FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-(Mr. Panne-lee.)

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 32) to provide for the marking and inspection of packages containing fruit for sale.
Mr. MONK.: Will the hon. Postmaster General give us some detailed information on this item ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Increases include commission to postmasters for savings bank business, $2,000; manufacture of postage stamps, postal cards, envelopes, &c., $8,000; a total of $10,000. From this must be deducted $809.33, because the vote for 1900-1 for certain miscellaneous post office charges and equipment was more than was required. This leaves a net estimated increase of $9,190.67.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Post office	 $125,000


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The following figures will give the state of the Yukon service last year :
Mail services-
Water service	 $ 7,610 59
Railway service	 1,654 30
Ordinary land service.. 71,168 17

Salaries-
Mr. James, special agent of
Skagway *	 $ 2,000 00
Dawson post office	 20,411 25
Atlin post office	 3,342 30
Lake Bennett post office.... 1,974 42 Other post offices	 1,157 83
28,885 80
Miscellaneous-
Atlin post office	 $	205 97
Dawson post office	 690 36
Lake Bennett post office ... 2,153 38

 3,049 71


Mr. HENDERSON.: In view of the importance of this Bill, I think we should have some explanations of its nature at this stage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that this Bill, to a large extent, follows the lines of the Bill which was introduced into this House last session. It is introduced on the present occasion in consequence of the complaints that have been made in regard to the contents of closed packages of fruit put upon the markets of Canada and of Great Britain by Canadian fruit dealers. Difficulties have arisen to such an extent as in some measure to have discredited Canadian fruit in the markets of the world, as well as in our home market. Serious complaints have been made by the purchasers of Canadian fruits. The Bill which was introduced last session aimed at establishing grades of fruit, and at placing marks upon the packages that would indicate the quality of the fruit contained therein. This Bill provides a machinery by which packages so marked would be subject to inspection, and for penalties which would be a deterrent to those who are engaged in the fruit packing business in case they wished to pack fruit in a way contrary to the marks placed upon the package. The Bill has been somewhat modified since last session, inasmuch as it is proposed to apply it to the domestic as well as the export trade. It also provides in one section to apply to all packages of fruit which are closed, in this respect not being limited to apples and

pears, as was the Bill of last session. These changes have been introduced because of representations made from various sources in the country, especially from the fruit shippers and fruit growers' associations of the various provinces, the Bill being modelled to a large extent upon suggestions made by these interests. An attempt is made in the Bill to harmonize the somewhat divergent views of the different interests, while at the same time interfering as little as possible with the trade so far as consistent with safeguarding the public interests. I do not care to go into the details of the Bill just now, that I think could be better done in committee; therefore, I leave it with this short explanation, which I think will be sufficient to justify the introduction of a measure of this kind.


Mr. SPROULE.: Where is the inspection to be made ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: There is no provision stating where the inspection is to be made. The Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors when that is thought necessary, and any fruit which is marked under the provisions of this Bill will be subject to inspection wherever it may be exposed for sale, or in the warehouses of people who are engaged in the trade.


Mr. CLARKE.: I suppose there will be no difficulty in getting an extra number of copies of this Bill to distribute among those interested ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Certainly, just as soon as the Bill is printed, copies will be available for everybody.


David Henderson: Could the hon. minister say whether this inspection is to be compulsory ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The.inspection is not compulsory, but it is permissible ; that is to say, that every closed package of fruit marked under the provisions of this Act, will be subject to this inspection.


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

Mr. EDWARD  H.@: HORSEY (North Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 33) respecting Victoria Day.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: Explain.


Mr. HORSEY.: I may say that the purport and object of this Bill is to make the 24th day of May a permanent public holiday in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. MACLEAN.: Mr. Speaker, may I ask m connection with this Bill, whether the King's birthday will be a public holiday.


Mr. FISHER.: 


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion is carried.


William Findlay Maclean: I will get another chance.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The statute provides for that.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. GAUVREAU asked :: Is it the intention of the hon. Minister of Railways to appoint, this year, one or more French Canadian commissioners to inquire into cases of injury or damage to property of residents on the line of the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and Campbellton?
The MINISTER OP RAILWAY^ AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). The department has not found it necessary, up to the present time, to make the appointment of commissioners of the character mentioned.


I.C.R.-STATION AT TROIS PISTOLES.
Mr. GAUVREAU asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that the station house and the old restaurant at Trois Pistoles, on the Intercolonial Railway, were recently destroyed by a Are, which caused the loss of two lives, that of Madame Morin and that of the agent, M. Hudon?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Railways to build a new station so planned that the dwelling of the agent and his family may be apart from the station proper, instead of being located in the upper story, so as to avoid the possibility of the recurrence of any such deplorable catastrophe as that which has occurred at Trois Pistoles?
3.	If so, when will the work begin?
4.	Is the work to be done under contract or by day labour?
5.	What amount of money does the minister intend to spend for the erection of a station house and dependencies worthy of Trois Pistoles as a watering place and of the travelling public using it?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tlie whole matter is under consideration.
3.	The answer to this question will be involved in the answer to No. 2.
4.	When the buildings are to be erected they will be erected by tender and under contract.
5.	I cannot answer the fifth question.


SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-PAY OF THE MEN OF ' C ' BATTERY.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Did any officer or officers of the Canadian Artillery serving in South Africa, who did not take part with Colonel Plummer's column in the operations in Rhodesia, make application to the Rhodesian government, or to any person or authority, for a portion or share of the sum of money given by the Rhodesian government to the men of ' C ' Battery, Canadian Artillery?

2.	If so, was such application refused, and on what ground or for what reason?
3.	What officer or officers, if any, made such application ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	None.


EXHAUST FANS ON ATLANTIC STEAMERS.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	What are the names of the Atlantic steamers on which exhaust fans were placed, and for the placing of which the government paid $100
2.	Was any effort made last autumn to ascertain if these fans or any of them were continuously in operation during the voyage across the Atlantic?
3.	Will the government endeavour to procure the installation of exhaust fans in all steamers carrying apples across the Atlantic from Canadian ports?
4.	What steamers plying between Canadian ports and the West Indies are fitted with cold storage chambers, the owners of which receive subventions from the government?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher) :: 1.	The government has not yet paid any bonus for the placing of exhaust fans on steamships, although the offer of a bonus of one hundred dollars towards the initial expense of fitting up each approved steamship was made in July, 1900. Exhaust fans were placed on the following steamships :
Allan Line : Pomeranian, Brazilian, Buenos Ayrean, Ontarian, Sarmatian.
Thomson Line : Devona, Kildona, Fre-mona, Hurona, Iona, Escalona, Jacona, Bel-lona.
Donaldson Line :	Alcides, Amarynthia,
Concordia, Kastalia, Lakonia, Marina, Sala-cia, Tritonia.
2.	The owners of the steamships reported that the fans were used during the voyages across the Atlantic.
3.	The government has been in communication with the owners of steamships, and it is expected that exhaust fans will be provided in all of the steamships for carrying apples across the Atlantic from Canadian ports, during the season of 1901.
4.	The owners of the steamship Beta, Messrs. Pickford, Black & Co., Halifax, have received a subvention from the government for providing cold storage between a Canadian port and the West Indies.


ARMOURY AT ST. THOMAS.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	How many tendered for the contract to build the St. Thomas Armoury?
2.	What was the name of each tenderer and the amount of his tender?
3.	At what price was the contract let and to whom?
4.	Did the department give the contract to the lowest tenderer? If not, why?
5.	What is to be the total cost of the armoury?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Five.
2.	J. M. Green & Co., St. Thomas $29,793.00
Wm. Griffiths, Woodstock

 31,359.00
Wm. Reath, St. Thomas	 31,910.91
H. Lindop, St. Thomas	 33.470.00
John Prudom, London	 34,225.00
3.	To J. M. Green & Co., for

 29,793.00
4.	Yes.
5. About $37,000, including heating and furniture.


RENT OF 25TH BATTALION CLUB ROOMS.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	How much rent did the government pay each year since 30th June, 1896, for the use of the 25th Battalion club rooms in St. Thomas?
2.	What amount of rent was due and unpaid by the previous government up to the 30th June, 1896, for the use of said club rooms?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	The government has paid each year, since 1896, $20 per month for use of a building for 25th Regiment, this building containing store room, band room and officers' quarters.
2.	Nine months' rent was due to 30th June, 1896, when present government came into power.


PORT STANLEY HARBOUR.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure by this government on the harbour at Port Stanley since 30th June, 1896, up to 31st December, 1901?
2.	What is the amount expended yearly since 30th June, 1896?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	$37,565.32.
2.	1896-7	$	842.821897-	8	
20,046.311898-	9	
13,007.431899-	1900	
3,668.76


$37,565.32 PORT BURWELL HARBOUR.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure by this government on the harbour of Port Burwell since 30th June, 1896, up to 31st December, 1901?
2.	What is the amount expended yearly since 30th June, 1896?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	$98,664.65.
2.	1896-7	
1897-	8	
1898-	9	$24,864.881899-	1900	
44,577.97Half year, ended 31st December, 1900	
29,221.80


QUANTITY OF FREIGHT THROUGH CANALS.
Mr. CLANCY asked :: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	No.
2.	When application is made, the question will receive due consideration.


ENFORCEMENT OF LAW RESPECTING BINDER TWINE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin) asked*:
Is it the intention of the government to instruct the inspector of weights and measures, or some other competent person, to enforce the law relating to binder twine, which reads as follows Section 3, chapter 37, 63-64 Victoria.
' Upon or attached to every ball of binder twine offered for sale there shall be a stamp with the name of the manufacturer or importer, stating the number of feet of twine per pound in each ball.'
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) :: A. copy of the Act, Chap. 37, of 63-64 Victoria, was sent to every inspector of weights and measures. A circular directing their attention to its provisions will be sent before the season for distribution of binder twine arrives.


I.C.R. ROUND-HOUSE AT CAMPBELLTON.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	What was the cost of repairing or rebuilding the roundhouse on the Intercolonial Railway at Campbellton, N.B.?
2.	What is the present condition of the building?
3.	After it was repaired or rebuilt, did it leak, and if so, what was the cause of the leaking, has the defect been repaired, and at what cost?
4.	Who was the contractor that did the repairing or rebuilding, and was the contract let by tender?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The cost of re-modelling and enlarging the engine house at Campbellton, was $21,975.
2.	The work has been carried on continuously since the contract was signed, and is now nearing completion.
3.	There has been no leak in the building. The plans and specification and contract call for a new roof on the portion of the building to be extended, the existing roof was considered by the Railway Department in good condition. The contract plans and specification call for the repairing and making good of any portion of the existing roof damaged by the carrying on of the new work. The contractor guarantees the new roof for ten years after completion.


