[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Rathbun Company.-Mr. Britton.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 85) to incorporate the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Trans-Canada Railway Company-Mr. Malouin.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: 



QUESTIONS.


Mr. WILSON asked :: 
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	A petition was received from the immigration commissioner at Winnipeg, under cover of a letter dated July 10, 1900, purporting to be signed by twenty-nine of the Doukhobors, making certain objections to the land, marriage and registration laws.
2.	The department sent a copy of the petition to Mr. Maude, in order that he might communicate with the signers of the petition and remove their misapprehensions in regard to Canadian laws.
3.	The department is not aware that the Doukhobors bad Issued an appeal to all the nations of the world, asking if they would be given a refuge from Canadian tyranny. Tlie department is informed that a Russian (not a Doukhobor) named Bojianski undertook to make trouble with the Doukhobors. He got up the original petition referred to. and has now caused to be printed a document. to which reference is made in the question, in a Winnipeg paper known as The Voice. The department has no reason to believe that the utterances of Mr. Bojianski represent the views of the 7.500 Doukhobors who are settled in the North-west, or any substantial portion of them.


COWAN'S BRIDGE, VICTORIA COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. VROOMAN asked :: 1.. Was a grant of money made towards assisting in rebuilding Cowan's bridge across Pigeon river, in the township of Emily, county of Victoria, Ont. ?
2.	Has said bridge been built?
3.	If so, has the money been paid over?
4.	If not, why?
5.	If not, is it the intention to revote the grant ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	In the supplementary estimates for 1899-1900, the sum of $1,500 was voted as a contribution towards the renewal of Cowan's bridge over Pigeon river.
2.	No report has been received that the bridge has been completed.
3.	The money has not been paid over.

175a
4.	Because no report was received of the bridge having been completed, nor an application made for an inspection of it. The appropriation lapsed on August 15, 1900.
5.	The government is making further inquiries before deciding to ask parliament to revote the amount. We are led to make these inquiries in consequence of the statement that has been made to us that the hon. member for South Victoria, in the course of the recent election campaign, in the western part of the riding, denounced the government for having granted this aid, declaring that the expenditure was unnecessary and extravagant. We are endeavouring to ascertain as to the accuracy of this report, and inquiring again as to whether there is any doubt about the propriety of the appropriation before making up our minds on the subject.


B. C. IMMIGRATION INDUSTRIES.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to an issue of ' The Province,' of Vancouver, B.C., dated November 24, 1900, in which a report of an interview with the Hon. Clifford Sifton, Minister of Interior, is given and of which the following is a portion, viz.:-
' I may as well tell you the importance of the mining industries of this province have never been so fully borne in upon me as during this last trip of mine. It is a subject of great scope and one that must be treated with all possible care and consideration. I shall therefore urge upon my colleagues the advisability of appointing a strong and thoroughly competent commission to inquire into the whole matter and report at an early date. The commission, if appointed-and I have jevery reason to believe it will be-would deal not only with mining but also with matters of smelting and refining; in fact, it would take up and report upon the whole connection which the mining industry has with the general business of the country, including of course its relation to the customs tariff and the bearing which that has on it.' Also the Minister of Interior stated that action on the report of the said commission might safely be expected within a year from that date.
2.	Has the government decided to appoint said commission?
3.	If so, when? If not, why not?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	No.
2	and 3. The matter is under consideration.


B. C. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Hon. Mr. TRIOR asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. J. B. McArthur, president of the Rossland Board of Trade and Chamber of Mines, and also president of the election committee of Mr. W. A. Galliher, M.P., made the following remarks at an interview which members of the Rossland Board of Trade had with the Minister of Mines for British Columbia, during last autumn, viz.:-
' Mr. Sifton is going to take up the question of the advertisement of the mineral resources of British Columbia, and in fact of the whole of Canada. I am not prepared at the present time to disclose ail he says,, but he is going to take it up energetically in connection with the Yukon. He is also going to take up the silver-lead question, and there is no doubt whatever in his mind that the government will protect that industry, and an important announcement will be made by him shortly, in fact, something will be done within the next sixty days.'
2.	Was Mr. McArthur authorized by the hon. the Minister of the Interior to make such a statement?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to afford adequate protection to the silver-lead industry?
4.	As the sixty days mentioned are now long past, when may the important announcement by the hon. the Minister of the Interior be expected?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hou. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	The attention of the government has not been drawn to Mr. McArthur's statement.
2.	No one outside of the government has been authorized to make any statement regarding the fiscal policy of the government.
3	and 4. The question is under consideration.


CANAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	What amount was paid by the government for construction or improvement of canals in each year ending 30th June, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900?
2.	How much of this amount was paid on account of contracts entered into by the late government and not relet?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The amount paid by the government for construction or improvement of canals in each year ending 30tli June, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900, is as follows :
Year ending	Amount.
June 30th, 1897	 $2,348,636.91
1898		 3,207,608.29
1899		 3,899,277.31
1900		 2,639,564.93
2.	Of the above amounts, $4,132,251.32 was paid on account of contracts entered into by the late government and not relet.


VANCOUVER DRILL HALL.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Is the government satisfied with the manner in which the contractors for the new drill hall in Vancouver, B.C., have so far carried out the work?
2.	Is It not a fact that a considerable portion of the building fell down, owing to faulty material or workmanship?
3.	Has the government had any report from their agent in British Columbia, or the clerk

of works, in regard to this? If so, to what is the collapse of the building attributed?
4.	Will the government insist on the contractors rebuilding the same without extra compensation?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hod. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	The manner was satisfactory excepting that a part of a gable wall was built during a period of bad weather.
2.	A portion of one gable fell out. The officer in charge of the works reports that there is nothing faulty in the design or material of the fallen portion.
3.	The government agent in British Columbia has reported that one of the gable walls is the only portion which has failed, and this he attributes solely to a period of bad weather.
4.	Rebuilding without extra compensation is provided for in the contract.



DUTY ON LUMBER.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe) moved :: That, in the opinion of this House, duties should he levied upon lumber imported into Canada corresponding with those now existing upon lumber entering the United States.
He said: I caused this motion, Mr. Speaker, to be placed on the Order paper early in the session, but at the request of gentlemen interested in the lumber business, to a very great extent, in the province of Ontario, I refrained from moving it. I did so in deference to the opinion of these gentlemen, who believed that it would be in the interest of the lumber trade that the motion should not then be made, and the reason they gave for coming to that conclusion was that numerous representations were being made to the government for a change in the lumber duties. In view of the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance stated the other day in his budget speech that there would be no changes in the tariff during the present session, it may be rather superfluous on my part to make any remarks. I am prompted, however, to do so by a consciousness of the duty which I owe to my constituents, especially those interested in the lumber business. That business, not only in Ontario, but in the other provinces, is a very important one. In it millions of dollars have been invested and thousands of our Canadians find employment at remunerative wages. And it has been a matter of satisfaction in the province of Ontario, during the past few years, that the lumber industry has been encouraged by the local government to a great extent and is in a much better position than in former years. The improvement is due to the law passed by the Ontario legislature, which compels the manufacture in that province of all pine logs cut within its domain. That law has had a most healthy effect. Mills that were closed for many years are


Mr. PRIOR.: now in active operation, and a large number of new mills have been built, particularly on the north shore of Georgian Bay. While we have in Ontario a large output of white pine lumber, in the United States as well as Great Britain there is a great demand for that lumber, and the result is that we have had for a number of years past a large trade in that article, not only in Great Britain, but in the United States. But while the Canadian government has very generously allowed American lumber to come in free of duty, our lumbering interests are hampered to a great extent by the high tariff on lumber going into the United States.
Turning to the trade and navigation reports, I find that during the past year there was imported into Canada no less than $3.014,557 worth of the products of the forest. These imports came from various countries but more particularly from the United States. I shall not read the table in its entirety, but will ask hon. gentlemen to give their attention to this fact, that we are bringing into Ontario, into the Dominion, no less a quantity than $887,274 worth of oak. I have always understood that we have large hardwood areas in Ontario, and it seems rather strange that while the United States are imposing high lumber duties against us, we are actually permitting them to ship free of duty this large quantity of timber into our country. The effect of the introduction of that oak must be to lessen prices of our other hardwoods.
Coming to pitch pine, I find that no less than $398,211 worth was imported into this country. Now, pitch pine is a strong competitor with our own lumber. It is used largely for structural purposes, bridge-building. and in many other ways, and the result of bringing it into this country is to displace a certain amount of our own product.
Coming down further I find that of lumber hewn or sawed, square or sided, we imported $199,415 ; that, too, must stand on the basis of the other, displacing a certain amount of Canadian produced lumber. Coming down further I find that of shingles wo imported $45,253 ; of staves, we imported $72,870. Now, I know that in the stave industry there is a considerable amount of business done in this country. In the riding of East Simcoe that industry has been developing for a number of years past, and it does seem unfair that we should permit the people of the United States to bring staves into this country free of duty while they are placing high duties against similar articles passing from this country into the United States. Then even in the matter of wood for fuel we brought into this country $28,421 worth. Surely we have enough fuel wood in this country without permitting the United States to introduce their wood here. While these importations amount to a very considerable sum, $3,614,557, I do not claim that they affect to a

