadian iron mining. I am more interested, perhaps, than any other hon. member, especially from the province of New Brunswick, in this important question. I feel that the Minister of Finance is not giving correct information, at any rate so far as some parts of Canada are concerned, when be states that the Canadian ores are of inferior .quality to those of the United States, that manufacturers cannot expect to get the same result with our ores as with others, and that the steel industry will have to look to foreign ores. There is an iron mine in my country the value of which i3 not contested and whose ore is recognized by the steel manufacturers of Philadelphia as being of the finest quality for the manufacture of steel. The output of this mine was increasing year by year, but owing, perhaps, to lack of capital for the establishing of necessary furnaces, the owners of the mine, known as the Canada Iron Company, which has been mentioned here to-night, are not at the moment as successful as formerly. They tried to get the American market for their ore and, having the ore tested on the Philadelphia market, in the year 1910-11 they shipped 31,120 short tons. After that experience, they shipped to the same parties 71,520 tons, and in 1913, 86,416 tons. But although the Canadian Iron

Company is to-day perhaps, in financial trouble, that is not due to their industry in New Brunswick or to the quality of the Bathurst mines, but owing to the fact that they had under their control a large number of industries and have not been able to collect the assets which they should have in order to face the present stringency which, whether owing to the will of Providence or to the change of Government, has come upon us. I had expected that the Minister of Finance would give more encouragement to the mover of this resolution. I agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that the iron industry comes next to the farming industry in importance. I admit that a great mistake was made two and a half years ago by the people of Canada when they refused to accept the Reciprocity Treaty. And if there is one class of the citizens of Canada who more than any other went against their own best interests in that case, it was these very capitalists who are interested in iron-producing in this country. I had occasion to discuss this very question with the members of the Canada Iron Company. They were the sinners, notwithstanding all that I had done to show the people of the county of Gloucester that they ought to give every possible advantage to these people for the development of the mines which they had acquired, they opposed and opposed reciprocity, in 1911. The ex-Minister of the Interior was generous enough to send engineers down to that district to ascertain what could be done. Examinations were made, and the deposit was considered to be of commercial value. Owing to the activities of an engineer of the department, Mr. Lindeman, further deposits were found, and these mountains of iron ore stand there to-day awaiting development. This ore is being transported to the United States because of the position taken by those who opposed the proposition of the present leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Finance two years and a half ago. I am not actuated by any motives of revenge;. I believe in looking after to-day when yesterday is gone, but I would have expected that the Minister of Finance would express some definite encouragement in this matter. I do not say that we should give the iron producers the benefit of an increase in the tariff; they have had enough of that. I do not say that they should be given bounties, but some suggestion might have been made other than a vague promise of future consideration.

If suggestions are in order, I might offer one myself with regard to the development of the ore which, lies dormant in our country. It should not he exported to the United States at $3 or $4 a ton when, if reduced in Canada, the Canadian people would get $15 or $16 a ton for it. Although the province of Ontario dealt a severe blow to the people two years and a half ago, 1 would not object to the steel industries in this province receiving some assistance. A few years ago the province of Saskatchewan in its desire to assist the farmers of the country-, who wanted to form themselves into a company to build elevators, gave a loan ox advance of money to them. The loan was known as the Saskatchewan Co-op-eTative Elevator Company. We advanced money to builders of railroads, besides giving subsidies; in order to encourage smaller capitalists and to avoid the watering of stock, the Government might very properly offer some assistance in this direction. Possibly an advance of so large -an amount as that made by the government of Saskatchewan would not be necessary or wise, -but an amount proportionate t-o the value of the property might be advanced at a low Tate of interest for a long term of years. There would be less watering of stock, and the people of Canada would not lose a dollar. The industry would revive, and the ore would be converted into steel and iron. Although the people made a mistake two years ago, they will have occasion later to rectify that mistake. The steel industry is second only to the farming industry. Under present conditions of civilization the farming industry cannot prosper if it has not the advantage of railroad communication in every direction. It cannot prosper if it has not the advantage of adequate ocean transportation. The products of Canada are carried across the seas only in iron and steel vessels. As the farming industry develops, iron production should increase also. Possibly my suggestion may not appeal to the judgment of the Minister of Finance, but
11 p.m. I make it because I think we should not rely altogether upon the taxation of the people for the further development of the ore of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Public Works

Ottawa astronomical observatory, additional buildings, etc., $80,000.
Mr. MURPHY:: Does this provide for a
new building?	[DOT]


Mr. ROGERS:: Yes, for the new geodetic building.


Charles Murphy: Is it under contract?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Who is the contractor?


Robert Rogers: The contractor is Mr. McGillivray of Ottawa, and construction has just commenced?


Frank Oliver: What is the reason for the erection of this building?


Robert Rogers: According to the memorandum of the Deputy Minister of the Interior Department, the building is required to afford accommodation for the geodetic and boundary survey staffs. They now occupy a rented building at a cost of $2,416 per annum. Allowing $600 for heat and light, this will pay four per cent on the cost of the building and there will be twice the present space.
Ottawa public buildings, addition, $100,000.


Mr. BELAND:: Where is that?


Robert Rogers: That is the addition proposed in connection with the Senate similar to the new wing of this building.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the estimated
cost?


Robert Rogers: The one on the Commons side cost $400,000.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Wednesday, March 11, 1914.