Mr. TARTE.: What was the total quantity of freight passed through the several divisions of the canals in Canada during the season of 1900?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: The total quantity of freight passed through the several divisions of the canals in Canada during the season of 1900, is as follows :
1900. [DOT]
Tons.
Welland	 719,360
St. Lawrence	  1,017,990
Chambly	 348,561
Ottawa	 366,782
Murray	 18,916
Trent Valley	 43,065
Sault Ste. Marie	 2,035,677
4,550,351
Information with reference to the Rideau and St. Peters canal, not yet ready.
TARIFF ACT-BRITISH PREFERENTIAL _ CLAUSE.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention of the government to so amend the Tariff Act as to debar from the advantage of the British preferential clause articles partly manufactured in Germany, or manufactured from raw material grown or produced in Germany ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In answer to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) I beg to say: No. Such provision would practically destroy the British perference inasmuch as British manufactures are largely produced from foreign raw materials, but if it can be shown that the intention of the British preferential tariff is evaded, we shall be glad to consider the facts when presented to us.
DISMISSAL OF MR. H. D. HENDERSON. Mr. BROCK asked :
1.	Has Mr. H. D. Henderson, who for twenty-five years was postmaster of Whitechurch, been dismissed?
2.	Were charges made against him? If so, by whom?
3.	At whose request was he dismissed, and on what grounds?
4.	Was any inquiry made as to the wishes of those using the office, and what was the result?
5.	Has a successor been appointed? If so, on whose recommendation was he appointed?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm, Mulock) :: 


Mr.  H. D.@: Henderson, postmaster at White-church, was removed from office because, during the last Dominion election, he took

an active political part In the elections of West Bruce, West Huron and East Huron. During tlie campaign, one of the Liberal candidates, the present member for West Bruce, warned him of the consequences of such conduct, and notwithstanding which he still persisted in it, taking the view that he had as much right to appear on the public platform, as had the candidate himself. The truth of the charges appeared fully established, and no further investigation was necessary; accordingly, the postmaster was removed from his position. Mr. Alexander Beaton, was appointed in his place on the recommendation of Mr. Tolmie, M.P.


CENSUS COMMISSIONER FOR ADDINGTON.
Mr. BELL (Addington) asked :: Has a census commissioner been appointed for the electoral district of Addington? If so, who has been appointed and upon whose recommendation?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: No census commissioner has yet been appointed for the electoral district of Addington. Perhaps, it is as well for me to add, that none of the electoral division census commissioners have yet been appointed.


PAYMENT TO MR. RALPH JONES.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: Referring to item No. 30 in the supplementary estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1900, for payment to Mr. Ralph Jones of $847.50 -
1.	Has this item been paid? If so, when?
2.	Has a cheque been given to Mr. Jones or his attorney or agent?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair):: 1.	Yes, item No. 30, in supplementary estimates for year ending 30th June, 1900, for payment to Mr. Ralph Jones, of #817.50, has been paid. It was paid on the 29th of January, 1901.
2.	The check was given to his attorney, Mr. Sinclair.


VISIT OF THE DUKE OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORTHRUP-by Mr. Taylor-asked ;
Has the government any information of the proposed visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall and York and the date thereof ? If so, have any arrangements been made for his reception?
The PRIME MINISTER (Itt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have stated to the House on previous occasions, that there is correspondence on the subject now going on between the government and the Imperial authorities. It is still confidential, and the contents of it cannot be given to the House. No definite arrangements have yet been made for the visit of Their Royal Highnesses.
"Report presented.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I beg to place on the Table of the House, the report of the Northwest Mounted Police. This is the report only so far as the territories are concerned, and the Yukon is not included.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-NEW GOVERNMENT VESSELS.
Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) moved for :
Copies of all specifications and plans issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries when calling for tenders for the construction of two government vessels in British Columbia. Also copies of all tenders received for construction of same, together with a statement showing the amount of the deposits made by the several tenderers, &c., names of the successful tenderers, and all correspondence and papers connected with the same.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: There can be no objection to these papers being brought down at the proper time, hut, I want to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that the order cannot pass now. The contract has not yet been entered into; not yet signed. The department notified the tenderer that his tender had been accepted, and the contract is being prepared, but it is not yet signed. One of the tenderers withdrew.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Which was that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In Victoria. Not a week ago I received notice that they had withdrawn from their tender.


Mr. WALLACE.: Is that the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. It would not he advisable, nor in the public interest, that I should bring down either the tender or the contract until the parties have signed the contract. There is no possible objection to these papers being brought down at the proper time, but just now I cannot do it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Prior) can move later on.


Edward Gawler Prior: The two tenders were accepted by the department.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The	lowest tenders were accepted.


Edward Gawler Prior: And, I suppose the deposits were put up by the tenderers ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There were no deposits.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Shall this motion pass ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Hon. gentlemen see that I cannot allow the motion to be carried now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister says the tender was accepted, and the contract is only a matter of detail.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is not by any means a matter of detail. So far from being a matter of detail, one of the parties whose tender had been accepted has already withdrawn. If I bring down the papers, and the whole world is informed who the tenderers were, and the amounts before the contracts are signed, possibly some of them might withdraw. This information is never given to the public, until the contract is signed.


Edward Gawler Prior: It is not the intention of the minister to call for fresh tenders.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know what will be my intention if they all withdraw. Unless the House compels me to, I am not going to make public the tenders,, and amounts until the parties have accepted and signed the contract. I am quite sure that has been the practice heretofore.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the tenderers know ail about these matters. I have no doubt that after they put their tenders in, they have communicated to each other, as I am told they usually do, what their tenders are. Now, Sir, a job may be on foot, and if the people know the facts of the case a job can be prevented from being carried out. I am not speaking of a job implicating the minister, but a job in which the tenderers drop out one after another in order to get a higher price for the building of the ship. There is too much secrecy. My opinion with regard to public tenders is that the whole public should know all about them right from the start. What is the object of secrecy ? The government will not tell us what binder twine costs ; they will not tell us anything. What is the object of hiding the facts ? The true way is to give the utmost publicity to all these matters. Let everything be done in the open, and then everybody will know exactly how the matter stands, and we shall have lower tenders, less jobbery, and no deals. The minister tells us that he will not give the information now, because if he does he is afraid it will assist in the carrying out of these deals against the government. But the fact that the people have full information in regard to these matters will prevent deals, if anything can be done in that direction. Therefore, we are entitled to have this motion passed, and to have the minister give full information to parliament. The plan that has been pursued in the past must stop-that of the government, on their own sweet will, without giving sufficient reasons, saying, We cannot bring down the papers about this or that. Parliament is entitled to receive full information on all these matters, and should not be satisfied without


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: having the fullest information in the papers asked for by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: As I understand it, the only thing that, in the opinion of the hon. minister, should be kept secret is the prices of the various competitors, in the event of his asking for further tenders. I would not wish to urge the government to divulge a matter of business which it would be in the public interest to keep private. Still, when that feature is considered, what is there in it ? These tenderers, whoever they may be, have that information. Each one can give the amount of his tender to another ; they can impart that information to any one they please ; the minister cannot prevent them. That is the only reason advanced for withholding the papers. It seems to me, in listening to the discussion, that the interests of the department would be served by the amounts of these tenders being known, should the department have to resort to fresh tenders. There has been no argument at all to support the hon. minister in his determination to keep these papers back. As I understand it, he has these gentlemen in his hands, if they are responsible parties. One safeguard, however, seems to have been overlooked altogether in order to secure bona fide tenderers ; that is, the usual deposit has not been required. A very large amount of money is involved in the construction of these boats, and the ordinary course followed in all the departments is to require a deposit with each tender. That is done for the very purpose of preventing the withdrawing of tenders. The hon. gentleman says that one of the tenders which has been accepted has been withdrawn. But the tenderer cannot withdraw under the law, and, if he is responsible, it seems to me that it would be the duty of the department to hold him to his contract. The House being in session, and there being now an actual contract, it seems to me, unless some other reason is given, that the minister is unduly cautious in withholding the information asked for.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: The hon. gentleman knows that there has never been a case in the history of the government when tenders have been communicated to the House before the contract has been entered into. There are six or eight of these tenderers, and if I published the names the lower one would withdraw altogether. In this case the lowest tender has been accepted, the contract has been made out, it will be executed in a short time, and the moment it is executed the information will be given to my hon. friend. There is no disposition to withhold the information ; but I could not undertake to advise the House to make a new departure and publish the tenders which have been received before the contract is entered into. It is only a

question of time, and if tlie lion, gentleman renews liis motion at tlie proper time, 1 will tell him when the contract is entered into, and bring down the information.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Has the hon. gentleman not introduced a new departure by calling for tenders without a deposit ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will explain that when the papers are brought down.


Mr.   F.@: I). MONK (.Jacques Cartier). I feel disposed to support the position taken by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). I think the only papers to be withheld from parliament are papers which are withheld by ministers of the Crown for grave reasons of state. Papers relating to anything done by the departments when parliament is sitting, the House has a right to see.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, no.
Mr. -MONK. I differ from the hon. gentleman. What difference does it make that certain contractors have sent in tenders, and have failed to comply with those tenders V The House of Commons has a right to see these papers-in fact, all documents having reference to public business except documents which the Crown sees fit to withhold for grave reasons of state. No doubt the minister will have to call for new tenders even if the names of the tenderers are divulged ; but the tenderers who will tender afterwards will all do so under the same conditions, and it is possible that they will tender at lower figures than before. But I lay my claim on the broad principle that except documents which are withheld by the Crown for grave reasons of state we have a right to see all documents.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The question involved is one of principle, applying not to this particular department alone, but to all departments which invite public tenders. I have to dissent entirely from the principle laid down by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as to the right of parliament to control these documents in that broad and unqualified way that he states. He admits that ministers may withhold documents for reasons of state. If we accept that definition, the minister of this department says that for reasons of state he does not deem it proper to bring these papers down. No one disputes the authority of parliament; but the public business could not be carried on in the departments If the principle which the hon. gentleman has laid down were adopted. Take the Department of Railways, the Department of Public Works, or the Post Office Department, which make many contracts ; if, the moment a number of tenders were received, the list were pro-17
duced in the House of Commons, there would be an end to all competition. It is said that in this particular case the tenderers themselves have probably a knowledge of one another's tenders. That is only a matter of guess work ; they may or may not. But it is positive that if we bring the papers down, every one of them will have that information, and they will have an invitation to put their heads together and make a combination against the public interest. Those who are in the habit of inviting tenders know perfectly well that when you have a list of tenders before you, it is absolutely necessary, in the public interest, to treat that list as confidential until the contract has been signed, sealed and delivered. The adoption of any policy at variance with that would not be in the public interest, and no self-respecting government should allow such a policy to be adopted.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: If I remember rightly, in nearly every state of the union one of the conditions in the letting of contracts for public works is that the tenders shall be opened in public, and this condition is insisted on in the cities and municipalities in nearly every part of America. It is looked upon as one of the guarantees also of proper administration to the public. It is true that a different principle is adopted by the present government.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And the previous government and all governments in Canada.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but that does not make the principle laid down by the Minister of Finance the correct one. The time must arrive when, in order to assure the parties tendering that they shall have fair-play and to protect the interests of the public, a day will be fixed in every case for the reception and opening of tenders, and all tenders will be opened in public. That is the proper practice, and the sooner we adopt it the better.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How long has the hon. gentleman been of that opinion ?