great extent tlie prices of our Canadian lumber, although in many instances it is alleged, I believe, by those who are interested in the trade, that they have interfered to a great extent with the prices. But the pernicious principle lies in this circumstance, that if we are to permit that trade to increase, it will in all probability go on year after year, and we will find to our regret that they will introduce a larger amount of this lumber into Canada in competition with our own than they are doing at present. Now, I will not give my own opinion alone on this question, but I will read from a report of a meeting held In the city of Toronto of the Lumbermen's Association of Ontario, of which Mr. John Waldie, a gentleman well known in Ontario as a lumberman, is the president. In an address which Mr. Waldie delivered to the association on the 29th of last January, he made these among other remarks :
Lumbermen have always been free distributors of money, and as another result of the manufacturing condition attached to the business, it has elevated the people of Ontario in the eyes of our neighbours and strengthened the sentiment of national self-reliance amongst our people. We must continue to insist that our Dominion government shall adopt a tariff against lumber and all wood products entering into competition, remove them from the free list, and relieye the lumber industry from the unequal competition of lumber manufactured and freighted under more favourable conditions. To-day, labour, machinery and mill supplies are higher in Canada than in the United States, and when low transportation rates on lumber are given from the southern states, we in Ontario are placed in competition with the cheap coloured labour of the south; and lumbermen in new Ontario and British Columbia are at a disadvantage when competing with Oregon and Washington Territory for the trade of our prairie province. The advantages given and favours shown by the whole country to Manitoba while a young and struggling province are surely entitled to consideration, and that province now being of age, may fairly be asked to accept the general policy of the government equally with the other provinces.
From the newspaper report that I read at the time, I believe that Mr. Waldle's views were approved of unanimously by the gentlemen who. were present, all of whom were interested in the trade. Mr. Waldie appreciated and seemed to comprehend that the only trouble the government might have would be opposition from the North-west Territories and from Manitoba to a proposal to place an import duty on lumber. In reference to that, Mr. Waldie makes the very pertinent remark that the province of Manitoba and the Territories should be quite willing to bear their portion of the brunt of any tariff legislation, and that if it bore heavily upon them they, In return for the concessions that had been made to them in the past, should be willing to put up with any such burden, if burden there should be. Now. I might also quote from the same report a memorial presented to the government by the British Columbia Lumbering, Shingle and Manufacturers' Association, to-show that not only in the province of Ontario, but likewise in British Columbia, men who are interested in this great industry find that they are suffering from an unfair, unequal and unjust discrimination.
Since the Minister of Finance has announced his policy, I suppose -the lumbermen will have to bow their necks to the inevitable, and they cannot hope for any redress. But it is not only on behalf of the lumbermen that I speak, but to a great extent on behalf of the mechanics and labourers who are employed in the lumber industry. No man, unless one who has lived in the lumbering district, can appreciate the great change that has been wrought in the province of Ontario by -that most wholesome principle that has been adopted by the Ontario government. I, Sir, living in a town where the business of cutting lumber is carried on to a great extent, have had the pleasure of knowing that three or four hundred men have come back to the province of Ontario who had been living in Michigan where the lumber industry had gone, transferred from Ontario almost in its entirety. These men, after working in Michigan ten or fifteen years, are returning to their own homes and to their own friends. Now, in face of the fact that the American government seems determined to harass and to heckle, as they are doing, the lumber industry in Canada by these high duties, the duty on white pine alone being $2 per thousand, is it not high time that our government should intervene ? And is there any wonder that gentlemen like Mr. Waldie, the owner of three large mills in the town of Victoria Harbour, seeing the stand taken by the government of the United States against this industry, should be one of those who, even at the risk of being called tariff tink-erers, have come here, and T presume almost on bended knees have asked the government to intervene and to make this change.
Now, I do not know whether I am correct in making this statement or not, bu-t I am informed by gentlemen who are in the lumber industry in the province of Ontario, that the time has arrived when the prospects of that industry are not so bright as they were a few years ago ; that to-day the lumber yards are filled to a great extent by high classes of lumber ; that the high grades are not in demand to-day so much as they were. While the lower grades have met with a ready sale, the high grades of lumber are not meeting with the ready sale that they would wish. Now, in view of the fact that millions of dollars are invested in the business, in view of the fact that millions of feet of lumber are lying to-day in the province of Ontario, and I presume in the other provinces as well, is it not high time that the government should ask themselves whether some measure of fair-play should not be accorded to

these gentlemen who are in that business ; and whether, since the people of the United States have turned a deaf ear to the applications of the lumbermen on this side to remove their hostile tariff, this government should not at least hit back against the American government to the extent of imposing duties as high as the duties that now prevail against our lumber passing Into that country ? For these reasons, I beg to move the resolution that stands in my name, hoping that before the close of the session in the event of the government making any changes in the tariff, should they be pleased to do so, the first and foremost among those changes will be one which will tend to produce the result that our lumber will be admitted free into the United States market, and if it is not admitted free of duty, that this government will then retaliate, if I may use that term, by placing equally as high duties agadst lumber coming into this country as are now imposed on our lumber going into the United States.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) in his view of this question. He has mentioned that the province of Manitoba, and I think he read from a report that was sent out by the Manufacturers' Association, has now reached a stage in which they should give way and allow duties to be imposed on lumber coming into this country for the general good of the rest of the Dominion. It is not in the interest of Manitoba alone that lumber should be imported into this country free ; it is in the interest of the Dominion at large. Some time ago I received a circular from this lumber association in British Columbia, and I wish to point out that it is only the British Columbia people who are asking to have this duty imposed on lumber.


Mr. CHARLTON.: That is not so.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, I have not heard of any other. This is the only circular I have received from any institution of that kind asking to have a duty imposed on lumber. Any person who takes the trouble to read the circular will see that these people condemn themselves. hue fact is, they are asking to have a duty imposed on lumber for their own special benefit, something that I for one, do not agree with. They say they believe they are the only manufacturing industry in Canada left without protection. I was under the impression that binder twine, barbed wire and other commodities manufactured in this country were placed on the free list. These industries can hardly be said to have protection. My hon. friend from Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) read from the Trade and Navigation Returns the amount of lumber coming into this country from the United States, the value Ueing $3,010,252. I submit that most of the Mr. BENNETT.
lumber thus imported is the raw material of other manufactures. There is an enormous quantity of this lumber used by manufacturers of furniture, and these manufactories are not in Manitoba and the Northwest, but chiefly in Ontario. The manufacturers of furniture and other commodities of that kind have to export their goods to Great Britain, where they- must compete with goods coming from the United States. Now, if a duty were placed on their raw material, the effect would be to drive them out of the English market. Thus the proposition to impose a duty on lumber would affect far more than the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. So far as Manitoba and the North-west are concerned, we object to a duty on lumber. We have there very little lumber, but lumber is absolutely necessary to the settlers for the construction of their houses, and it is most important that it should be as cheap as possible. In fact, it is one of our main arguments as a means of attracting immigration to that country that we have cheap lumber. The same thing applies to cord-wood. In certain sections where they cannot get coal, they are able to get cheap cord-wood from Minnesota and other places. I have never heard of any demand for a duty on lumber in that country. In my own town, we have three saw-mills, but I never heard of those who own them advocating such a duty. Perhaps they are even more interested in the matter than the parties who are bringing it forward. Take the province of British Columbia-they are favoured above every part of the country in their railroad lumber rates. I showed the other day that they paid a rate of 50 cents a hundred all over the province of British Columbia for a distance of over a thousand miles, while people within a distance of three hundred miles of the market in Manitoba have to pay 20 cents a hundred. Besides that, the British Columbia saw-mill men are in a position to manufacture cheaply. They have Chinese and Japanese labour, which enables them to manufacture at a lower cost than the people in any other part of the country. Therefore, these British Columbia manufacturers are the last people who should bring a matter of this kind forward. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman who brought this motion before the House has not shown the usual sympathy for the agriculturists, for it is the' agriculturists who would be affected if this resolution were adopted and acted upon. Coming back to this circular, they say :
The chief burden rf our complaint is that our trade is unfairly discriminated against under the present tariff, being, we believe, the only manufacturing industry in Canada whiclj is left totally without protection in our own home markets

I have already pointed out the ease of binder twine and barbed wire.
-whilst contributing largely to the prosperous conditions of other manufacturers and producers

-whose manufactures we use and for which we pay enhanced prices, consequent upon the protection which they enjoy under the present existing tariff from the competition and cheaper price of like manufactures and productions in the United States.
They go on to say :
Our industry contributes largely to the revenues of both Dominion and provincial governments in timber dues, and by customs duties on all machinery and supplies used in the production of our commodities.
It is well known that those who have acquired timber limits have often paid very little for them. It is true, since this government came into power these limits are put up to competition, and sold to those who bid the highest. But in the good old days gone by-and this was carried on in British Columbia to a considerable extent-parties who got timber limits paid very little for them, and the small dues they pay when the timber is manufactured is a mere bagatelle. One thing is certain and that is, that the man who acquired a timber limit seemed at once to step into the position of a lumber king. We know of men who one day, did not own ten dollars, but who managed, by a pull, to geit timber limits, and became immediately worth two or three hundred thousand dollars. The signers of this circular speak of the large amounts they pay in customs duties on machinery. It is true that when they put the machinery into the mill, they may pay a considerable amount, but once it is installed, nothing is required except to replace a band-saw or something like that-a mere nothing. They admit in the circular itself that we can obtain cheaper lumber from Minnesota. They say :
We ask for our productions a mere living price, we are met with the reply that pitch-pine from the United States can be obtained at cheaper prices or that pine from Minnesota can be got at less cost.
If it be true that lumber from Minnesota can be got for less, I submit that the rule of greatest good to tne greatest number condemns this proposal of an increased duty, because the iieople to be benefited are small in number compared with the farmers who have to buy this lumber. It is not reasonable to tax the great body of farmers to enable these few lumber manufacturers to get rich. These people say in their circular that they only ask protection from unfair competition. But they do not deny that if you put this duty upon the lumber, the effect will be to increase the price of the commodity to the consumer. They do not go out of their way to say otherwise, in fact they practically admit that that will be the effect.
But, still, they ask this parliament to pass a motion of that kind which will impose a burden on thousands and thousands of hard struggling farmers in the west, and they want that for the benefit of a few people who are engaged in the lumber industry. It is not only the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories for whom I speak, but it is also the people of the older provinces. Take the furniture dealers, take the people who have to buy this lumber coming in from the United States for the purpose of making handles of forks because they cannot get it here, who have to get their raw material from the other side, and if this duty is imposed they will not be able to compete with the manufacturers on the other side. The hon. member for East Simeoe professed to sympathize with the labouring men, the artisans. I suppose he alluded to the men who worked in the mills in British Columbia. I think I have pointed out that the labouring men he is sympathizing with are the Chinamen and Japanese, who, to a large extent, are employed in this industry in British Columbia, and have driven white labour out of the British Columbia market. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) says this is not po, but we find gentlemen coming from British Columbia year after year asking to have the Chinese excluded from Canada because they are doing all the work that the white men should do in British Columbia. That being so we must take it for granted that these Chinamen, having got into the mines and upon the railways, have also gone into the saw-mills and industries of that kind, so that, these are the people that the hon. member for East Simeoe wants to protect. The men I want to protect are the hard working artisans in Ontario and other portions of the country who are employed in the making of furniture and commodities of that kind. I also want to protect the hardy settlers in the North-west Territories, who are trying to get along. These people, when they come in first, are not wealthy ; they cannot get everything they desire, and if you are going to impose a duty on the lumber that they require to erect their homes and stables, you will be driving people out of the country and preventing others from coming in. The first question that a man asks when he comes into the North-west Territories to look for a location is :	How
much can I get lumber for with which to build my house ? If you increase the price of it you will eventually force settlers to go across the line. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House, but I desire to say that I am opposed to placing a duty on any commodity. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) often says that he is a free trader. So am I. I do not believe in any duties, and more particularly do I not believe in protective duties. If the hon. member for East Simeoe had said that he was desirous, in the interets of raising a revenue, that we should have a duty on lumber, there might be some force in his argument, but. when he comes out flat-flooted and says that we want this duty imposed in the interests of

protection, I want to say that I am opposed to protection on any article, and that I will vote against the resolution.


Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria. B.C.) Mr. Speaker, as the motion moved by the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) is one that is of vast importance to the lumbermen of British Columbia, I may perhaps be allowed to say a word on the subject. As the hon. gentleman has stated the lumbermen of Canada are badly handicapped, inasmuch as they have to compete in the American market against a duty of $2 a thousand on lumber, and 30 cents a thousand on shingles, whereas the American lumbermen can come in and compete against them in their own market and find no duty against them. The lumbermen of British Columbia particularly have to face, not only this tariff, but they also have to face a discrimination which is made against them by the shipowners who supply the ships for carrying the lumber into Puget Sound. The dues charged there for pilotage, the harbour dues, and insurance rates, I believe, are lower than in the ports of British Columbia, and therefore, the lumbermen have to suffer therefrom. In addition to that, at the present time, they have to pay a high rate of freight owing to the scarcity of ships, not only in British Columbia, but all over the world. I have here a few figures showing the shipments by vessel and railway in 1900 from British Columbia and the Pacific coast south. In that year there were 777,043,000 odd feet shipped. Of this British Columbia alone supplied only 85,000,000 feet. In the state of Washington there are 444 sawmills, with a capacity of 8,380,000 feet dally, employing some twenty-four or twenty-five thousand men, whereas, in British Columbia, there are ninety-seven mills with a capacity of 3,045,000 feet. Oregon and California have about the same capacity as Washington. The lumbermen of Washington and Oregon have a market of 75,000,000 people, their own market, and besides that they have Canada to which they can send their lumber free, whereas, our lumbermen cannot get into that huge market of seventy-five million people without paying the duty that I have mentioned, namely, $2 per thousand feet. It is contended by hon. gentlemen from Manitoba and the North-west Territories especially, and it was contended by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) who has just taken his seat, that it is not right for British Columbia in particular to ask that a duty should be Imposed upon lumber, because it would heighten the price of the lumber that the people there require to build their houses and other structures. That hon. gentleman says that the lumbermen state in their circular that they are the only manufacturing industry in Canada that is wholly without protection, and he remarks


Thomas Osborne Davis: that that is not so, because there is the binder twine, the barbed wire and several other industries that are not protected. Well, I cannot gainsay what he says in regard to that, but I may say that both of these industries have been pretty well knocked out owing to the want of protection, and there is no reason why the lumbermen should be knocked out in the same way. The hon. gentleman also says that the reason we are asking for a protective duty is that we may protect the Chinese. Now, there is no doubt that there are a certain number of Chinese and Japanese employed in the mills in British Columbia, but the reason that they are employed, instead of white men, is that the lumbermen are forced, owing to the want of protection, to work for such a small profit that they cannot possibly compete if they have to pay the wages which white men would naturally demand. The hon. gentleman says that he is a free trader. We all know that. He is a free trader in everything except where it affects his own pocket. I, in conjunction with the majority of the people in British Columbia, am a protectionist. We believe in protecting our own industries, and I think this House and the country, when they look at this matter in a fair spirit, will say that the lumbermen in the whole of Canada and in British Coulmbia, in particular, for which I speak, are in a position now in which they are entitled to demand from the government that that industry should be protected to a certain extent at all events. The reason that Puget Sound mills can cut cheaper than the British Columbia mills, is because they can get their supplies much cheaper. Supplies that they have to buy can be bought cheaper on the Sound than they can in the province of British Columbia, owing to the fact that a great many commodities, being manufactured on the Sound, have not to pay duty, whereas, these commodities, when imported into British Columbia, have to pay duty. We are not a manufacturing province, and although the goods may come from eastern Canada, there is a heavy freight rate to be paid on them. The lumbermen of British Columbia do not ask for protection in order that they may raise their prices to our friends in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, but merely for the purpose of being enabled to sell their lumber in Canada. As a matter of fact, prices in Manitoba and the North-west Territories have been very materially reduced. They have been reduced $5 a thousand on lumber, and from $1.75 to $3 on shingles.
I do not know that I can say much more in regard to the matter. I think I represent the opinion of the lumbermen when I ask that the government shall see fit to impose an import duty similar to that whicli the Americans impose, namely, $2 a thousand

on lumber, and 30 cents a thousand on shingles. I had hoped, from information which I thought was authentic, that the Minister of Finance would inform the House in his budget speech that it was the intention of the government to impose a duty upon lumber. I believe that was his intention and the intention of the government up to within a very few days of the delivery of that budget speech, but for some reason or other, which no one outside of the cabinet seems to understand, the government altered their mind and left the lumbermen out in the cold. I can assure the government that the lumbermen, Liberals as well as Conservatives, are not satisfied with the manner in which they have been treated, and they will continue to agitate until their request is granted by this government or some other government.


John Charlton: The question before the House is of very great importance to a large interest in Canada, and of importance incidentally to all interests in Canada. The lumber interest ranks next to the agricultural interest in this Dominion in importance and in the amount of capital invested. I wish to present a few statements to the House which, in my opinion, would warrant the government, in the interests of the country, in imposing an import duty upon lumber coming from the United States to the extent of the duty imposed by the United States government on Canadian lumber entering that country. A policy has been adopted by the province of Ontario which has led to the transference from American points to Canada of a large saw-milling industry. A number of very extensive mills have been erected upon the north shore of Lake Huron, and parties who formerly manufactured lumber in the United States and found the market there free of duty are now manufacturing lumber in Canada, which, when sent to the United States, is met by a duty of $2 a thousand feet. These men very naturally feel that having been forced into Canada by the operation of a regulation adopted by one of the provinces, they are entitled to some consideration ; a consideration at least to the extent of giving them command of the local market in the country where they have established their industry. AVhen their lumber is exported to the United States they are met by a duty, while their competitors in the United States send their lumber into Canada duty free. Now, while the Canadian mill-men do not require protection against American lumbermen for the higher grades of lumber, yet, it is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to dump on this market lower grade lumber, of which there is a plethora in the American market, and which it becomes necessary to unload somewhere. This lumber is sent to this country and sold at depressed prices.
and under conditions which demoralize the trade, and which inflict a serious injury upon the lumber industry of Canada. We have objections, of course, from Manitoba and from the North-west to the imposition of the duty which is asked for by this resolution before the House. We are too much in the habit in this country of giving undue prominence to special local interests and losing sight of the general interests of . the Dominion. Two or three years ago, when discussing the lumber question with prominent members of the sub-committee of the Finance Committee of the Senate of the United States, I was very much struck with the view which was taken by these gentlemen with regard to the lumber duty. Both of the gentlemen with whom I was speaking avowed themselves to be in favour of free lumber. They declared that the states they represented in the Senate would be benefited by free lumber, and if they were governed by considerations of the interests of the particular locality whence they came, they would certainly favour to the utmost of their power the removal of the lumber duties. But, said they, we are governed in arranging the details of this tariff by broad national considerations ; we cannot afford to take into consideration the interest of one particular locality if the interests of that locality conflict with the general interests of the nation ; the lumber industry of the United States is a great industry spread over a great number of states, and we must bear in mind that the requirements of this industry are centred in some twenty-seven states, and so we must be governed by broad national considerations rather than by the desire to serve the purpose of our particular locality. That was a sound general principle, and upon that principle let my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) allow the broad general interests of this country to be served, and let him and his constituents, if need be, submit to some slight inconvenience, for we certainly have sacrificed a great deal of money for that western country-not sacrificed, but appropriated-and we have the right to ask the people there to give due consideration to broad general interests of national importance and of national scope. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) tells us that lumber is brought from Minnesota into the North-west cheaper than it can be obtained from Ontario. This may possibly be the case, although I do not believe that if the lumbermen of Canada were given complete command of the market, there would be any material appreciation in the price of lumber. But if the lumbermen of Minnesota find a market for their products in Manitoba and the Northwest, and if the Imposition of a Canadian duty upon lumber will have a tendency to impede their operations and curtail their output, and make them feel that the duty is a detriment to them, I shall be glad to



see them struck, because the bead centre of opposition to free lumber in the United States originates in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and if these men can be made to feel that there are reciprocal arrangements in this matter, and that while the lumbermen of Canada are sufferers to the extent of $2 per thousand, that they will be sufferers to the same extent, they would see this question in a different light.
And if the trade relations between these two countries are ever considered again, I believe that the influence that would be exerted upon these negotiations by the imposition of a lumber duty would be a most salutary and a most powerful one. What we need, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the United States, is to try and secure their respect, and we can never secure their respect unless we have a proper care for our own interests.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: We can secure that respect by caring for our own interests in Canada, in the same manner as they care for and protect their interests, and if we decide to protect a great industry in Canada as they have decided to protect that industry in their own country, we will secure the respect of the Americans ; we will secure the operation of influences upon negotiations which will be of a very important character, and in addition to that, we will do an act of justice to our own people. Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) tells us that the movement in favour of the lumber duties is confined to British Columbia. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) is not well informed. The Lumbermen's Association of Ontario held its annual meeting in Toronto not more than three weeks ago, and that association passed, with one dissenting voice only, a resolution asking the government of Canada to impose a duty upon lumber imported from the United States corresponding to the duty imposed by the United States upon lumber imported into that country from Canada.
I venture the assertion that throughout the entire Dominion of Canada you will find the lumber interest practically a unit in uie demand that this policy shall be adopted. We imported from the United States last year $3,000,000 worth of forest products. We imported from them large quantities of the low. coarse grades of lumber, the kind for which it is exceedingly desirable that our saw-mill men should have a market. We can sell deals in the English market without any trouble; we can sell sidings and the better grades of lumber there, without doubt; but the lower grades, such as hemlock and coarse red pine, are dumped on our market by the millmen of Wisconsin and Michigan, and supplant our own lumber at prices perhaps lower than it costs the American millmen to produce them, and they


John Charlton: make tlieir profit out of the better grades. This is a condition of affairs which is unfair to the lumber interest of Canada, and in a general sense is detrimental to the general interests of the country. The lumber interest affords a very extensive market for farm products, employs an enormous amount of labour, and puts into circulation a vast amount of money. That interest is one of great importance and beneficence in its operations in every sense, and it is an interest which deserves consideration.
Our hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) tells us that wherever a lumberman acquires a timber limit, at once you have a lumber king crowned. Well, Sir, the lumbermen of this Dominion have to struggle with various difficulties. Where they are men of energy and capacity, after long lives of business enterprise and effort, they may secure a competence; but there are just as many failures among this class of business men as any other. They do not all draw prizes. And these men have a right to ask from the government fair consideration for the interest which they represent.
With regard to the British Columbia lumbermen, as my hon. friend from Victoria has pointed out, the lumber interest of the state of Washington has secured a very large development. The mills of that state have the markets of California and the entire Pacific coast, which they enter free of duty. They have the market of the Sandwich Islands, which they also enter free of duty. They have all the common markets which our lumbermen have, and they have exclusive control of American markets. They, are placed in the same position as the lumbermen of the east. After selling the better grades, they have on hand a certain class of lumber which they are willing to dispose of at almost any price. They have advantages in many respects in the matter of freight, in reaching the markets in the mining regions of British Columbia and the other regions of that province; and the consequence is that the British Columbia lumberman is threatened with ruin. Now, it is a matter of consequence to us whether that great industry of British Columbia shall be allowed to be sacrificed or not. on the theory of free trade in lumber. I do not believe that the interest of the lumberman, in British Columbia, in Ontario, or in other parts of this Dominion, is a matter of so small consequence as not to deserve, upon broad general principles, consideration and protection from this unfair competition at the hands of an industry in a foreign country at our doors, which excludes our productions from its markets.
The imposition of a duty upon lumber would. I believe, exert a powerful influence upon any future negotiations that may take place between this country and the United States. It would be an indication to the commissioners from the other side that Canada at last intended to stand upon its own

rights and protect its own interests, and was abandoning to some extent the theory of free trade, which in its application in so many instances works so injuriously to the interests of Canada. Last year we actually bought from the United States, of lumber and farm products, $2,000,000 worth more than we sold to that country. Of farm products we bought nearly three times as much as we sold them ; we bought a vast quantity of manufactured goods ; and we were almost absolutely denied access to the markets of that country. Although we sold to them $25,000,000 worth of farm products in 1866, at the end of the reciprocity treaty, we sold to them last year only $7,316,000 worth, a little more than one-fourth the amount that was sold thirty-four years before. That country has taken advantage of our moderate tariff rates-12} per cent upon the total imports from the United States, and 25 per cent on the dutiable imports-to pour in upon us $60,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, $110,000,000 worth of all kinds of imports, while allowing us_ the privilege of selling a beggarly $7,316,000 worth of farm products in that country, where we bought $18,000,000 worth from them. As a matter of sentiment, I believe in meeting these gentlemen. I believe in putting this duty on lumber as a matter of sentiment merely, if there were no other reason for it. But there are, as I have shown, powerful reasons for it, aside from the sentimental reason; and if we adopt the principle of putting a duty on lumber and protecting by that action a very important interest in our country, we shall certainly confer a benefit in the broadest sense on the Dominion of Canada, exert a salutary influence on any future negotiations with the United States, by putting ourselves in a position that will command the respect of those with whom we shall deal, and perform an act of justice to a great commercial interest. I believe that if the government, under all the conditions of the case, were to impose this duty, they would receive the approbation of nineteen-twentieths of the people of Canada, and would perform an act which they would never have cause to regret, but which would redound in all future days to their credit.


Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).: Mr. Speaker, while representing an absolutely agricultural constituency and being a farmer myself, I at the same time incidentally saw a small amount of lumber; therefore, I think I may be permitted to say a few words on this question. And in beginning, I wish to say at once that my views are diametrically opposed to those of the two lion, gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House, and of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton), to my left. The mover of this resolution spoke first of the benefits that had accrued to Ontario by the imposition of a condition which caused the sawing of logs in the western portion of Ontario.' instead 56}
of allowing them to go to the American market. Well, so far as that is concerned, I hold exactly the same views that I held years ago.
X am not one of those who believe that Ontario has benefited to any extent by the fact that the sawlogs in the western portion of the province are being sawn in the province to-day instead of on the other side of the line. This proposition may appear very ridiculous to some minds, but unless the conditions have very much changed, the round log, before it is sawn, is worth more money on the banks of the Georgian Bay than after it is sawn into lumber. The hon. gentleman to my left (Mr. Charlton) says no, but when he was contending for a condition of things which would allow those logs to go across, he contended exactly for what I am now contending. The hon. gentleman changes his base according to the new conditions as they arise, but I, however, hold to one principle upon this trade question, and that principle I hold even if it attacks the industry in which I am myself engaged. I have no faith in the man who believes in free trade in everything but in that which affects his own individual interest ; and who, the moment free trade attacks his own individual interests, then becomes a protectionist. The hon. gentleman to my left (Mr. Charlton) said a few moments ago that the broad principle should prevail, and what is that principle, in so far as he is concerned ? It is this, that free trade should rule in Canada except when the lumber industry is attacked, and then with regard to that industry protection should prevail. But, X will deal more particularly with that branch of the question later.
The hon. gentleman who moved the resolution (Mr. Bennett) spoke of the invasion of Canada by American lumber. Well, why does American lumber come into Canada ? Evidently because some of the people in Canada want it. Is there anything wrong in those Canadians buying American lumber who require it ? Again, it is argued that American lumber may be laid down in Canada cheaper than Canadian lumber can be purchased. Well, that may have some immediate effect on some of the Canadian saw-mill owners. But what about the other fellow ? What about the man who buys the lumber ? Is he injured by the admission of cheap lumber into Canada ? Not at all.
' Again, the hon. gentleman spoke of oak. He said he is not a lumberman, and it is quite evident he is not. Do we require oak ? Oak to-day is one of the principal woods used in the finishing of our best houses throughout Canada. Have we got it? Not at all ; we are obliged to bring it from the United States. Is it then reasonable that there should be a tax upon it ? I think not.
The hon. gentleman next referred to pitch pine. Well, there are many purposes for which pitch pine is required in Canada and

which no Canadian lumber can supply. And if our people want pitch pine, is it not reasonable that we should allow it to coine in | without a tax ?
My hon. friend next referred to the action of the Ontario Lumbermen's Association, and he spoke of Mr. John Waldie, a very respectable man indeed, but who is a free trader like my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Charlton). Of all men, Mr. Speaker, I think that the lumbermen should he large in their views. Lumbering operations are generally conducted on a large scale, which necessarily develops large ideas. I. therefore, think that lumbermen, above all men, should be too broad-minded and liberal to come to this House and ask for a petty duty upon lumber coming into Canada, especially when there is a far greater question which interests not only the lumbermen of Canada, but the producers of all our natural products, and a broad principle for which they should contend. I maintain that there is a policy by which very great injustice is done to lumbermen and to the farming classes and to all those who are developing the natural resources of Canada. Protection is the curse of the lumberman and the agriculturist and the miner, and of every man engaged in the production of our natural products. Are they not the men. therefore, who should combat for a far different condition of things-a condition that would do them even handed justice, that would enable them to buy their requirements as they have to sell their products ? I am a lumebrman, but the day will never come when I will ask for a small petty import duty on lumber coming into this country. On the contrary, so long as I am able, I will combat against the great injustice that is done to the lumberman, the agriculturist, the miner and the fisherman of Canada through our protective duties. I notice that hon. gentlemen on the other side laugh, and I know well what is in their minds. No doubt they are questioning my support of the government that pretends to be a free trade government.


Mr. HAGGART.: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: Weil, Mr. Speaker, there are free traders and free traders, and there are protectionists and protectionists. The narrow-minded, bigoted, small, picayune protectionist, wants protection on everything he produces, but in everything else he is a free trader. So far as free trade is concerned, I am sorry to have to make the statement, but I believe that both in parliament and the country we have too few men who study the question out to its logical conclusion. The farmers of Canada are blinded to-day, as they were years ago, with the pretense that they are protected. But ihoy have not one single iota of protection. He never had one single iota of protection, and he never can have one single iota of protection so long as he has to sell his surplus productions in the markets of the


William Cameron Edwards: world in competition with the products of the world. The lumberman is in exactly the same position, and so is the miner, and so is the fisherman-but let me say here, that the miner, so far as iron is concerned, is the only man engaged in the production of the natural products of Canada who has any measure of protection at all. Now, there are, perhaps, those who believe that by giving a bounty on the exports of the farmer, he would be placed in an equal position with the others who are protected. But that is not true. If the farmer is to be placed in the same position as the protected manufacturers of Canada, he should have a bounty on that which he produces and sells in Canada. If that were done he would be in the same position as the protected manufacturer. I am not one of those who will ever stand up in parliament or outside of parliament and pretend that the farmers have any protection-they have none whatever. Now, are there gentlemen who, under these circumstances would impose a duty on lumber, I would ask: What would be the effect on the farmer ? Is the farmer not sufficiently abused and trampled upon under the conditions that exist ? Would it be fair to place a further embargo upon him by imposing a duty upon lumber ? For my part, I believe it would be a grave injustice. Now, let us investigate this matter a little. Some hon. gentlemen may say:	Oh, the
lumberman of British Columbia is affected, the lumbermen in other parts of Canada are effected, but you are not affected. I say at once that I am affected. The American lumber coming into this city and into Montreal affects my interests prejudicially. And my hon. friends on the other side say that I want protection

Ml-. CHARLTON. They say they want to protect you.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, if they will allow me to protect myself, I will do that as well as I can. I do not want any of the kind of assistance they propose. This matter of protection on lumber would affect the farmer injuriously, just as have all the other conditions of protection in Canada. Let us suppose that out in Dakota or somewhere in the American north-west, at a point near the border, there is a saw-mill, and that on the Canadian side of the line are a number of farmers who require lumber. It will cost them, perhaps, $2 or $3 per thousand feet to pay the freight on lumber coming from the nearest point in Canada. If you impose a protective duty on lumber, the consequence will be that these farmers must choose between paying the duty or paying the heavy freight charges on the lumber they require. I claim that this would be an injustice. It is perfectly impossible to place a duty on lumber coming into Canada without very materially injuring the farmers of Canada.

Notv, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke of culls and common grade lumber coming into Canada to-day at very low prices. Well, now, I can only speak of my own experience. The fact is that at this very point, Ottawa, one of the greatest lumber manufactories of Canada, the people are unable to get the common and cheap lumber they require. I myself, who manufacture a very considerable quantity of lumber, had to buy that class of lumber at other points last season and bring it here. So far as this district is concerned, therefore, that statement is not correct. The hon. gentleman also referred to red pine and hemlock coming into Canada. Again, i would like to answer the hon. gentleman. The fact is that the demand for red pine was so great during last season and the season before that everything that was to spare in the United States and Canada was absorbed by the British market, and everything that is to be produced the coming season in red pine in this section of the country is bought up for that market.
Now. I do not think I should take up the time of the House much longer on this subject, but I just say again that I am utterly opposed to any legislation of this kind. And I am sorry, and very sorry, to think there is a lumberman in Canada who is so small and contracted in his ideas as to ask for the establishment of a condition which, perhaps, might give him a little local benefit, but would be such a great injustice to the farmers of Canada and the people generally who need lumber, and who ought to be free to buy it where they can get it cheapest. In so far as the general principle of trade is concerned, what could be more contrary to reason and justice than the imposing of duties in order to benefit special individuals ? If you are to impose protective duties so as to help this individual and that individual, why, you must pass these benefits around and protect everybody, and when all are protected, in what position are you ?


An hon. MEMBER.: The same as if they had no protection.


William Cameron Edwards: You are in the same position as if protection had not been given to any. But, if all are not protected, injustice is done to some, while special benefits are conferred on others. For these reasons I oppose, and always will oppose, any proposition of this kind.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) started out by telling us that years ago he was a free trader and opposed the duty on lumber, and he wanted the House to understand that he had the same story to tell to-day, though he admitted that conditions had changed, and there might be some basis for argument on the other side.
The hon. gentleman's statement reminded me of an incident that occurred in the experience of an assessor. A maiden-lady, when the assessor came around, gave her age as nineteen years. Five years later, when the assessor came and asked her age, she answered that she was nineteen. He said : ' Are you not the lady who, five years ago, gave me your age as nineteen ?' Her answer was, ' I want you to understand, my good man, that I am not the kind of a girl who would tell one story five years ago and tell another story to-day.' The hon. gentleman is not the kind of man who would vary in his story, even though conditions had changed, enough to justify a change even in his mind. I admire him for his consistency; but I would remind him that it is scarcely fair for him, an out-and-out free trader, as he says he is, to sit on one of the front benches, supporting a government many of whose members and supporters declare that their tariff is a protective tariff. He said that the narrow man, the small-souled protectionist wanted protection on everything. But carry out the argument, apply it by the same parity of reasoning to the hon. gentleman himself. He wants free trade in everything. What kind of man must he be ? The strictures that he applied to the protectionists would apply with equal propriety to himself, only on the other side. I was very much interested and pleased and amused by the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I have listened to that hon. gentleman in this House for a great many years, and up to the present he has always spoken strongly against protection, although at one time in his life he made a most admirable speech in its favour, I believe in the year 1876. I was reminded of the old couplet:
While the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return.
1 thought he had got there at last. He said in the commencement of his speech that the policy adopted by the government of Ontario had led to the transference of a large number of mills from the United States to Canada, to the great benefit of Canada. That is a statement which, in my judgment, is absolutely correct. But I would remind the hon. gentleman, if he is within the hearing of my voice, that for the last 15 years, whenever he spoke upon the proposition to put an export duty on logs, he always argued against it, taking the ground that if we did put an export duty on logs sufficiently great to prohibit their exportation, it would not result in the transference of the lumber mills from the United States to Canada. It has done so, he admits it to-day. Now, the argument which he advanced to-day is a complete refutation of the arguments to which he has treated this House for the last 14 or 15 years, almost constantly. I do not condemn the

lion, gentleman for it, on the contrary, I rather admire his frankness, I admire his good judgment, because I think he is beginning to see what he either did not see before or did not want to see, that is to say, the importance to the people of Canada, not only to the lumbermen but to the farmers and labourers, that our lumber should be manufactured in our own country as much as possible.
Now the bon. member for Russell says : What are you going to do if we shut out American lumber ? And he gives us one line of that article, namely, oak timber. He says we require a great deal of it in Canada, that we have not got it in Canada, and that we are obliged to get it from the United States. If we put a duty on lumber we are going to be obliged to pay so much more for It. I would like to ask that hon. gentleman how much oak we imported last year. According to the Trade and Navigation Returns we imported 29,548 thousand feet, which cost $887,000. Now, that is not a large quantity.