John Graham Haggart: Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I never opened a tender in my life.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is not the question. We do not open them.


John Graham Haggart: The tenders in my department were always opened by the officers and a report given to me by 'them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So they are now.


John Graham Haggart: I never opened a tender, and I defy the hon. gentleman to state that I have done so. No tender for anything in my department was ever opened by me nor was I present at the opening.



Everything done was done in public and above board.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me ? I did not ask him whether he had ever opened the tenders, but I did ask him to tell this House how long he has entertained the opinion he has now expressed.


John Graham Haggart: I am coming to that particular question. I freely admit that the principle I advocate now, I did not practise when I was administering the affairs of the country, and I admit that the present government is simply following up the practice followed by us. But there is this difference to be taken into account. There is a stranger at present ruling on the throne of the Stuart, and therefore it is perhaps time now that a system, which might not have been used when we were in power, should now be changed and a different principle adopted. But I was simply answering the statement of the Minister of Finance, that all governments would have to follow the policy adopted by this one and that to adopt any other would put au end almost to constitutional government. 1 wanted simply to point out that in nearly every country in the world-I do not know about Great Britain, but in all the states of the union-the contractor, before he tenders, insists that the day of opening of tenders should be published and that he should be given the opportunity of being present when the tenders are opened. I think perhaps that a principle which might have been worked honestly in our time, when there was a fair and honest administration in office, would be opened to suspicion at present and another should be adopted.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope that the doctrine is not being laid down now by the Liberal party that a new and progressive principle should not be adopted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A pernicious principle.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a pernicious principle which the hon. gentleman is advocating, because it leads to log rolling. It is when the tenders are not made public that the people get the worst of it.
The principle of publishing the tenders is adopted, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says, in all municipal corporations. That system prevents log rolling, but if you keep the tenders dark, log rolling is bound to continue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that a deposit should have been insisted on as a guarantee that the party tendering is prepared to go on with the work, if his tender be accepted. Had that been done in this case, the successful tenderer would have been bound to carry out the contract. The hon. minister said that the lowest tenderers had dropped out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There were two distinct tenders one for a small ship and the other for a large one. The lowest tenderer for the small skip dropped out. I cannot tell you why he dropped out, but the lowest tenderer for the large ship accepted the contract and it is about to be signed. When it is signed I will bring it down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not make any difference whether the tender was for a small ship or a large one. Had the party tendering been compelled to put up a deposit, he would not now back out. There is a strong suspicion that he may have consulted with others and have dropped out for reasons.


The PRIME MINISTER (Itt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The question is not, as suggested by my hon, friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) whether the system is right or wrong or susceptible of improvement. The question is whether or not those papers should be laid on the Table at this moment. No doubt all transactions of the government have to be communicated to parliament to whom the government is responsible, but my hon. friend knows very well, and so does my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that it is against all rules of constitutional government to bring down any papers before the transaction they relate to is completed. The reasons are obvious. There are private interests which might be placed in jeopardy if communicated to the public before hand, and the position taken by my hon. friend on my right is a proper one, namely, that as soon as the transaction is completed the papers will be brought down. But it stands to reason that, at this moment, when the government is engaged in a private transaction with private parties, the interest of those parties may be put in jeopardy if communicated to the public. The public interest is not the only thing to be considered ; the private interest involved must be considered also. Private parties having transactions with the government may fairly say : We do not want our business to go to the country at large ; we do not want the nation to be taken into our confidence. But, when the business is settled, the matter will be ready for the public. This is the rule which has been invariably followed in this House. I could cite instances without number in which that rule has been strictly adhered to.


Edward Gawler Prior: The reason I put this motion on the paper is that there is a very strong suspicion in British Columbia that the letting of these contracts has not been straight and square. This feeling exists, not only amongst the men in the firms that tendered, but amongst others who have been watching what has been going on. I was told by two, aye, by three, of the tenderers that the specifications for these two ships were the most extraordinary they had ever


John Graham Haggart: had put into their hands. For one thing, 1 believe, though tenders were called for the steamers, yet no specification for engines was included. Then, again, no deposit was asked on any of the tenders, and that, in itself, was a very suspicious circumstance, according to our idea. These contracts must have involved about $100,000 for the two vessels


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Edward Gawler Prior: Very nearly. One was for about $75,000, and the other about $15,000. Anyhow, we know how these things go. There would be extras probably, if a friend of the government got the contract.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It happened that the successful tenderer was a very strong Conservative.


Edward Gawler Prior: And what do we find now ? That the successful tenderer has been let out scot free-there was no deposit, and he has been allowed to resign; and, no doubt, we shall see a friend of the government get the contract

*


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At a higher price.


Edward Gawler Prior: Yes, at a higher price. That is the worst feature of it-that the lowest tenderer, owing to the neglect of the department in not asking for a deposit, is allowed to throw up the contract, and the country will have to pay more for the steamer than if the business had been properly carried out. The hon. minister said he was willing to bring down the papers as soon as the contract was signed. He will have to call for new tenders, or give the contract to another, and two contracts will have to be signed-and we do not know how long it will be before this is done. As for the argument that, in former times, papers were not brought down under the circumstance now existing, I will read what Bourinot says :
Whilst members have every tacility afforded them to obtain all the information they require on matters of public concern, occasions may arise when the government will feel constrained to refuse certain papers on the ground that their production would be inconvenient or injurious to the public interest. A high authority writes on this point : ' Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of the ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions ; were it otherwise it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour.' Consequently, there are frequent cases in which the ministers refuse information, especially at some delicate stage of an investigation or negotiation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR, It seems to amuse hon. gentlemen opposite, that I should have a 174
little assistance from a legal friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper). Bourinot says further :
Mr. Mackenzie expressed his opinion that everything that referred to the giving out of contracts of a technical and public nature, everything except the moral and personal reasons why any persons had been passed over, should be laid before the House.
Now, I contend that there is no delicate situation in this case. There is no reason that I can see why the papers should not be brought down.


Mr. WILSON.: I think the hon. minister should give a reason why they asked for tenders without making a deposit necessary. That has been the principle heretofore, and it ought to be the principle now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have stated that I would explain when the papers were brought down.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Will the hon. minister please state how he knows that the successful tenderer was a Conservative ?
Motion negatived.


CANADA AND ITALY-IMPROVEMENT OF TRADE RELATIONS.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the Italian consul for Canada and the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, respecting proposed improvement of the trade relations between Canada and Italy, and of all correspondence leading up to the placing of Canadian goods by Italy upon its general tariff.
He said: I believe that this correspondence, when it is brought down, will go a great way to show what is the attitude taken by the different countries of Europe with regard to ourselves since the preferential tariff has been put in force. On a previous occasion I urged in this House that the adoption of that tariff would place the countries of Europe in a situation of hostility and offence toward Canada, and would contribute greatly to the diminution of our commercial relations with those countries ; while, on the other hand, the adoption of a preferential tariff without any negotiations tending to give us a really preferred position upon the British market, would not give us that advantageous position in that market which we have a fair right, I think, to look forward to. Speaking particularly in regard to Italy, I may say, for the information of hon. members, that a movement has been on foot, in the province of Quebec at any rate, and in the city of Montreal, more particularly, for many years, to improve our commercial relations with that great country. The object of those who, in years past, have

laboured in that direction, has been to give us such commercial relations with Italy as would lead to a favoured interchange of goods between Italy and Canada. There are many products of ours which would find a market in Italy, and many of their products which we require. There is a great demand in Italy, and has been for years, for lumber. Though I find it impossible to get absolutely reliable statistics, because most of our business with Italy has been through French channels, and most of our shipping with Italy, been done through French ports, still there is no doubt, and statistics will show it, that we have in the past, through the ports of Bordeaux and Marseilles, carried on a commerce in lumber with Italy. We would find also in that country a very profitable market for much of the mineral wealth of this country. There is also a demand in Italy that would afford a profitable market for our Canadian pork. On the other hand, we take from Italy at the present moment, olives, olive oil, wines of different kinds, most of them coming through France, or many of them, Italian pastes, canned fish and other products of that country.
As I stated a moment ago, earnest efforts were made in the city of Montreal by men interested in that trade to establish favourable commercial relations with Italy. I might mention Mr. C. H. Cattelier, a well-known manufacturer of Montreal, au Italian, who laboured for a long time in that direction, and Mr. Cressy, advocate, and others. But we were under the disadvantage up to within a few years of having in Montreal no regular consular agent from Italy. There was a consul resident in Montreal, but he was an unpaid consul, and his situation was such that he took no part in that movement beyond a certain general interest, because it was impossible for him to deal with the government with that authority which belongs to a regular consular agent sent from a foreign government, and being to a certain extent in the diplomatic commercial service of that country. For four or five years back we have had in Canada a consul general from Italy, a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the commercial wants of that coutnry, and who, upon his arrival here, gave the subject his particular consideration, and applied himself in a special manner to the negotiation of commercial arrangements between Canada ahd that country, under the sanction, of course, of the British authorities. Now, Sir, I hold information, though not obtained from that gentleman, that in the prosecution of that object he had several interviews with the members of this government, and I believe correspondence with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and with the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as well. I am under the impression, though I do not i


Frederick Debartzch Monk: feel justified in formulating any judgment until that correspondence is before us, that the correspondence will reveal the fact that the government of this country, instead of seizing this opportunity of improving our commercial relations with Italy, were deplorably remiss in giving the subject that attention which it is claimed by many it deserves. At any rate, there have been no successful negotiations, so far as I have been able to ascertain, to secure a conclusion of some arrangements which would increase our commerce with Italy, nothing whatever has been concluded, no arrangement has been arrived at. So far as I have been able to ascertain, our position in regard to that matter has been altered. We occupy now the same position that we did before under the commercial treaties that country had made with Great Britain. We were not upon what is called there the general tariff, we were upon a special tariff, according to which the duty upon such articles as we sent to Italy was far less than it is according to the general tariff. There arg two tariffs in Italy; there is the special tariff which is favourable to some countries, and there is the general tariff which is far higher, and which applies to all other countries. As I understand it, we are now upon the general tariff of that country, and consequently in a more unfavourable position than we were before.
As I said a moment ago, it is impossible to have accurate data as to what our commerce with Italy is at the present time. But I have ascertained that during last year, in spite of these unfavourable circumstances, our exports to Italy amounted in value to $260,45S, and our imports from that country during the past year were only $144,573 ; that is to say, there was a decrease, so far as these statistics are reliable, in our imports of $250,000. As I stated, the object of this motion is to procure this correspondence. Of course I will suspend judgment myself and ask the House to suspend judgment until we see it; but I think it is in the interest of the House and of the country that we should know whether these negotiations are going on, and what has been the result so far.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his motion not only calls for correspondence exchanged between the Italian consul and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but it also calls for correspondence regarding the placing of Canada by Italy upon its general tariff. On that phase of the question there might be some correspondence of a diplomatic nature, and to procure it the hon. gentleman ought to move for an address instead of simply moving for an order of the House. I would call his attention to Bourinot upon the subject, who says that correspondence between the Dominion, British and foreign

governments is moved for by an address.
I do not know whether there is any correspondence with foreign governments in relation to this question, but as the motion calls for such correspondence, I think it is better to call for it by an address.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will change the terms of the motion in the sense indicated by Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: There can be no objection, of course, to the hon. gentleman's motion for an address passing, and such correspondence as we have in our possession which is not of a confidential character, we will certainly bring down. But, I desire to mention to him that at the express request of the gentleman to whom he referred, the Italian consul, a very large portion of this correspondence was regarded as informal and strictly confidential. That, we will not be able to bring down, as the hon. gentleman will no doubt understand. With respect to the question of trade with Italy, he is right in stating that it is probable that a considerable portion of that does not come from Italian ports, but through French ports, and possibly, to some extent from those of one or two other countries, and it may be, therefore, that our trade returns do not very accurately show the actual amount of our trade with that country. That, he will notice, would apply rather more particularly to the question of importations. There has been a great drop in the importations, and I think it is not unlikely that it will be found that a considerable part of that drop arose from the very circumstances to which he has alluded. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman is, perhaps, aware that while the importations diminished our exports to Italy considerably increased. Our exports rose, I think in very nearly the same proportion, certainly as large a proportion, though perhaps not to the same amount, that our imports appear to have diminished. However, I can just say to the hon. gentleman, that we are very desirous of extending our trade and commerce with the Mediterranean nations as well as with any other countries with which we are likely to be able to open trade relations. As I had the opportunity of pointing out last session, one of the really important objects that we hoped to attain by the display of Canadian products at Paris, was the calling of the attention of the Latin nations more particularly to the resources of Canada, and explaining to them how they might be utilized for profitable exchange. The hon. gentleman, I believe, is right, in stating, as regards a considerable number of articles, although, if my memory serves me, not as regards all, the Italian government did accord us some more favourable terms. Personally, I should be very glad indeed to discuss the question with the hon. gentleman
when the correspondence is brought down, but he will see that it is hardly expedient at this present moment, pending the production of such correspondence as we can lay on the Table, to proceed further with the discussion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, of course, I would not ask for any confidential communications. I may say, to put myself right, and also in justification of the Italian consul, that I am in no way in communication with him. In fact, I have only met him once or twice, and upon inquiry in Montreal, before I made this motion I found that he had left for Italy. It is merely upon the rumours on the street that I have made this demand for this correspondence. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will understand that we would like to see anything that is not confidential.	.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would also take this occasion to ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, if it is true or not, that the government has been notified of this change to which I alluded; that is to say, of the change resulting in Canada being removed from the former list or special tariff of Italy, and being placed now upon the general or less favourable tariff.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think the hon. gentleman is correct, but I will make a special inquiry.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, this debate, short as it is, has brought up one of the most important issues in this country, and the sooner the government of this country come to a new idea in regard to our tariff, the better will they be able to deal with questions of this kind. There is a new doctrine in Europe, and this is the doctrine of tariff for tariff, reciprocity for reciprocity. Every nation there is adopting that principle, and introducing it in the shape of having a maximum and a minimum tariff. By that they are enabled to maintain friendly relations with countries friendly to them, and by it they are in a position to retaliate on a nation that treats them unfavourably in regard to trade. Italy has such a tariff to-day; Russia has such a tariff to-day, and Russia is using it with great effect upon the United States. The sooner we in Canada come to recognize that principle, and have in our tariff maximum and minimum figures the better we will be able to deal with other nations. I go further. I was taxed on the floor of this House the other day by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to what my opinion might be in regard to preferential trade. I do not believe in onesided trade, even if it is with the mother land. The preference we have to-day is a preference not given to Great Britain, but

given to the manufacturers and workingmen of Great Britain at the expense of the manufacturers and workingmen here in Canada, I am against that out and out. I believe that the Conservative party, as a party, is against it out and out, and I believe the Canadian people are against it. The sooner we adopt this plan of a maximum and a minimum tariff, or, as I prefer to put it, of preference for preference, tariff for tariff, the sooner will we be able to extend our trade in different directions and upbuild this country. In connection with the old land, I believe that if proper representations were made to them, they will give a preference to us in consideration of the preference given by us to them, and the government made a great mistake the day they gave to the British manufacturers and the British workmen a preference in this market without getting one for ourselves. The opportunity is now coming in connection with the new Commonwealth of Australia, where they are adopting, as I believe they will adopt, the principle of protection, and a tariff for the encouragement of their own trade-the opportunity will present itself if the government is alive and up to date, to make some kind of a preferential arrangement with the Australian Commonwealth. The idea was brought out at the Toronto Board of Trade by a prominent merchant of that city, Mr. Hees, it was supported by the merchants of Toronto, and 1 believe, it will be supported by the people of this country. It is in line with what I have laid down already in my few remarks, tariff for tariff, preference for preference, and unless we frame our tariff in that way, and unless large powers are given to the Governor in Council to administer that tariff, we will not be able to hold our own with other countries. To-day the nations of Europe are being organized on that principle as against the United States, and they will be organized on that principle as against us. That is the coming principle, that is the rule that is demanded by the commerce of the different nations, and we must come to that in this country. I have believed in that principle ever since I have been taking any interest in our affairs, and the people of Canada are coming to that. The Conservative party has long ago come to that.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Why don't you abolish the preferential tariff ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am ready to abolish a preferential tariff to-day that is unfair to the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workman.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Why don't you do it ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Why don't you vote against it in this parliament ?
Mr. MAC-LEAN.


William Findlay Maclean: I declare myself against it now. We will vote against it, and we will have it up in this House, and if the people are consulted, we will be sustained in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. gentlemen claim great credit for what they have done in adopting that tariff, but they have done something not for the benefit of the empire. The way to do something- for the benefit of the empire is to do something for the empire as a whole. If we wish to support the empire as we did by sending our soldiers to South Africa, present the empire with a great warship as Cape Colony is doing today, and as Australia is proposing to do, but do not do something at the expense of the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workmen. Now, I would like to have an expression of opinion from the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), or rather the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) on this particular question, and let him tell us, to-day, if he wishes to build up our trade, whether he is prepared to adopt this new principle, a principle that is being recognized all over the world which will enable Canada to make headway, the principle of the maximum and minimum tariff, administering it on a line that will produce trade between two countries with benefit to both.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Mr. Speaker, I think that we may congratulate ourselves upon the fact, that, before a great while, we shall be able to ascertain what the opinion of the Conservative party upon the preferential tariff is. We on this side declared that we believed that was sound policy, and we asked the support of the people upon that ground, and were successful. We asked the Conservative party to say what their policy was upon the question. The hon. gentleman who at that time acted as the financial leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Geo. E. Foster-a gentleman who is not apparently dictating the financial policy of the Conservative party at the present time, but who was the recognized mouthpiece of the party upon financial questions at that time- Mr. Foster very carefully refrained from taking any such position as that taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) just now, and for which he. received the plaudits of his friends on that side of the House. These gentlemen opposite were very careful when they went before the country a few months ago, not to declare themselves as opposed to the principle of the preferential tariff. And, Sir, the success which the hon. gentlemen attained in only one province of this Dominion would not have been attained if they had declared the sentiment which they have declared in the House this afternoon. They succeeded in convincing perhaps the

majority of the people of Ontario that they were the truly loyal people, hut my hou. friend (Mr. Maclean) says to-day that that is not true, and that he is opposed to any preferences whatever being given to the manufacturer or the workingmen of Great Britain.


William Findlay Maclean: As against ourselves.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: At the expense of the Canadian manufacturer or workingman.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain at whose expense he would give a preference. Are we going to take the tariff off the goods coming in to some other country ? We do not regulate the tariffs which protect manufacturers and workmen in other countries, and when we give a preference if it is to be at any one's expense, it is at the expense of the manufacturer and workingman of Canada. We go a little further and we say, that it is the policy of the Liberal party of Canada to reduce the duties and to remove to some extent the burdens of the excessive tariff which was imposed upon imported goods by the late Conservative government.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. Is that the opinion you expressed during the last election with regard to the tariff on agricultural implements in Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The question of agricultural implements was discussed very fully in the elections in the province of Manitoba, and we took our stand upon the duty on agricultural implements as it is to-day, and if my hon. friend will count the number of members who were returned from the western portion of Canada he will see that a considerable majority of the different constituencies recorded themselves in favour of the policy of the government. I have not risen for the purpose of making a speech upon the general fiscal policy of the government, but for the purpose of calliug attention to the fact that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has made a clear and distinct declaration of the attitude of the Conservative party upon the question of the preferential tariff ; that he apparently received the unanimous applause of his friends on that side of the House when he made that declaration, and that the people of Canada now know, what they perhaps never had any official statement of before, namely : that the Conservative party is opposed as a party to the preferential clause in our tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: A one-sided preference.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) would have been wiser if he had refrained from making such remarks
in this House. He says he is glad to know that the Conservatives have now declared their policy. He knows that we have never been afraid to declare our policy, and that we have adhered to the policy of protection which he and his friends opposed for twenty years, and which, when they came into power, they dare not remove from the statute-book of Canada although they were hostile to it. These gentlemen opposite have adopted a two-faced policy, professing on one hand to be free traders, while on the other hand they continue the protective policy of the Conservative party. I call that a dishonest political proceeding on the part of the members of the government.


Mr. DAYIS.: What about Hugh John in Manitoba ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, what about Hugh John. What about the Minister of Interior who came out for free agricultural implements and declared to the people of Manitoba that he would never rest until the duty on agricultural implements was totally abolished.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: That statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) is wholly incorrect.