William Cameron Edwards: We imported 29,000,000 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not millions in the Trade and Navigation Returns. I am quoting from the official return.


William Cameron Edwards: The letter M after the figures shows you must multiply that number by 1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, we would not be so badly off even if we were confined to Canada for our supply. There is a considerable quantity of oak in Canada, I know it is taken out every year in my county. But the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) treated this House to a capital argument in favour of protection. I was glad to hear him, because I believe his argument is correct. I only notice it because it shows the lack of agreement between hon. members on the government side, some of whom say that their tariff is a free trade tariff, while others say it is a revenue tariff, and some others say it is a protective tariff. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) complained bitterly that it would be a great injustice to the people of the Northwest Territories to impose a duty on American lumber. Now, out of curiosity I looked up the Trade and Navigation Returns to see how much of that lumber was used in the North-west Territories. I find that of lumber there was brought in $7,505 worth ; of laths, $170; of singles, $331.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I want to point out to the hon. gentleman that if you add a duty of $4 per thousand, the people would have to pay that much more for their lumber.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, that is a different argument, it is very fallacious, and would bear a good deal of explanation from the other side. But he asked what they were Mr. SPROULE.
going to do if they could not get this lumber. Now, all told, they brought in last year without any duty $7,987 worth. Surely they could not suffer so severely if they had to pay duty on that small quantity of lumber. I am in favour of this proposition of the hon. member for East Simcoe, because I have always been in favour of reciprocity of markets, or reciprocity of tariffs. If the Americans will not give us the advantage in their markets for the sale of our products which we give them, then I say we ought to look after our own interests and take care of ourselves. If they put $2 a thousand on our lumber going into their markets, I have always held that it was the proper thing for us to impose $2 a thousand upon their lumber coming in here.
I am in favour of a reciprocity of markets or a reciprocity of tariffs, because that policy would assist every important industry in Canada. We have many lumbermen in our district of the country, and I know from them that the lumbering industry is not in the condition to-day in which many of them would like to see it. There is considerable stagnation in the market and a weakening of sales ; some of them are suffering a good deal and they believe that their suffering is increased by reason of the privilege which the Americans enjoy to-day of throwing their lumber into our markets without paying any duty. I support this proposition because it is in the interest of the farmers of our country. The more you build up the lumber industry, the better markets you make for the products of the farm and the better prices you pay for them. We know that by experience. Since the Ontario government changed their regulations, the cutting of pine logs has been done in Ontario instead of in the United States. The hon. member for North Norfolk very truly said that it had resulted in the transference of a large number of mills and of labouring men from the United States to Canada, and that is giving us an important additional market for our farm produce. I say anything that curtails the market of the farmers in their own country I am opposed to, and I am in favour of anything that will maintain and extend it.
Now, the hon. member for Saskatchewan said that this was only a cry raised by the people of British Columbia. Not by any means. I was glad to see the bon. member for North Norfolk enlighten him on that point by telling him that the lumbermen's annual meeting, held a few weeks ago in the city of Toronto, passed a very strong resolution in favour of it; there was only one dissenting voice, and I presume that was the hon. member for Russell, who wanted to be consistent.


An hon. MEMBER.: He was not there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was told that it was he who dissented. I do not know whether

I am right or wrong. He is there to speak for himself. He does not say whether he was in favour of it or against it.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule).	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was saying that at a meeting of the lumbermen in Toronto, there was a resolution passed in favour of imposing this duty, that there was only one dissenting voice, and that I wondered whether that was the voice of the hon. member for Russell or not.


William Cameron Edwards: I was not present at the meeting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, if the hon. gentleman had been there he would have made two.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think there can be a doubt upon that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it for granted, from what the hon. gentleman said here. I merely mentioned this to show that the hon. member for Saskatchewan was entirely wrong when he said that this pressure had come entirely from British Columbia, Dut that, on the contrary, the great bulk of the lumbermen of Ontario are in favour of the imposition of this duty. I see by the Trade and Navigation Returns that a very large portion of the imported lumber came into the province of Ontario. But, I say that we should go farther still. We are doing something here, if we accept this proposition, that would be in the interest of the lumbermen and of the people of the country, but, we have still a very considerable movement of logs taken from the Indian reserves and exported to the United States free. I think that should be stopped, and that we should insist that they be manufactured in Canada. I regret that the government hare taken no action in that direction. I regret as well, that, although the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), in his budget speech, announced that no changes would take place in the tariff, he has not seen fit to take into consideration the urgent request of the lumbermen of Canada for the imposition of a duty. It comes from a very large and important class, it comes from a class who are carrying on a most valuable industry in this country, and, if I am correctly informed, they were led to believe that they would be most likely to have their request granted, although they had no definite promise of it. It seems to be another acknowledgment that, in the consideration of the tariff, the lumbermen of Canada are to be thrown down, because there is to be no tinkering with the tariff. The beet-root sugar men have been thrown down, because this is a free trade tariff, and hon. gentlemen cannot allow any tinkering with the tariff. The woollen millmen have been thrown down, because there is to be no
tinkering with the tariff. There is to be no change, because this is a free trade government. The hon. member for Russell did not think so.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the discussion. So far as the mm. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) is concerned, I shall not spend any time in answering his speech, because it has been altogether a disquisition on the question of protection. He has gone entirely afield from the matter before us. The resolution which was brought up is one asking for the imposition of an import duty on American lumber coming into Canada. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), I think, gave the whole case away when he said that the head centre at which he wished to strike was the lumbermen of Minnesota, and that he was quite willing to use Canadian laws for the purpose of striking with a vengeance the Minnesota men who blocked the legislation to allow Canadian lumber to go into the United States free. He is quite willing to place the whole of Canada in jeopardy by placing this statute upon the books of Canada because a few of the pine lumbermen of Canada wish this duty to be put on so that they can strike this head centre. He spoke about a meeting in Toronto, as if that meeting represented all the lumbermen of Canada. I do not think that is a fact by any means. It only represented a very few of the lumbermen. It represented the pine men of Ontario only. There was some attempt made to have a hardwood section of the board, but the hardwood men never attended to form a board to any extent, because they have always been overborne by the pine men. Beside the question of a pine industry in Canada, in the constituency of nearly every hon. gentleman from Ontario, and largely from all over the country, you will find small mills engaged in handling hardwood lumber, and engaged, in the eastern districts, in handling spruce lumber. We all know that there is a statute on the American statute-books which says that if we impose this $2 a thousand duty on American lumber, we are liable to be met again by an addition to the American duty of $2 a thousand. I would ask what is going to become of our spruce industry, what is going to become of our hardwood industry ? We know perfectly well that the market we have for hardwood is the United States. We do not export 2 per cent of the ash lumber we manufacture to any other country than the United States. We do not export 3 per cent of the hardwood lumber we manufacture to any country except the United States. The pine men are quite willing to sacrifice that trade, to sacrifice the North-west Territories, and to sacrifice the rest of the country in order to strike this head centre in Minnesota. I believe with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Ed-

wards), that it is a very small size to which these great men have grown when they are willing to use for their own personal interest the farmers and consumers, in fact, the whole people of Canada. Reference has been made by the hon. member for North Norfolk to the suffering of the men engaged in the pine lumber industry from not being able to make sufficient profit. He knows perfectly well that shipping cull lumber is worth from $15 to $18 per thousand at any shipping point in Canada.


John Charlton: I am afraid my hon. friend (Sir. Schell) is not very well informed as to the condition of the lumber market.


Jacob Thomas Schell: He knows very well that mill culls are worth here in Ottawa, $12 per thousand, while seven years ago they were selling at $4.50 a thousand. Since the improvement in the times, mill culls have advanced to this extent in price. Yet, these gentlemen ask that the farmers of this country should be required to support this extra duty of $2 a thousand that will jeopardize the hardwood industry for their own benefit. Who asked that this duty should be imposed ? A few millmen in British Columbia, a few millmen about Rat Portage and the Georgian Bay, and not another man, from Prince Edward Island, all through the' provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, not another single lumberman in this whole Dominion, except a small coterie about Toronto and the British Columbia men. I do not think that the sentiment of this House will be in favour of such a proposition if it comes to a vote. I do not believe it is in accordance with the principles of justice to ask to impose upon the people of the North-west Territories, and upon the people of this part of Canada, this burden which will bear so heavily upon those who require to import lumber. I am a manufacturer myself. Not only am I a seller of lumber, but a buyer of lurnDer, and I wish to state to this House, in reply to what the hon. member for East Grey said, that if you just go across the street to the Bank of Montreal you will find an illustration in support of the argument which I am presenting. When they put out the specifications for the Bank of Montreal they called for quartered oak. You cannot buy that timber in this Dominion to-day, either for the Bank of Montreal, or for any of the buildings that require to be finished in quartered oak. It is not to be had. There is a certain amount of oak in the hon. gentleman's section of the country, but it is of a very inferior class, which is not fit to be used for quarter-cut oak. Now, in regard to the question of poplar, in the city of Montreal, and in all the cities, you will find the specifications given out for buildings to be finished in American poplar. The hon. member for North Norfolk is