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Take it back.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Take what back ; I do not take orders from over there. I read the minister's speeches when he bitterly attacked the duty on agricultural implements, and when he pledged himself to do what he could to remove the duty. I would like to ask him if he justifies the duty on agricultural implements as it is to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I went before my constituents and I justified the tariff as it stands to-day upon agricultural implements, and Mr. Hugh John Macdonald


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Never mind about Hugh John Macdonald. I am not asking you about him. I did noli ask you to make a speech.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, the candidate of these gentlemen that are for protection, declared that he was for free inmplements.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of the Interior says he justified the 20 per cent duty that the Conservatives imposed upon agricultural implements. He pledged himself that he would oppose it in parliament, but now he turns around without any justification and defends the 20 per cent duty that he previously attacked when it was the policy of the Conservatives. That is the miserable position that the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) places himself in to-day. He tells us also that his party has removed the burdens of the people. How

much have they removed the burdens of the people by their present tariff ? Not more than one-quarter of 1 per cent on the dollar, which makes it in round figures precisely the same duty so far as the burden of the people for each dollar is concerned, but it makes an increase of more than $1.30 per head on the population of Ontario, or largely more than $0,000,000 of burdens placed upon the people of all Canada. That is the policy the Minister of the Interior defends to-day. The Liberals for twenty years proclaimed themselves free traders, but the moment they came into power they increased the burdens of the people-if custom taxation is a burden on the people, and it Is-very largely. They increased it last year by $7,000,000 over previous years, and I suppose that the Minister of Finance will at an early day get up and glorify the great Liberal party because they have placed this further burden upon our people. The Minister of the Interior speaks about the members from western Canada. Well, I do not think he had very much to do with the members from western Canada outside his own province of Manitoba, and I would like to ask him what was the result in Manitoba ? The Minister of the Interior was elected by a large majority, but pretty nearly all his colleagues in the province of Manitoba were defeated. The whole resources of the empire were evidently centred upon the Minister of the Interior and he let his colleagues from that province go to the dogs. He did not care anything about them so long as he himself was elected. So far as his sneer at the province of Ontario is concerned, that we were only successful in one province, that is not true, because we were more successful than he was in his own province. We are proud of the record made by the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. We are proud of the members


Mr. BOURASSA.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of order. I think we are very far from the question of trade relations with the Kingdom of Italy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that the specific question before the House is for correspondence respecting trade relations between Canada and Italy ; but the discussion has become more general, and I think the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) is quite in order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a very wide subject, and I am not surprised at the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) squealing out ; because every time his party's indiscretions and want of fealty to their former professions are shown up, so much the worse for that party. I was saying, when interrupted, that we were proud of the representation from the province of Ontario, and it does not very well become the Minister of the Interior to throw out his sneers at


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: the great province of Ontario, which, we have often been told from that side of the House, pays three-fifths of the taxes and contributes three-fifths of the wealth of the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say a few words with regard to the Minister of the Interior. He said : We stood by our policy in Manitoba, and look at the result. Now, I remember very distinctly reading a report of his speech in Manitoba, and it was to the following effect : It is true, I was against the duty on agricultural implements ; I was a free trader in that respect ; but you must remember that I am only one of the members of the cabinet, and the rule there is that the will of the majority must prevail, and the minority fall in with it ; I still hold the same view, but since the majority of the cabinet decided that the other was the better policy, I had to fall in with it. And now the hon. gentleman takes credit to himself for having stood by that policy in Manitoba, when the reverse was the case. The whole tenor of his speech was that he could not get his own view to prevail and had to accept the view that was not acceptable to the people of Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin! moved :
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 speciiic 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 does, from 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 pa_rt of the railway corporations, thereby subjecting both the rail-
529 FEBRUARY 27, 1901 530	
way 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 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 lands, 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. He said : Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the * Hansard ' of this House for May 2, 1895, and I find that on that day a number of the prominent members of this House who are present to-day expressed themselves upon the subject with which I am dealing, although not exactly on the same lines. My lion, friend from North York (Hon. Mr. Muloek) who is now Postmaster General, introduced a bill on the subject. On the same occasion the Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright also expressed himself upon it ; the hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, also expressed himself on the question, as well as a number of other prominent members of the House. These gentlemen all admitted the correctness of the principle of the resolution which I have moved. All they required was to have it put into shape, and I have arrived here to put it into shape. 1 have no desire to prolong discussion, but simply wish to say that the railway companies have no reason to complain should this resolution pass. The people of this country have established a portfolio almost entirely in the interests of these companies. That department costs us, taking into account the minister's salary and the salaries of deputies and those of the clerks, about $20,000 per annum, expended in the interests of these railway companies, and we have a perfect right to ask that they should in return give us something towards the expenses of the members of this House coming to attend their public duty. I could refer to the debate on the 2nd May, 1895, for arguments in support of this resolution, advanced by gentlemen now holding office under the Crown. I believe that in that debate the Minister of Marine (then Mr. Davies), said that the Canadian Pacific Railway had received some $62,000,000 from this country, and the Grand Trunk Railway $25,000,000, and neither had paid one cent back. If we obliged these companies to carry members to and from this House once a year, that would not begin to pay the interest. It is about time that the railway companies should pay some-	thing to this country for the benefits they have received. The city of Toronto has an electric system which contributes to the corporation some $80,000 per annum. Mr. CLARKE. Nearly double that. Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin). Well, I always like to keep within the mark. It is high time that the railway companies should be asked to do this small measure of justice, and thus relieve members from the criticism and the charge, that having railway passes in their pockets, they are bound to vote just as the railway companies ask them. I want to relieve hon. members from the suspicion of becoming tools of the railway companies by the acceptance of railway passes. I am satisfied that such a suspicion is absolutely without foundation, but none the less it rankles in the public mind, and ought to be removed. I was told here a few days ago by a gentleman who occupies a seat in the Senate, at one time a member of this House was refused a pass owing to the stand he took, that for several years the railway companies had refused to grant him a pass, simply because he opposed some legislation they desired, and there are members of this House who pay their railway fares simply because their constituents are somewhat jealous on this matter. It would be much better that we should come here with passes rightly given to us, and not receive any mileage indemnity. There are hon. gentlemen who come here on passes, and then are paid $200 or $300 mileage because they happen to live a long distance from the capital. That is not properly understood throughout this country, or these gentlemen would not be elected to the position of being able to receive that favour during more than one parliament. Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg). I heartily concur, Mr. Speaker, in the object of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), in moving this resolution. I have noticed with some curiosity the different positions taken by some hon. members in the debate in this House in 1895, when a Bill was introduced dealing with this question, and that taken by them in 1898 when a Bill dealing with the same question was introduced by the former member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Bostock). I was some-j what surprised to find that many gentlemen, who spoke heartily on the first occasion in favour of the Bill, found reason on the second occasion to recant their former position, or else were absent from their seats. I must say, in my opinion, it hardly becomes the dignity of a member of this House to travel on favours granted by a railway company, especially when we consider that these companies must necessarily apply to parliament frequently for legislation in their interests. Undoubtedly a well-defined suspicion exists in the public mind i that the complimentary tickets which these
[Stage Direction]
companies bestow, are no small factor In putting through legislation in their favour ; and that to this cause is attributable the very easy manner in which such legislation is frequently irat through. I do not for one moment question the sincerity of any hon. gentleman when he tells me that the acceptance of a pass makes no difference whatever in his attitude towards the railway companies in this House, but I do think that there is cause for the suspicion that, taking it in the aggregate, this House is rather more lenient and less circumspect in dealing with railway legislation than it would otherwise be.
It is hardly fair that we should draw mileage from the government and at the same time accept railway passes from the companies. I do not pretend to be supersensitive in the matter, but I must say that the two seem incompatible. I think it only right, in fact I think it imperative, that members elected to this House should have the opportunity of travelling free over all the railway lines in the country if they see fit. They should have every opportunity and facility to visit various parts of the country and the public works there constructed ; and should the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution not have taken the proper method of reaching and attaining the object he has in view, I hope we will have a promise from the government that hereafter, in all Bills coming before us for the granting of favours to railway companies, a clause will be introduced compelling these companies to give members of the House of Commons the privilege of travelling free over their lines. That would meet the case exactly, but in the meantime, I propose to support the motion as it stands.
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: While I have seconded the motion in the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), I wish to say that I do not quite agree with the resolution in its entirety.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If these hon. gentlemen who interrupt will have a little patience, I will explain my position. My view as regards the mileage allowance is that it is given, not only for the purpose of covering the cost of railway tickets, but the pullman fares and board while travelling, and also as an allowance for the time occupied in travel. I would have preferred had the resolution of the hon. gentleman simply been that the cost of the ticket be deducted from the mileage allowance, but inasmuch as he has not seen fit to make that provision, I am quite willing to second the resolution, and vote for it as it stands. Will those hon. gentlemen who laughed a while ago, smile now ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Where is the joke ?


Mr. PUTTEE.: 


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. gentleman is too obtuse to see it, I am afraid it would be useless for me to try and make it clear to him. You will recollect, Sir, that the former member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Bostock) introduced a Bill some two sessions ago for the purpose of regulating this very matter, and if my memory serves me correctly, a number of hon. members supported that Bill. I myself was in accord with its provisions, but I do not think I was present when the vote was taken, and because I was not present, I was accused in a western paper which supports the government of not being in favour of it. I may say that I myself have been frequently vilified because I accepted a pass from a railway company, and I feel strongly that this matter ought not to be left in its present position. The opportunity should not be allowed any one of accusing any hon. member of being favourable to a railway company because he accepts a pass from it, and for that reason, if no other, I would support this motion. But I believe further, that it is in the interests of the country that all members of parliament should be free to travel throughout the country and visit the various public' works, if they so desire, without having to pay their railway fares. They would then be able to inspect the public works themselves, and satisfy themselves as to the utility of these works, and the desirability of carrying them on. I am not one of those who think that hon. members are influenced in their conduct by the acceptance of a pass, and I do not think it should be left in the mouth of any one to question the motive of any hon. member who accepts a railway pass. For these reasons I propose to vote for the resolution of my hon. friend from West Elgin.


William Findlay Maclean: I recollect very well the discussion referred to by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) this afternoon. In that discussion the present Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), and, I believe, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), all pledged themselves on the floor of this House to this extent, namely, that the practice of taking passes and mileage indemnity was an improper one, and one which put hon. members in a bad light before the public. And they all agreed that something should be done to remedy the evil. If these hon. gentlemen will look up the record, they will find that they pledged themselves to do something in this sense. It is a public scandal that members of parliament should accept passes from the railway companies, travel free, and then go into our accountant's office and draw mileage for expenses they never paid.
There is an agitation in this House to-day for an increase in the indemnity of mem-

bers of parliament, and one justification given for tlie taking of mileage by members who travel on railway passes, is that the sessional indemnity is not sufficient. I hope that a reform will take place, and declare myself in favour of an increased indemnity. But I am opposed to the taking of mileage, as we take it now, and the use of passes. These gentlemen who are responsible for the conduct of this House, and who have pledged themselves to effect a reform in this matter-the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Postmaster General-are bound to express their opinion on this resolution, and are bound by the promise they gave, to wipe out this scandal. The people do not like it, the public press have spoken against it, and the proper thing to do is either to make the railways carry members free or increase the indemnity, and give a larger mileage allowance. The mileage allowance now given is not simply intended to cover the travelling expenses of a member on the one trip to Ottawa and return. I know of three or four members to whom it costs as much as $300 and $400 a session in railway fares to and from their homes during the session, and it is needless to add that these hon. gentlemen pay their own fares. The thing as it stands to-day, is all wrong. It lowers the dignity of this House in the eyes of the people and ought to be abolished. As regards the question of railway fares, the railway companies should be obliged to carry the people's representatives free. There are countries where that is the law. In Prance, Italy and some other European countries, and in a good many states of the Union, that is the law. It is high time this scandal should be abolished. I am quite willing to vote for the resolution of my hon. friend from Elgin, and I do so mainly as a protest against the present condition of things. I say it here now, and have said it before in my own constituency, that I am in favour of an increase in the sessional indemnity to hon. members.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The question brought up by this resolution is not a new one. A couple of sessions ago it was brought before this House by the then member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Bostoek), and it provoked a discussion of several hours. On that occasion the former leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper) took Mr. Bostoek to task for having brought up his resolution, and twitted him with being a young member, and like many other young members, a faddist-anxious to bring up something in order to satisfy his constituents he was doing something. I do not say that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), is moved by any motive of that kind, because I have no doubt he could do something in his riding without having to come here and do it in the House. As no doubt the hon. gentleman belongs to the patrons or the grangers,
I presume he does not accept railway passes. No doubt, then, he would be able to get a pass and use it. We all know the fable of the fox who lost his tail. After suffering that loss he went around among the other foxes trying to persuade them that it was tlie proper thing for them to do without their tails also. There may possibly be some resemblance in this to the case of my hon. friend. I suppose this is a subject that should be treated somewhat seriously, but the first thing we should consider is whether this government or this House are in position to compel the railways to issue free passes to members. That is not decided, and 1 think it should be decided before action is taken in the matter. The question was discussed here two years ago for three or four hours, and I believe that other discussions of a similar kind have taken place in years gone by. It never seems to have occurred to those who brought up the subject that the government may not have power to compel railway companies to grant passes to members of parliament. If members of the House wish to accept these passes. I do not think there is any member of this parliament that would be influenced by the granting of such a pass. It is simply given as a matter of courtesy. I do not think such an imputation should be cast upon members as to say that it would influence any of them, one way or the other, in dealing with proposed legislation coming before the House. Before wasting time in discussing this question, I would like to understand what power the government has over railway companies in this matter. If they have no power at all, there is no reason why we should spend time in discussing it. In the meantime, if any hon. memBer wishes to accept a pass, that is a matter between himself and the railway corporation, and something as I understand it, that no other person has anything to do with.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: It has been often said that bad company will have a certain effect upon men. My association with members of the House has not been so very long that, when riding on a free pass given to me as a member of the House, I have felt quite as comfortable as I should have felt if I held that pass as a matter of right. I have ridden more or less on railway passes given in connection with business, but I have always felt that I had given value to the railway from which I had received the pass. I do not have the same feeling when I ride on a pass under present circumstances. If there was some way to compel the railways to give a pass that we could accept as a matter of right I should feel more at home. If the government should think it best to make it incumbent- as the resolution says-upon railway companies to grant passes to members, that would accomplish what is desired in one

way. But I believe there is a better plan. If this proposal is gone on with I shall ask for an amendment under which it will be the duty of the government to furnish passes to all the members. Put the responsibility upon the government, removing it from the individuals members. In that ease, members who accept a pass will do so knowing that they have a right to it. There is a feeling in favour of an increased indemnity to members of this House. If that is granted, it should be made obligatory upon the members not to accept passes. Members who come here to attend to the business of the country have a right to feel that they are not under favour to a private corporation, and they also have a right to fair remuneration for their services as labourers here for the people. I do not vote for the resolution as it stands though I am in sympathy with the sentiment that dictates it. If the matter comes up, I shall, as I say, propose an amendment that the government shall furnish passes to members or that the members' indemnity shall be increased as recompense in lieu of the passes.


Mr.   I@: I think it might be desirable to have a word or two from the government with regard to this question. So far as concerns the argument that members of parliament who receive these passes are influenced by them, I, for one, do not attach any importance to it. I do not think that argument is of more weight that would be the argument that as the government issues passes on the Intercolonial Kailway, to members of parliament, therefore members of parliament are inclined to support the government. I do not think that has been the experience of hon. gentlemen on either side of the House. Still there has been more or less discussion throughout the country with regard to this question of railway passes. I am bound to say that I do not like the language of this resolution on the subject. I do not think that any member of parliament is influenced in the slightest degree by these passes, for I have seen members who, undoubtedly used passes given by railway companies, fight with the utmost possible persistence against legislation introduced by the railways that granted those passes. Nevertheless, we must have some regard for public opinion in matters of this kind. Now, the Intercolonial-we might as well begin with that-issues passes to members of parliament. I suppose it issues passes also to certain officials of the government. I am not quite clear, from looking at the Acts relating to the Intercolonial Railway, under what particular power the Minister of Railways has exercised that privilege. I am not speaking of the present Minister of Railways in that respect more than of his predecessors, for I believe that in this matter, he has only gone a step beyond the position of his predecessor.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Formerly the Intercolonial granted half-rate tickets or something of that kind-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To whom ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: To members of parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I was under the impression that the hon. gentleman's predecessor had granted to members of parliament tickets entitling them to half-rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not. When I came into the department, the practice was to grant passes to members of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I am in error, and accept the hon. minister's correction so far as concerns the time at which the change was made. But I know that at one time certificates were issued entitling members to half-fare on the Intercolonial and, at some subsequent time, which, I thought, was under the administration of the present Minister of Railways and Canals that' was changed to the system of giving passes. I would like to suggest, in the first 'place, that it would be well to have the duties of the Minister of Railways and Canals with respect to that matter defined by an Act of parliament. I think it would be well to have the matter made certain, so that we should know, if we are to have these passes over the Intercolonial, just what our rights under the law are, and not have a matter of that kind dependent upon the practice of one administration or another. So far as passes on railway companies throughout the country are concerned, I think, perhaps, it would be a better thing if we did not have these passes, it would be better if some other system were provided. 1 have not considered the subject very much, but I suppose it could be accomplished by a prohibition to members of parliament against accepting these passes. I think, probably, it would be better to deal with it in that way than in the way suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) who brought the motion before the House. It seems to me that, perhaps, it would be more in the public interest that members of parliament, travelling on private railways, railways owned by corporations which have business before this House, should pay their fare in the ordinary way and that any saving of the cost of fares or anything of that kind should be dealt with openly and above board and in some other way than in the manner of receiving passes from the corporations. I do not know that I would have the sympathy of many gentlemen in the House with regard to that, I am giving my own individual opinion alone. I think it is possibly a matter which might well engage the attention of the right hon. leader of the govern-

ment and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), as it certainly does engage the attention of the country, to some extent, from time to time. As I said before, l do not attach much importance to some of the reasons which have been urged against the present system yet it may be that the subject is one which could be better dealt with in the interest of the country by some other mode than by the system now prevailing.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sorry that I was not in the House when this subject was brought up by my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). I understand that he has cited some opinions of my own in favour of the resolution he has just submitted to the House. I have looked up my words, as they are reported in the Hansard of 1895, and I do not find that I said anything very favourable to his contention. This is what I am reported to have said on that occasion :
This question has taken a wider range than I supposed at first sight it would, when the Bill was introduced by the hon. member for West York. For my part, I am bound to say that the Bill goes much further than I supposed, from a hasty glance at it. I had supposed the intention of my hon. friend was to prevent any member who travels on a pass from drawing mileage under the statute, which would seem natural enough. But the Bill goes much further than that, and forbids a practice which is now universal in this House, I may say. Well, this is a question of public interest, and may be discussed upon its merits, but if I may judge from the temper of - the House at this moment, the Bill is not likely to be discussed in that spirit.
I expressed no opinion upon the question which is now before the House. The question, as now proposed, involves a somewhat drastic measure, that is to say, that we should impose upon the railways of the country a service for which they had not bargained, and a service for which they should receive no compensation. It is true, as my hon. friend states in his resolution, and no one denies it, that the railways have received from the government, from all governments, from the nation at large, substantial subsidies ever since the beginning of railway history. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that he proposes a new principle in British legislation, an addition to British legislation, in that, no matter what we have been doing previously, we should compel any corporation or any body in this country to give a service without compensation whatever. I think this is altogether against the traditions of British legislation. If there is anything sacred in British legislation, it is that ownership of any kind, property of any kind, is sacred, and should not be invaded, even in the public interest, without adequate compensation. In virtue of what principle would you impose upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway, for instance, even though they had been heavily subsidized by the nation, the obligation of carrying persons or merchandise without compensating them therefor, saying to them : You shall carry certain members of the community free ? It seems to me unfair to impose such a burden upon any one, not only upon railways, but upon any individual in Canada. The argument that the railways have been heavily subsidized is of no force whatever. They have been subsidized for good and valid reasons at the time, they have been subsidized in order to enable them to carry on certain business, the business of conveying goods and passengers. It was not certainly contemplated at the time these subsidies were given to impose upon them any additional burden than those which were specified at the time. Therefore, for my part, I am not prepared to assent to the views contained in this motion. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there may be an evil in the system now prevailing of members of parliament accepting passes. I do not ask anybody to make a confession in this respect, but if a confession were required, I think there are very few members of this House who would not have to plead guilty to such a charge, if there be any guilt in it. Whether such a practice leads or could lead to the evils which are suggested, or asserted in the motion of my hon. friend, I am not prepared to say. I quite agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that it is not possible to say that any member of parliament has ever been influenced by passes, or that legislation has been affected thereby.
Moreover, if the motion of the hon. gentleman were to be accepted, the Act regulating the indemnity of members of parliament would have to be recast. My hon. friend suggests this himself, but this is not the way to do it. If it is necessary to change the Act regulating the indemnity, it should be recast on other lines than those suggested. The whole subject would have to be discussed de novo, rather than dealt with in this way. For these reasons I think that, though the subject is one which requires consideration, before parliament comes to a final conclusion, it is better not to proceed hastily, but to adjourn the debate to some future occasion when the matter may receive more careful consideration than it can at this moment. I, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Before the motion is put I wish to make a few remarks, because this is a question which affects every member in the House of Commons. The First Minister tells us that the mover of this motion is proposing an unheard-of thing in proposing to put a burden upon the railways without any compensation. Sir, I contend that it