Jacob Thomas Schell: quite willing to put a $2 duty on imports into this country, which will impose a burden upon the business of which I have spoken. I just wish to state this general proposition, that all the lumber brought into Canada is brought here simply because it cannot be got in Canada, or it can be brought in cheaper than it can be got here. They wish to put this duty on for no other reason than to raise the price of lumber $2 per thousand feet to the general consumers, and so far as I am concerned, I shall certainly oppose this resolution.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: The hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) was sitting on the wrong side of the House because he was opposed to placing a duty on lumber. Where would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) sit if not on this side of the House, and in a front seat, with the party led by a government which on Thursday last announced their intention to keep lumber on the free list. I agree with the hon. gentleman from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that in view of the announcement made last week by the Minister of Finance, it is superfluous to discuss this proposition at any particular length now. However, as the matter has been brought up for an expression of opinion, I wish, Sir, to join 'in that expression of opinion. Coming as I do from the Northwest, and following the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), who truly expressed the view of the people of the Northwest on this question, it may also be superfluous for me to announce that I intend to record my vote against this resolution. Sir, I am entirely opposed to the principle of protection. While I do not say that I am an out-and-out free trader ; while I do not believe that in Canada at the present moment free trade is practicable, I do say that the interests of the country demand that the tariff shall be narrowed down to the lowest possible point, in the interests of all the people of the Dominion. For this view I And some justification in the fiscal happenings in Canada since 1897, when changes were made in the tariff which reduced it by at least some 10 or 12 per cent. If we take in conjunction with this fact, the further fact that every industry in our country has been vastly more prosperous since that 10 or 12 per cent reduction in the tariff, we find ample justification for the view which I express. I am, I repeat, opposed to the principle of protection, and I am particularly opposed to its application in the form of a reimposition of the duty upon lumber. I am not actuated by any ill-feeling towards the lumbermen of the Dominion. If this parliament could, without injuring the Dominion as a whole, do anything which would be of reasonable benefit to the lumber industry, I would be very glad indeed. If by adopting this resolution 1 the advantage to the Dominion as a whole

would overbalance the disadvantage to any particular class of our people, I would be willing to support the resolution. But. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the disadvantage to the consumers of lumber in Canada would be very much greater than any advantage that would accrue to the lumbermen by the reimposition of this duty, and therefore I oppose the proposition. In opposing the resolution, I am of course to a large extent influenced by the feeling of the people whom I have been sent here to represent. My attitude on this question }s based on the welfare of the present and prospective settlers in the North-west Territories. A proposition which receives very general assent everywhere in Cauada is : that the greater the progress that can be promoted in the North-west, the better it is for the whole Dominion, and as this duty upon lumber would greatly retard the progress of the North-west, I am emphatically opposed to it. I shall quote some of the prices of lumber which prevail at present in the Northwest Territories, and the House will see that even without any duty the prices are extraordinarily high. For spruce or fir boards up to twenty feet in length-this is lumber which would ordinarily be classed as rough lumber and is about the cheapest kind of lumber that can be procured-the price is $24 per thousand and 50 cents per thousand extra for every two feet additional in length. For dimension and scantling timber up to twenty feet, the price is $24 per thousand. For ship-lap, measurement 1x8 and 1 x 10 to 18 feet in lenvth, the price is $25 per thousand. For siding, 'ceiling and flooring, from $31 to $35 per thousand. For red cedar shingles, $3.75 per thousand. For laths, pine or cedar, $5 per thousand. Pine for finishing and cedar for finishing, from $50 to $00 per thousand. These are the prices which prevail anywhere, say between Brandon and Medicine Hat, on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and possibly points off the main line have to pay higher prices. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it should be the duty of this House, in place of contemplating any measure which would be likely to bring about an increase in the price of lumber, to rather devote itself to the problem of endeavouring to devise some means to materially reduce the high prices which the settlers in the west have now to pay for their lumber. The application made to parliament this afternoon on behalf of the lumbermen of Canada, I think, the most peculiarly frank request for protection that ever has been made in parliament to my knowledge. It is usually the case that when manufacturers desire a protective duty on their products, they come to parliament with the plea that the duty will not increase the price of the article, but on the contrary that if they get the protection they will see that there is a contemporaneous reduction in price ; but our friends, the lumbermen, come to this
House to-day asking for a duty on lumber, and they frankly tell us that if the duty is imposed it will likely result in an increase in the price of lumber. Although the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) endeavoured to impress on the House his belief that a duty of $2 a thousand on lumber would not increase the price to anything like that extent, I think my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) proved pretty conclusively, from the circular of the Association of Lumbermen of British Columbia which was distributed among the members of the House a few weeks ago, that their idea, at all events, in seeking a duty on the article, is to be enabled to collect a higher price ; for in that circular they say :
When we ask for our production a mere living price, we are met with the reply that pitch pine from the United States can be obtained at cheaper prices, or pine from Minnesota can be got at less cost, and that even our own description of lumber can be bought cheaper on Puget Sound, which may be possible, as they can produce cheaper, because all their supplies cost less.
We have had to base the prices of our productions on those of producers who have advantages towards cheap manufacture which we do not possess.
I think it is fair to deduce from that statement that it is the intention of the lumbermen, should this duty be imposed, to take the fullest possible advantage of it; and we in the North-west Territories would expect to see the price of lumber to us immediately advanced to the extent of $2 a thousand.
If there is any doubt in the minds of the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution or those who support it that that would be the result, I would quote for their benefit a statement that was made in this Chamber some years ago by a gentleman whose views on questions of tariff at one time, at all events, met with considerable respect. I wish to quote from a statement made by the Hon. George E. Foster, exFinance Minister, in this Chamber, in 1894, which will be found in ' Hansard ' of that year, at page 198. He said :
I say that in the initial years of a national policy, with a protective principle in it, it will have the effect of enhancing the cost of goods, and that at the first the cost of goods will be very closely up to the measure of the protection which is given. If it does not have that effect, why should it ever be adopted at all, and what' is the good of it?
So, according to a late Finance Minister in this House, if the measure proposed here this afternoon would not have the effect of increasing the price of lumber very nearly $2 a thousand, what would be the use of adopting the measure at all ?
Some years ago Canada did impose duties upon this article, and I am going to quote another statement which was made in this Chamber by the Hon. Mr. Foster to show the condition of affairs as he found it in Manitoba and the North-west Territories under the system of duties which up to the year

1894, was in force in this country. The members of the House will recoueet that Hon. Mr. Foster and a colleague went to the North-west in the fail of 1893, with the purpose of looking- into the conditions of commerce and agriculture in that country, and with the avowed object of revising the then existing tariff; and at the uext session of parliament a revision of the tariff was proposed by Mr. Foster. In the course of the speech which he made in the House at that time, there occurs this statement, to which I would beg to draw the close attention of lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House and' any hon. gentleman on this side who may be disposed to favour the proposition of the hon. member for East Simcoe. Mr. Foster said :
There was no one feature of our examination into the condition of things in the North-west which impressed itself so forcibly upon my mind as the combine which existed for the distribution and sale of lumber. Every town was parcelled out. One or two men were selected, to whom were given the monopoly of selling in each place. The prices were fixed, and if they sold a fraction of a cent under the fixed price, their privilege was taken away and given tQ somebody else. That monopoly bore heavily upon the people of the counfry, where lumber is essentially necessary in the building of barns and houses, and I came to the conclusion that if possible help should be given by putting lumber on the free list.
There a condition of affairs is described which I would ask any hon. gentleman in the House candidly to say whether he would like to have brought into force again in Manitoba and the North-west Territories; and the measure proposed here this afternoon is a measure calculated to cause a return of that condition of affairs.
Another plea that is made in behalf of the lumbermen is that they want the control of the Canadian market. 1 have taken some pains to look up statistics in connection with this industry, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the lumbermen of Canada pretty well control the lumber market of Canada at the present time without any duty. Our exports of lumber amount in round figures to $25,000,000 a year. We import a little over $2,500,000 a year. The figures prepared in any of the departments of the government at Ottawa do not show what the total production of the lumber mills of Canada is; but so far as 1 have been able to ascertain by figures and calculations, I would place tbe total annual production of lumber in Canada at about $70,000,000. Of that, as 1 have said, we export about $25,000,000 worth and we import a little over $2,500,000; so that it would appear that the consumption of lumber in Canada amounts to about $47,500,000 worth annually. If these figures are correct and I believe they are, then the fact remains that the lumbermen of Canada at this Time have control of 95 per cent of the Canadian market; in other words, that the total importation of lumber does not amount to Mr. SCOTT.
over 5 per cent of the total consumpt.on of lumber in tms country.
Another argument wnich appeals to me as being the most weighty oue urged here this afternoon, is that we should impose a duty on lumber as an international measure-a measure which might have some effect upon our neighbours to the south. I am free to say that if I believed there was any real ground to hope that the imposition of a duty on lumber by Canada would lead the United States to give us reciprocity iu that article, I might be willing to agree to the proposition ; but it seems to me, in looking over the fiscal history of Canada and the United States, that there can be found not tbe slightest ground of hope that this would be the result. It seems to me that the history of the last eighteen or twenty years is bound to prevent any one who carefully considers the subject from believing or hoping that we can by the imposition of a tariff, bring about reciprocity between Canada and the United States.
So far as regards the statements made of the large sale of imported lumber, I have just given the House in round figures the amount of sales, and it is about 5 per cent or the total consumption of lumber in Canada. But even if the amount were larger, that would not be a good argument in favour of the imposition of a duty. It would simply be proof that our lumbermen were charging a little more than they ought, because Canada is one of the chief lumber producing countries in tbe world, and our lumbermen should be able to sell at prices which would prevent competition by the imported article.
Let me refer very briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), which would lead us to believe that, in his opinion, the members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories have rather outstayed their welcome in this House. He said that the older part of Canada had sacrificed or at least appropriated a great deal for the benefit of Manitoba and the North-west Territories ; and I think it is a fair deduction to make from liis statement that he thought it was high time for the western members to cease making any requests or taking any stand in behalf of the west in this House. Well, in my opinion, and in that of the other members from the west, the boot is entirely on the other foot. True it is that in the last thirty years considerable sums have been voted by parliament to be expended in and for the benefit of Manitoba and the Territories, and true it is also that large subsidies have been voted for railway construction there. But when we come to analyse this expenditure, we find that if there is any room for complaint by any one that complaint should come from "our "western people. When the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was made, $25,000,000 and 25,000,000 acres of land were voted to

that company. Something over half the subsidy was in land, most of which was located in the Territories, so that the people of Manitoba and the Territories themselves contributed more than half of Canada's total contribution to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. And with regard to the votes passed every year for the carrying on of government in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, it must not be forgotten that amounts are apportioned by the statutes to the other provinces for the carrying on of local government. And I am in the judgment of every hon. member who has studied the position, when I say that man for man the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories pay a greater sum into the common revenues of the Dominion and receive less back from those common revenues than do the people of any other of the provinces.


Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).: As I have been always an ardent supporter of the national policy, Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise the House that I should rise to announce myself in favour of the present motion. I could give several reasons for this support, one of which is that I am firmly convinced that this motion is in the interests of the people generally, and not specially in the interests of the lumbermen.
I am also very much encouraged by the announcement of the Finance Minister a few evenings ago that we are on the crest of the wave of prosperity in this country, and by the remarks of my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I have always looked upon that hon. gentleman as one of the most shrewd, level-headed, practical business men in this country, and ever since I came to this House I have listened with interest to his speeches. And although I have not always agreed with him, I have never failed to recognize the ability with which he invariably presents his case. On this occasion, I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman has been voicing the sentiments of the lumbermen and the agriculturists of this country. Some hon. members from the North-west have stated that British Columbia alone is in favour of an import duty on American lumber. I have the honour of being a member of the Ontario Association of Lumbermen, and although not an extensive lumber operator, I have been engaged in lumbering many years. That association had its annual meeting, and unanimously came to the con-clusioirthat it was necessary for the Canadian lumbermen to have an import duty on American products.
The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) says that he is a free trader. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a free trader. I am willing to trade freely with those who will trade freely with me, but upon no other conditions, and therefore, 1 say that the Americans, having imposed a duty
upon Canadian lumber, the interests of our lumbering industry, which is second only to the great agricultural interest, demand the imposition of a duty upon American lumber.
In order to understand fully this question, I will have to give you a brief review of the legislation of the respective governments, provincial and Dominion, respecting the lumbering interests. In Ontario, limits have been sold by public auction, American purchasers and purchasers of all nationalities being invited to attend these sales. At that time, there was no restriction as _ to manufacturing logs taken from these limits. Sir William Meredith, who was then leader of the opposition in the legislature, wanted the government to stipulate that when any limits were sold the logs should be manufactured in this country. The government, in its wisdom, did not think fit to adopt this proposition, but continued to sell these limits. The government alleged as a reason why they did not wish to impose the proposed restriction that they would not be able to obtain as large a price for the limits as they would without that restriction. I suppose that that was all right. But let us see how the Canadian producer is discriminated against. Suppose that I am a Canadian lumber manufacturer and attend the sale and purchase a limit. An American attends the same sale and purchases the adjoining limit ; I invest, say, $100,000 in the erection of a mill, and providing plant to convert the logs on that limit into lumber. The American sends in his men and teams and removes the timber from his limit during the winter, takes it down the stream and transports it across the lake to his mill in the United States, say at Bay City or Saginaw. The offal of that mill, all the slabs and sawdust are valuable there. But I erect a mill on the Georgian Bay. The money that the American spends in taking out and transporting and cutting that timber is all spent in the United States. I employ Canadian labour, and every dollar I spend in taking out logs and converting them into lumber is spent in Canada. Suppose that the American, when he gets his lumber manufactured, does not find a suitable market for certain grades. He is permitted to ship his lumber Into Canada, irrespective of quality, without payment of any duty. On the other hand, if I want to send my lumber into the United States I am met with a duty of $2 per thousand. That is not right, it is not fair or just to the Canadian manufacturer ; it means that he is discriminated against and a preference given to the American. After the subject had been agitated a great many years, the government refused to impose an export duty. But regulations were made by the Ontario authorities stipulating that in the case of all limits sold or to be sold, the logs should be manufactured into lumber in this country. That regulation is carried into effect,

and tile result is tliat the Americans who bought our Canadian limits and who were taking the logs out of the country and manufacturing them in the United States are to-day manufacturing them into logs in Canada. But the injustice to the Canadian manufacturer still remains. That $2 per thousand is there. It should be removed. I know that very important and influential deputations have waited on the right hon. leader of the government and his colleagues who have met for the purpose of hearing their grievances. I believe the matter was very forcibly and ably put before these hon. gentlemen ; and I hope that, notwithstanding the announcement of the Finance Minister a few days ago, that no tariff changes would be made during this session, he will reconsider the matter. He should come to the conclusion that the poor lumbermen of this country deserve well at the .hands of the government, and that, not only in their interest but 'in the interest of this country, he should impose a duty on common lumber coming into this country. One hon. gentleman said that the United States was the only market we had for Canadian hardwood lumber. I beg to say that we cannot supply the demand in our own country. The Canadian furniture manufacturers have to import considerable quantities of hardwood lumber such as oak. There is no reason why, if I ship five or ten million feet of lumber to the United States and pay $10,000 or $20,000 duty for the privilege of doing so, the American lumberman, when he ships the same quantity Into this country should pay no duty.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill) a question ? if the Americans place themselves on a par with the Chinamen, is Canada to do the same thing ?


Henry Cargill: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards), I think, said that the Canadian lumbermen were of too large a calibre to condescend to approach this government and ask for the imposition of a paltry duty on lumber. Now, I think there are as good. [ as wealthy and as large lumber operators | in the United States as there are in Canada, and they have not failed to condescend to apply to the authorities for an imposition of a duty on Canadian lumber going into the United States. The hon. gentleman also says that such a duty would be detrimental to the interests of the farmer, and that the farmer cannot be protected.
1 claim, and have always claimed, that the farmers of this country have had more consideration than any other class in the community. Their grievances; have always been redressed when the government has been appealed to. I represent a rural constituency and have succeeded in being elected. And I have always stated to my constituents, a large majority of whom are farmers, that the farmer was the first man Mr. CARGILL.
considered by any government. How do we protect the manufacturer ? By placing a duty on goods similar to those which he produces, in order to prevent those goods coming into the country in competition with his. How can we protect the farmer ? By putting a little duty on beef, on pork and everything that would come into this country w-ere no duly imposed to compete in this market with the products the farmer has to sell. As I said before, the consideration of the farmer has always been first with the legislatures and the governments of this country. Why ? All governments are elected by farmers in this country, for the farmers are the majority. Of course, politicians are always looking for votes, and the way to get votes is to try to give the people who have the votes as great consideration as possible.
Reference was made to Mr. Waldie. I think Mr. Waldie is pretty well known in this country. He has had the honour of occupying a seat in this House. He is a very extensive lumber operator, and is president of the Ontario Lumberman's Association. I know that he headed large deputations to Ottawa on two or three occasions for the purpose of asking the government to impose a duty on American lumber. I do think and sincerely believe that the Finance Minister will eventually come to the conclusion that it is his duty to grant the request of the lumbermen, both of Ontario and of British Columbia.
Now, the lumbermen have never had any protection. I remember well that when the national policy was first proposed in this country a good many years ago, the hon. member for North Norfolk was not in sympathy with it. I remember reading a very fine speech made by that hon. gentleman on that occasion, in which he contended that the national policy would ruin the lumber interest. For instance, he gave the increased cost of the saws, and rubber belting, and everything the lumberman was likely to use in his business ; the imposition of a duty would necessarily increase their cost and increase the price to the lumberman. Now7, some gentlemen have said that the lumbermen have become millionaries. Well,
I do not know many of them who have. I think probably if that statement had been confined to the limit holders it might have been within the mark. I do know several gentlemen in this country who have bought limits, and 1 presume they made money out of them. Limits are usually put up at auction, and the purchasers have got to pay a higher price than any one else. But, I think it usually happens that they only hold them for a short time, until they find some one else who wants them worse than they do, and they sell them at a profit of a few thousand dollars. But the lumbermen are unfortunately not in that happy position. We have got to go to the bush, cut our logs, hitch up our oxen, and draw the logs to the

mill; aiul there is a great deal of hard work to be done before we succeed in making much money.
One gentleman said that the British Columbia lumbermen had not much to complain of, because they had to pay 50 cents freight per hundred pounds on the transportation of their lumber from British Columbia to Manitoba and the North-west Territories. That would amount to about $15 per thousand feet. Well, I think that the British Columbia lumberman who has to pay $15 per thousand feet in order to get his lumber to market in the North-west or Manitoba will not And much of a market there. That is a very high rate of freight to pay.
One gentleman said that only a small fraction of the lumbermen in this country were asking for the imposition of a duty, and he said that there were many lumbermen and especially the small millowners throughout the country, who did not want the duty. I admit that. But it is to be remembered that the majority of the sawmill men have a home market, they can sell their lumber in the nearest town, because there is generally some live industry in the town that uses all the lumber they can manufacture. Consequently we do not expect them to join in with the larger lumbermen who are forced, compelled in fact, to ship>
their lumber either to the United States or to Great Britain. Of course a large market has been created in Great Britain for what is called deals, a great proportion of the stock of that article finds its way to Great Britain. But there are many other grades of lumber which do not find a market locally, and it is that kind of lumber which comes in competition with lumber imported from the United States.
A few years ago I remember lumber took a jump upwards, when times were very dull. I remember one year several million feet of two-inch plank were brought from Duluth into the city of Toronto for sidewalks. The local dealers in the city of Toronto found they could bring lumber from Duluth and sell it cheaper than they could purchase it of Canadian lumbermen. No doubt that displaced just so much lumber manufactured by Canadians. I think on the whole that the lumbermen have made out a good case and that they are entitled to the consideration of this government. We hope that the government will consider the matter and impose a duty on American lumber coming into this country.
Now, the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) denied that there was any benefit to Canadians from the imposition of an export duty on logs, or the stipulation that logs should be manufactured in this country. He also stated that logs on the Georgian Bay were just as valuable as they were after they were cut up, and the manufactured article was piled up in the yard. That appears to me a very singular thing. We have some lumbermen on the Georgian Bay
who cut immense quantities of logs and manufacture them iu their mills; and if they can dispose of the logs for the same amount of money that they can dispose of the lumber when manufactured, 1 should not think they would go to the expense of manufacturing. The hon. gentleman imputes motives to people who stand up and want to protect their own industries. Well,
I suppose most men are built that way; and he would be the greatest philanthropist X ever saw if he did not condescend to say such things on some occasions.
Now, I think I am about through with all the remarks which I have to make on this occasion, but, I thought it was my duty to express my views upon this question. In conclusion, I will say that I do hope that after the frequent interviews which the Prime Minister and his colleagues have had with these important deputations that waited upon them for the purpose of getting that duty put on, they will give heed to the representations which have been made to them. I can only feel, and I believe, that the government will do what I consider would be most beneficial to one of the most important industries in this country.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a word or two in connection with this motion. I shall not take up very much time of the House, because I do not propose to say very much. If the people of the country gave to the government of the day a mandate at the recent election, that mandate was that there should be lower duties instead of higher duties. I think, that, in many of the discussions that took place throughout the country in connection with the election, the question of lowering the duties instead of raising them, was, to use a common phrase, a burning question with the people, and I am glad that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) has sounded a note of warning, not alone for the benefit of the government, but for the benefit of hon. members on this side of the House, who, I am sorry to say, are drifting into harmony with protection principles, as shown in their speeches on the budget.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


Robert Holmes: It is not necessary to give the names ; you can draw any inference you like. Any one who has listened to the remarks this afternoon from hon. gentlemen who support this resolution, will be convinced by the coolness with which they have approached the proposition. They tell us that the matter is for the general welfare of the country, that it is for the general welfare of the people at large. The agriculturists, of all other classes, are the ones who are to derive the benefit therefrom. They try to convey the impression that there is no selfishness in connection with this proposition. It seems to me that a duty of this kind, if it is going to affect anybody at all,