will Impose no burden upon the railways. We ask them to carry freight and passengers. Carrying freight may be a burden and require labour on the part of the railway company ; carrying a passenger from one point to another on a train imposes no burden upon the railway company.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about his baggage ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am only speaking of carrying a passenger, not of carrying his baggage. I say that it is no burden upon the railway company, because the passenger walks on the train, and when he reaches the end of his journey, he walks off it, so that he imposes no labour on any railway official. More than that, as has been stated here to-day, these railways provide every member with a pass of their own accoi'd. They furnish that pass either from a proper or an improper motive. I propose that that pass be furnished from a proper motive, whatever may be the case to-day, and I am not going to inquire into that question. The First Minister tells us one of the things sacred in British legislation is to recognise vested rights. Well, I contend that we do not interfere, practically or theoretically, with any vested rights. Lawyers, especially, are apt to attach great importance to the question of vested rights, and to suppose that when they bring that up no further argument can be made. It is a question of vested rights, and therefore vested rights are as sacred as the British constitution. I do not place so much stress upon vested rights myself, when they interfere with the interests of the people. Yested rights in all cases have to disappear when the people's interests are paramount. You give a man the deed of 100 acres of land, he has the fee simple of it, his house is his castle, but, when you give a railway company a charter which will authorize it to go through his house, and deprive him of his vested rights in the house and the land, the house and the land have to disappear so far as that owner is concerned in the interest of the whole people. So, I say, that vested rights are not so sacred as these hon. gentlemen are apt to try to make us believe. Now, the right hon. First Minister says to-day, that we want more consideration, and that he would like to have this motion adjourned until some future occasion. This question was up in 1895, we have heard. No conclusion was reached then. I have a distinct recollection of the former hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Bostock), last year getting up and proposing a resolution somewhat on the same lines providing for the abolition of passes and advocating it on the floor of the House. I remember another hon. member of this House, at that time, who is not a member to-day, getting up and leading the then hon. member for Yale and Cariboo, Mr. WALLACE.
out by the ear, taking him out by a back entrance, because it was a troublesome and embarrassing question for the government, and they wanted time for further consideration. Here, we have the old story repeated again. The arduous duties of the Prime Minister and his cabinet have prevented them from giving consideration to a question upon which they had fully made up their minds in 1895, and if they did not they have had ample time since then to come to a conclusion upon this subject. Yet, today, the Prime Minister proposes that they should have further time to consider the question. I object to all these postponements of the question. We have seen it from year to year. When a question comes up, and when the government are not prepared to come to a decision upon it they say:	We want more time for consideration, we will move the adjournment of the debate, and the debate is adjourned accordingly. I believe that parliament should be able to come to a conclusion upon those matters that have engaged its attention for years past, that have been discussed upon the public platforms of the country, and that have been before the people during all these years. For my part, although I do not like the wording of the resolution in its entirety, I intend to support it. Some of the clauses are all right, but some I object to, for instance, the one which says :
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.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the point of order ?


Mr. FRASER.: There are two hon. gentlemen standing up at the same time.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I say that while that clause is one that would not be an argument for the carrying out of the resolution, and that I object to the wording of it-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Railways come before the country for legislation, and they have to prove to the country


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have to congratulate the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) in having the most rapid promotion of any hon. minister in this House.


An hon. MEMBER.: The wrong man in the right place.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not approve of the wording of that clause, but, while I object to it I do approve of the principle of the resolution, and, therefore, I shall vote for the resolution, if the House is to divide

upon the question, and to adopt tlie principle which I think is a correct one that its provisions should apply to all railway companies in Canada receiving a charter from the Dominion. As to receiving any subsidy or bonus, I do not care for that so much as receiving their charter. The charter of a railway company confers enormous rights and privileges upon the recipient. It is the duty of members of parliament to be able to go over the country, to travel over this Dominion, and to see what an immense domain and heritage we have. There is no burden placed on the railway companies, and 1 repeat that this Is not legislation, which, in my opinion, interferes with vested rights at all. The government railway, the Intercolonial Railway, sends passes to the members of parliament representing the people. That is the rule to-day. It is a very good rule, whether inaugurated by the present lion. .Minister of Railways and Cauals (Hon. Mr. Blair) or by his predecessor I do not care. It is a very good rule, and the other railway companies of the Dominion should provide members of parliament, while they are members, with passes. This would Impose no onerous conditions. The granting of a pass is no burden to the railway company, it imposes no onerous conditions, it does not call for any more labour on their part for a member of parliament to step on a train and go from one point to another. It does not impose any additional obligation upon the railway company, and does not add to the cost of running trains one cent. I therefore am in favour of this proposal of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) and shall give it my support.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: I am in order; it is a motion to adjourn. I am sorry that the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) is not in his place here to-day. As a member of the opposition of this House he introduced a Bill to regulate this scandal, if it is a scandal, but the moment the proposition comes up he is out of his place, and not here to defend his former record. The Rt. Hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) has delivered, here, to-day, something of a defence of vested rights, but he has not had one word to say for the honour and reputation of this House. He places the vested rights of railway companies before the honour, and standing of this House in the country, and in that connection I wish to contrast his conduct with the conduct of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), who is not afraid to tell the House that he thinks the time has come for the abolition of the pass scandal. Are passes given for a consideration or not, and if they are given to members of parliament, are they given for a consideration or not ? I know what the rule is in the general manager's office. As soon as he finds a man antagonistic to the interests of his road who is in the enjoyment of a pass, he cuts off his head and calls in the pass.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Findlay Maclean: I know of a case where a black list is made for the general manager.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I am not going to give the names of people outside of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, yes; hon. gentlemen do not like to listen to the truth. The general manager, in the course of the year, keeps a black list of the men outside of this House who have been against the interests of the company, and when the time for the renewal of passes comes round he consults the black list, and a new pass does not go out. The newspaper men of this country get passes, and a consideration is always implied. When the newspaper becomes hostile, the newspapers are put on the black list, and no passes are issued. That is a fact, and the people of this country think to-day, that some how the legislation that they do not like, and which is supposed to be against the interests of the people, has a connection with the free passes. If the hon. gentleman is up against a dilemma, now it comes back to my panacea, and what would cure it ? Government ownership of railways. That is the only thing that will let you out. The railway question will come up in this House every day; it will come up between the conscience of hon. gentlemen and their conduct in parliament. There is only one way to get around it; government ownership, and that will cure almost every evil we have in this country so far as railways are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: These hon. gentlemen may laugh, but watch how rapidly public opinion is growing in this country. I am sorry the member for North York (Hon. Mr. Mulock) is not here now. I am sorry the First Minister expressed himself as he did, and I am sorry nothing has been said in regard to the question of members drawing their mileage while using passes over the railways. It is not right, and the public are against it. Gentlemen may say that the custom has been condoned in the past, but it is wrong and it must be stopped. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), a man for whom I have the highest respect, Is on record as saying some years ago, that this system is a scandal, and that something ought to be done to remove it. Nothing has been done yet, and as the member for West York (Mr. COMMON'S
Wallace) said, the question is being jollied along from session to session, and from parliament to parliament. Surely, the Prime Minister can to-day state that he will consider how to remove this scandal and cause it to disappear for ever. The right hon. gentleman told us that he would adjourn the debate, and that later on, when the House has had a chance to consider the case, there will be something done to abate the scandal. Well, I accept for the present the idea that the right hon. gentleman has thrown out.


Andrew B. Ingram: As the hon. the mover of the motion (Mr. Robinson), is one of the representatives of Elgin, and as I am the other representative of that constituency, I take this opportunity of differing from my hon. friend (Mr. Robinson). I do not view the granting of passes as a scandal, and in proof of that, I may state that in the county I represent, that question was to some extent an issue in the various elections I have fought. I told my electors that I accepted passes on the different lines of railway, and that if elected I would again accept them. I have the happy satisfaction of knowing, Mr. Speaker, that my majority was increased on every succeeding occasion, and therefore, as far as the granting of passes is concerned, I do not really think that it amounts to very much. I understand that the object of giving ten cents a mile to members, for travelling expenses was, when the indemnity was '* first fixed, for the purpose of granting some consideration to those who lived long distances from the capital, and depriving those who resided in the capital of receiving mileage. A member residing in the capital can attend here at three o'clock in the afternoon, and he sacrifices no personal interest in the management of his business ' down town, while a member from Halifax. or Winnipeg, or British Columbia, must come here at the opening of parliament, remain here the whole time and neglect his private business. That is particularly the case with the British Columbia members. In my judgment, while it may be wrong to accept passes to some extent, the object seems to be, at the time the indemnity was framed, for the purpose of giving some indemnity at least to those who sacrifice their business in coming long distances. On account of the agitation in the press of this country, as to whether the! members shall have their indemnity increased or not, that has become a very public question, and before any change is made, It should be well thought out. I believe that those who live at certain distances from the capital should have their indemnity fixed at such a rate and no mileage added to it at all. A man residing in Ottawa should have his indemnity fixed at so and so, and the indemnity should be increased in proportion to the distance the
member lives from the capital. By that means we would to some extent indemnify the members who live at long distances for their loss of time, in neglecting their business, and on the other hand, those who live near the capital would be fairly indemnified also. To my mind, that is the only proper method of granting indemnity to members of parliament. Since I have been a member of this House-and I am here now for twelve sessions-I have listened to charges made against the Conservative government, and I have listened to charges made against the Liberal government as to certain scandals in their administration. Whether these charges were correct or not, I have heard them made repeatedly, but I have yet to hear one hon. gentleman in any parliament I have had the honour of sitting in, make a charge against any member of parliament, that owing to his having accepted a pass he voted on any particular occasion for or against a Bill. And when some gentlemen come into this House for the purpose of making a little cheap capital to promote their personal interests, I demand of them to bring proof of anything in the shape of a scandal caused by the acceptance of these passes. Why, Sir, I look upon it as an insult to every member of this House, when the charge is made that we are tools in the hands of any corporation. I have never yet been asked by any railway corporation to sacrifice my principles to support any Bill I did not wish to support. I have had perfect freedom, as I am sure every member of this House has had. I have always found, so far as I know, that railway companies, in promoting legislation in this House, endeavour to promote the legislation on the merits of the legislation itself, and if the merits of the legislation did not commend itself to me, and other hon. members, we were at perfect liberty to oppose it. So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to any change in the arrangements as we have had them for years. Until the government sees their way clear to say that they are not in favour of an increased indemnity, or that they are in favour of an increased indemnity, and that the way they' propose to increase it will be by the plan I have suggested, namely, to do away with the mileage entirely, and to have a sliding scale for the indemnity, paid to members of this House in. proportion to the distance they have to come to attend their parliamentary duties at Ottawa,


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion :
Mr. Lefurgey-Copies of all reports, letters or other correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the boards of trade of
William Findlay Maclean: Summerside and Charlottetown or with any other person or persons acting in regard to the subject-matter of the motion during the years 18991900 and 1901, regarding the placing of the government winter steamer Stanley on the route between Prince Edward Island and Cape Tor-mentine, N.B., for the conveyance of mails, passengers and freight.


Mr. A. A. LEFURGET (East Prince, P. E.I.).: As there are only a few ministers left before six o'clock, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) is not in his seat, and as we require him present when the subject-matter of this motion is discussed, I would request that it he allowed to stand until to-morrow.
Motion allowed to stand.


THE MONTREAL TURNPIKE TRUST.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation) moved for :
Return showing the receipts and expenditure of the Montreal Turnpike Trust, and a copy of the annual statement furnished the bondholders of the said corporation by the Montreal Turnpike Trust for the past ten'years.
Mr. Speaker, this motion gives rise to a question which interests the city of Montreal and in a more particular manner the population in the neighbourhood of that great centre. This question, if I may say so, is one of paramount importance to the farming community throughout the island of Montreal aud the neighbouring counties. And I believe that if the government are willing to lend an attentive ear to the few suggestions which I intend to make in submitting this motion to the House, they will understand that it is in their power to remedy what I may call the deplorable state of things in connection with the roads on the island of Montreal.
I am happy to see that the right hon. prime minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is in his seat, and I may tell him that should he consent to use in solving this question the great influence he is enjoying now


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation.) What is the remedy ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) He will raise to his own memory a monument more lasting than brass in the hearts of the farmers of the island of Montreal.