is certainly for the benefit of the particular class in whose behalf the duty is being imposed. I am not surprised that the people of the North-west Territories should feel hostile to a proposition of this kind, because they are subject, perhaps, more than anybody else, to what would be the outcome of a tariff on lumber. The manufacturers in every part of the Dominion, the manufacturers in small towns, as well as in the large towns, would be affected by a duty of this kind. Manufacturers tell us, that the present competition is such that they have to reduce the cost of manufacturing to the lowest possible basis in order that they may compete, not alone with the manufactures produced in their own land, but with the manufactures that come in from elsewhere, and that, in order to do so, it is absolutely pecessary for them to procure their raw material at the lowest cost. I agree almost entirely with the statement of the hon. member for Russell that we should guard as far as possible against an increase of duties and against an increase in the cost of manufacturing. It seems to me that the farmer bears the burden of it all. When the statement is made that the farmer derives a very i great indirect benefit as the outcome of the protective system, the author of that state-1 ment is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the farmer. The farmers derive no actual benefit from any phase of protection. They are the burden-bearers, and if there is an increase of duty on lumber or anything else the farmer has to bear the burden thereof. Just let me say another word or two, and it is this : I think that Canada should not be influenced by the legislation of the United States upon this point, or upon any other point. I think that Canada ought to legislate for itself. We should legislate in the interest of the people of Canada because they are our first concern. It may be true, as it is said, that we are adjacent to another country with interests and resources very much like our own, but, I think the principle that should guide us in this House, is the principle of our own interests absolutely and entirely, regardless of the interests of the adjoining community. The policy that should be adopted is the policy of mak-iag the cost of manufacturing and the cost of living as low as we can consistent with the requirements of the revenue of the country. I think that the government are entitled to commendation instead of condemnation for their attitude in connection with the delegations that have come down here. We know perfectly well the pressure that is [DOT]brought to bear upon the government by delegations that come down here representing their interests and asking that something shall be done for them. We know very well how hard it is for governments to resist the demands of deputations of that kind. We have, in the legislation of the past, evidence of the government having listened to the arguments that had been ad-Mr. HOLMES.
vanced, of having legislated in this direction, and then, having, the next day, to legislate in a counter direction in order to appease some rival interest. I think the government should be commended for not listening to the representations that have been made so far as the woollen interests, the lumbering interests, and other interests, are concerned, that have brought pressure to bear upon them in order to induce them to increase duties. I agree with the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his admirable speech the other night, wherein he said that the policy of this government should be in the direction of freer trade, of freer trade relations, in the direction of reducing, as far as we possibly can, the cost of manufactured articles, and therefore, I think, that the government are entitled to credit from the fact of their not having listened to the representations that have been made and not having yielded to the pressure that has been brought to bear upon them. They would have met my views even more largely had they seen their way clear to make some reductions in the tariff. While hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are tendering advice to the hon. Minister of Finance, it would have been a gratification to myself, I will say frankly, if he had seen his way clear to make a reduction on some articles which enter into the general consumption. There may be inequalities in any tariff, there may be matters that call for readjustment, there may be incongruities and to my mind there always are, and I think a man who is a protectionist out and out is placed in a contradictory position. He is called upon continually to extract himself from a difficulty of one kind or another because of the very policy he is endeavouring to support and to put into the tariff. A policy of protection is a policy of contradiction, and therefore, the position that those who support it are placed in, is such that they have constantly to excuse themselves for the position that it has led them into. I want to record my hostility to the proposition to place a duty on lumber, because I do not believe it is in the interests of the people as a whole, but that it is in the interest purely and simply of the lumbermen.


Mr. ARTHUR W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, my intention is merely to call attention to the interest of the North-west Territories in the motion which is under discussion this afternoon, and I do so because I think that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) probably left a misconception in the minds of some hon. members in quoting the Trade and Navigation Returns. He referred to the very small amount of lumber that is imported 'into the North-west Territories. But, I think he has only told half the story, because Manitoba and the North-west Territories gen-

erally go together in such matters as this. The liou. member for East Grey was correct when he said that the total importation of lumber into the North-west Territories was 707,000 feet, of a value of $7,505, but, he omitted to say that we imported into Manitoba 21,540,000 feet, of a total value of $272,471. The total value of free lumber imported from the United States was $574,233. Therefore, Manitoba and the North-west Territories put together imported 48 per cent, or about one-half of the total free lumber imported into Canada. The hon. gentleman will find that the other province which imported largely was the province of Ontario, and Ontario imported
8.768.000	feet, at a value of $205,452. Taking that lumber all round, it was lumber of the better class ; whereas, the lumber imported into Manitoba and the North-west Territories is of the cheapest kind, averaging only $12.50 per thousand. It would appear that the lumber imported into eastern Canada is principally for manufacturing purposes, or for finishing and the like, while the lumber imported into the west is for the erection of farm buildings, and for use by the man who puts up his wood shed until such time as he can raise money enough to build a house in front of it. The total import of lumber last year into Canada amounted to 36,309,000 feet, and of this quantity, 22,247,000 was imported into the North-west Territories and Manitoba. You will see that Manitoba and the North-west Territories imports more than two-thirds of this lumber, so that if the duty were increased there would be a most outrageous tax put on the people of the North-west, the people who have taken up farms, the people who have small means, and many of whom find it very difficult to gain a foothold for themselves and families. I wish to call attention to another matter which is in exactly the opposite direction to this. I assert that there is altogether too high a duty on lumber at the present time, and that it is too much protected. I find that last year there was imported into Manitoba
3.377.000	feet of dutiable lumber, valued at $45,279, and the duty on that was $11,319. The point is just this : that the dutiable lumber is lumber that has been dressed on both sides, or lumber tongued and grooved, but if we are to have free lumber, then I say that the duty should only be charged on the increased value given to that manufactured lumber by the labour spent on it in tonguing and grooving. As it is now, lumber is dutiable because it has gone through some manufacturing process, and the duty is charged on the original value of the lumber as well as on the labour expended on it afterwards. That is a grave injustice to the people who want free lumber. I am altogether opposed to this motion, which proposes to put a duty on lumber, and I am quite sure that the
North-west Territories, as well as Manitoba -which the hon. gentleman from East Grey very discreetly omitted to mention-are absolutely opposed to any such motion being adopted by this parliament.
At six o'clock, the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Quebec Terminal and Railway Company.-Mr. Ma-louin.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the MeClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Hyman.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 70) respecting the E. B. Eddy Company-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 72) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 73) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster, Northern and Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to remind the hon. Minister of Einance, with whom I exchanged a word on the subject, that, if my recollection serves me rightly, the government stated some days ago that so soon as the award in the case of the. claims of the Nova Scotia government against the Federal government was made, the papers would be brought down. It would take some time, of course, to make a complete return, and I merely wish to say that I would be greatly obliged if the government would cause to be laid on the Table the order in council under which the reference was made, giving us in that way an idea of the scope of the reference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the answer to my hon. friend was given by the Prime Minister, and my recollection is the same as his. I will mention it to my right hon. friend, and I see no reason why the papers particularly mentioned by the hon. gentleman should not be brought down at once.


Mr. MONK.: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what the amount of the award is ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I only know from the public press, which states that it is $671,000. I have not seen the document.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in committee on Bill (No. 9) An Act to amend ' The Dominion Elections Act.'-Mr. Henderson.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend has already expressed his *willingness to let this Bill stand until the government (brings down its Bill on the same subject. I think it will be obviously more convenient that the several Bills dealing with this subject should be treated in this way, the hon. members in charge of them reserving their right to deal with them afterwards, if the government Bill does not meet their views.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I am quite willing to let the Bill stand on that condition. I would be glad to have a copy of the government Bill, so as to ascertain that the provisions of this Bill are contained in it.
Order allowed to stand.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in committee on Bill (No. 10) An Act to amend ' The Weights and Measures Act.'-Mr. Smith (Wentworth).
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue informs me that he has in contemplation to bring in at once a government Bill amending the Weights and Measures Act, and I would be glad -if my hon. friend would adopt the same course with regard to his Bill that I have just suggested with regard to other Bills, namely, that the whole matter be discussed under the government Bill, leaving his Bill on the Order paper, so that if necessary he can move it at a later stage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can that be done if the government takes the only day which is left to private members, as I understand they intend shortly to do ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a very proper suggestion, and I think that before the government takes that day, there should be an understanding with regard to these Bills, so that the position of hon. gentlemen in charge of them would not be prejudiced.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I understand that when the government announced that they proposed to introduce legislation of a character dealing with a matter which is the subject of a Bill standing in the name of a private member, it was understood that if the government should change its plan, it should in good faith see that the hon. member who allowed his measure to stand at the request of the government should have an opportunity afterwards to bring it forward.


Mr. FIELDING.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree that if the hon. gentleman allows his measure to stand at our request, we should see that he has an opportunity of bringing it on later.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: May I ask if the government Bill embodies the principle of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: I have a Bill pertaining to weights and measures to which may be added the provisions of the Bill now on the Order paper in the name of the hon. member.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If that be the case, why should we not go into committee on the Bill, and let it pass the committee stage ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Another reason is that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not here to-night, and I know that he wishes to take part in the discussion on this question.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I should like very much that the Minister of Agriculture should be here, as I know he is well acquainted with the subject of this Bill.
Order allowed to stand.



ALIEN LABOUR.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Clare : ' That Bill (No. 5) an Act to amend the " Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens,'' be now read a second time.'
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think this stands in exactly the same position as the other matters referred to.
Order allowed to stand.



DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For second reading of Bill (No. 18) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.-Mr. Richardson, Lisgar.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE Lxou. W.
S.	Fielding). I think it will be better to let tbis stand, and it can be considered when the Bill of the government dealing with tlie same subject is before the House.
Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: I have no objection.
Order allowed to stand.



BEET ROOT SUGAR.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Sproule : ' That, having regard to the large impertations of sugar into Canada for home consumption, and that it has been de-
monstrated beyond a doubt that the cultivation o£ the sugar beet in the Dominion is not only feasible but is being successfully grown in many parts of the country at present; therefore in the opinion of this House, in order to stimulate the farmers of Canada to engage in the growth of this valuable product, and also to encourage the establishment of beet-root sugar factories, a bounty should be offered for all beet-root sugar [DOT]manufactured in the Dominion during the next ten years.'
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: As the subject covered by this resolution is being discussed in the budget debate, I think the hon. gentleman would do well not to press this motion on the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the budget debate covers the same question, I do not see the necessity of pressing this motion.
Order withdrawn.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-FREE TRANSPORTATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Robinson (Elgin) :	* That
inasmuch as almost every mile of railway in Canada has been aided, to a greater or lesser extent, by the Dominion government, the local legislatures, and the numerous municipalities through which they run ; and large sums of money have been given, as well as charters, conferring upon these railways a valuable franchise.
That inasmuch as the railways of the country are continuously seeking legislation for the advancement of some particular interest, or for securing some specific object ; which legislation occupies the time of this House at a considerable cost to the country.
That inasmuch as such legislation, in order to be effective for the purposes intended, should be well considered, both by evidence and personal inspection of the location affected, by the members of this House, to the end that the best interests of all parties concerned may be safeguarded.
That, in order that these ends may be satisfactorily attained, the different railway companies, for many years past, have given free transportation to all the members of parliament ;
And inasmuch as such free transportation, coming, as it doe_s, from the railway corporations, no doubt with a view of affording every facility to the members for obtaining the fullest information as to the needs and requirements, both of the railway corporations and the country, and, notwithstanding such free transportation is uniform to all the members of this House, the object and intention is largely misunderstood by the people, and construed into corrupt intentions on the part of the railway corporations, thereby subjecting both the railway corporations and the members of this House to an unjust and unfair criticism, which they are not always in a position to defend.
Therefore, in the opinion of this House, the present system of free transportation is unwise and undesirable, and should be discontinued, and a system substituted which would be 57
free from the charges of corrupt intention or from adverse criticism.
That inasmuch as the railway corporations receive more than adequate compensation for that service as now rendered ; this House is of the opinion that an Act should be placed on the' Statute-book making it incumbent on all railway corporations receiving a franchise or government aid either in money or land, to furnish free transportation to all members of this House, upon the certificate of the Clerk of the House ; and that no mileage indemnity be hereafter paid by the government to the members while in attendance upon their parliamentary duties.'
Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I do not suppose I am entitled to speak again on this question. It was thoroughly discussed when before the House on a former occasion, and I would like to have a vote upon it so that we might see how many members there are in this House who hold the same opinion on this question as I do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think it would be more satisfactory to my hon. friend to have a vote when there is a larger House than at present. He certainly could not expect tonight to get a very clear exposition of the views of the House.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The members of the government evidently anticipated a vote on this question, judging by their absence.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And apparently the leader of the opposition also.
Order allowed to stand.
On motion of Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.

Thursday, March 21, 1901.