The PRIME MINISTER.: (Translation.) What remedy do you suggest ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I shall come to that by and by. As all the members of this House who are acquainted with the section of the country referred to are no doubt aware of the early legislation affecting the roads in the vicinity of Montreal, dates from a pretty remote period. I even believe that prior to 1840, laws were passed 18
with a view to the improvement and maintenance of the great thoroughfares running from the parishes in the neighbourhood of Montreal towards the city. At any rate, I find in a hand-bood which I have in my hands, a statute of 1840 to such effect.
Without wishing to enter, at any length, into the details of such legislation, it will answer my purpose to say that it aimed at facilitating to the rural population of the island of Montreal the access to that city, and enabling the people from the city to travel in carriages on roads kept in good repair.
But this legislation, which was never consolidated or improved as it should have been, did not participate of the character of more modern legislation. It lacks concision and clearness, and, what is more, it does not provide for state or municipal control, such as is to be found in more modern legislation.
Allow me, Sir, to say a few words as to the roads referred to here. There is the main road leading to Lachine, which runs along the St. Lawrence. There is another road connecting with the Lachine road and which crosses the hills, known under the names of Cote Ste. Catherine and Cote St. Luc.
There is the road to the westward of Montreal, running from St. Laurent to the River des Prairies.
There is also the Sault-au-Recollet road which runs from Montreal to the River des Prairies. We have also the Sault road by which the people from the counties of Laval, Terrebonne and the north reach Montreal.
There is another road leading in a northwesterly direction to the Victoria road, namely, COte St. Michel road, connecting with that great thoroughfare which runs along the St. Lawrence river and leads to Pointe aux Trembles. Those roads are under the control of the Turnpike Trust, an organization which is devoid of any municipal character. The trustees have absolute control over these roads, and have the rights of levying and collecting tolls. Owing to the increased traffic, and to the fact that the resources at the disposal of the trustees entrusted with the management of those roads were quite inadequate, the roads were left in a bad state.
From the statutes passed as early, as 1840 down to 1895, it appears that these trustees secured the power of issuing debentures and that they extensively used that power.
Without going into details, it is sufficient to my purpose to say that, up to 1890, the debt of the trust reached in the aggregate to over $200,000.
The trustees had kept paying interest on those debentures ; but in 1895 or about that time, realising that all hope of repaying those bonds and all hope of being able to raise an adequate sum to the redemption of those debentures was lost, they deemed it necessary to repudiate a portion of the debt



so as to be able to pay the interest oil tlie rest and, If necessary, to pay off tlie principal. New debentures were issued in virtue of an Act passed by tlie provincial legislature to tbe amount of $11)5,000. Those debentures are now in tbe bands of tbe Dominion government. But at tbe time when this new arrangement was made it was deemed advisable and lair to tbe holders of debentures to provide that they should be given some control over tlie management of tbe Turnpike Trust. It was enacted by tbe provincial legislature that every year or every second year there should be held an election of trustees, as tbe representatives of tbe holders of tbe newly issued debentures. Tbe Act provides that three representatives of tlie Montreal Turnpike Trust shall be elected to watch over tbe interests of their mandataries in tbe Turnpike Trust, so that to-day we have a kind of joint trust. It is composed of two trustees who directly represent tbe corporation entrusted with tlie management of the roads, and as tbe statutes passed from 1841 to 18(17 by tbe Quebec legislature and by tbe old legislature of United Canada stand, these trustees are appointed by the provincial government.
On tbe other band, in virtue of tbe above amendment and tbe readjustment of tbe debt of the Trust under statute 58 Vic., chap. 14, passed by the Quebec legislature in 1805, tlie bearers of debentures select, as their representatives, three shareholders whose duty it is to attend to tbe management of tlie roads and to watch over tlie interests of tbe holders of debentures.
Now, Sir, having explained bow this administration operates, 1 may be allowed to call your attention to this fact : that, as tlie various statutes governing this trust stand, tbe trustees are not called upon, as is the case with any other municipal or administrative body, to transmit annual returns to tlie authorities from whom they bold their appointment. We find to-day in our municipal administration in the province of Quebec, that every municipality is bound to transmit to tlie provincial government annual statements showing their management of municipal affairs, as also tlie financial standing of such municipality as is thus placed under the control of tbe provincial government.
In another sphere, the banks are called upon to furnish statements to the Dominion government ; and it is now-a-days the ad-knowledged policy of tbe law that corporations of every description should transmit such returns to the government, when they are invested with powers enabling them to manage a portion of the commonwealth.
Nothing of the kind exists in the case of the Turnpike Trust, There is nothing in the statutes which makes it binding upon them to furnish statements to the holders of debentures. It's quite true that a general provision under which the Turnpike Trust


Frederick Debartzch Monk: may be called upon to send returns to the provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. MANUFACTURE OF BINDER TWINE.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Blain :
That, in the opinion of this House it is expedient that all binder twine now held by the government, together with all twine that may hereafter be manufactured by them, shall be sold direct to the farmer at a price to cover the actual cost of raw material and manufacture only, with one cent per pound added, and that no twine manufactured or paid for out of the Dominion treasury shall be sold or disposed of in any ether way.
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, this question of the binder twine industry is a matter of such importance that I feel that I would scarcely be doing my duty to my constituents were I not to offer a few remarks upon it on this occasion. In the province of Prince Edward Island the farmers use large numbers of self-binders, in order that they may gather in their harvests with despatch, and the cost of binder twine is a heavy tax upon them. Some years ago, when a duty was placed on binder twine, the farmers had a grievance, and when that duty was removed it was supposed that they would he benefited. The result, however, has been quite different. Instead of being benefited by a repeal of the duty tlie farmers of late years have been paying very much more for their binder twine than they were formerly called upon to pay. It may be said that the government is not responsible for this, that it was due to the war in the Philippine Islands, which caused an increase in the cost of the raw material. We know from the statement made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) tbe other evening, that such a statemtnt is not warranted by the facts. Some small Increase has taken place in tlie cost of the raw material ; but as a matter of fact, there is no increase to warrant tlie high price which has been paid by tbe farmers for binder twine during the last four years.
This question was fully discussed during the last election in Frince Edward Island ; it was a burning question with us. The opposition held that the increase in the price of binder twine was due to tbe way in which tbe government bad managed the output of the penitentiary at Kingston, where the labour of the convicts was utilized in producing it-that the product was sold to favourites of the government at a slight advance on the cost of production, and then sold by these government favourites to

the farmers of the country at a very largely increased price. The hon. member for Teel the other afternoon entered so fully into this phase of the question that it is not necessary for me to discuss it now at great length. We find that in 1898 the government made a sale of 1,000,000 pounds or thereabouts of binder twine to friends of the government, Coll Bros., at $4,35 per 100 pounds. It had cost the people of Canada for its manufacture at the penitentiary $4.80, or a trifle over, or a loss on the transactions of that year of 41 cents per 100 pounds. In the same year binder twine was sold to the farmers of the country at 100 per cent advance on the price at which it was sold to these friends of the government. In 1897 the output of the penitentiary was sold to the Hobbs Hardware Co. for $4.04 per 100 pounds ; and that product cost the people of the country $4.84 per 100 pounds. It may be said that it is impossible for tire government to regulate the price of binder twine. There is one thing they can do- they can regulate the price of the article produced in the penitentiary ; that is certainly under the control of the government ; and if they supplied the farmers direct at cost, with one cent per pound added to pay expenses, as proposed in this resolution, they would give the farmers of this country binder twine for about eight cents per pound or thereabouts. Coming down to 1900, we find that the Hobbs Hardware Co. and John Connor purchased about $51,000 worth of biuder twine at an average of 7-i cents a pound. Last year it was said that a great change had taken place and that the government were going to sell direct to the farmers and give them the full benefit of the manufacture of this article in the penitentiary. We were met by our opponents with that statement on every platform ; yet we find that last year the farmers were supplied by the government with about $8,000 worth at 14 cents a pound, or double the price at which it was sold to friends of the government. I say that is an outrage. This statement was made here the other evening by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and it was not contradicted. The right hon. First Minister said that on a future occasion it would be contradicted, but I say that it cannot be contradicted. Although it is perhaps impossible for the government to produce sufficient binder twine to supply all the farmers of Canda, yet they should sell that material to the farmers at the same price at which they sell it to their friends.
The hon. member for Peel says this is a small question. It is, so far as the amount of money involved is concerned ; but it is a matter of vital importance to the farmers of the country that they should get their binder twine at the cost of production. It was supposed when this government came into power that they would be benefactors of the farmers in every way. It was supposed that machinery would be placed 18*
on the free list, that has not been done. It was supposed that biuder twine would be sold to the farmers at the cost of production, but that has not been done. The government are evidently standing in with the combines ; they are supplying this material to the friends of the government, who are the agents of the combines, and as a result the farmers are paying 100 per cent more for their twine than they should pay under honest and fair administration.
My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) made a proposition the other evening that an agent of the government should be appointed in each of the townships to sell the product of the penitentiary to the farmers at cost. It may bo impossible to carry that out ; but surely this business government can devise some scheme by which the product of the penitentiaries which is so vital to the interests of the farmers may be sold to them at cost and charges.
It is not my intention to take up any more time on this occasion ; but I see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is in his place, and I would like him to contradict, if he can, the statement made the other day, that this product is supplied at 74 cents a pound to the friends of the government, while the farmers of the country are compelled to pay 14 cents a pound for it.


Mr. ERNEST D. SMITH (South Wentworth).: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to discuss this question, and would not now, but that it seems to me the time has arrived when the government should take us into their confidence and say what position they intend to take on this question. I waited during the discussion the other evening to hear the government state their position, and I have waited to-nielit so far ; but we have heard nothing from them. This is a question which, while not the most important before the country, is yet of such importance that the members of the government ought to give us a definite statement as to the stand they propose to take upon it in the future. The farmer and all those who think about the matter regarded this question as one of the most important that came before them in the last campaign. I know that on every platform throughout my county, where almost every question was thoroughly threshed out, this was the one question, above all others, that attracted the most attention, and the one question in relation to which the government received the greatest condemnation by those composing the audience we addressed. I had opposed to me, not only a very astute gentleman, who met me on evpry platform, but, alone- with him, the late Speaker of the House, who. as every one who was in the last pari'ament knows, can place any matter in which he takes an interest before an audience in the most plausible form. However, when this question came up-and it came up at every meeting-he could not defend the action of


COMMOXS
[Stage Direction]
the government sufficiently well to raise any cry of assent from his followers ; on the other hand the people by their expressions, made clear their opinion that the government had been guilty of great wrong in the way they had handled the binder twine made in the Kingston penitentiary in the last four years. A government that had come into power with great professions of being a business government, ought to have managed an institution which required only good business ability in a manner that would have carried out, to some extent at least, the pledges they made to the people during the years preceding the year IStki. We ail know that if there was one thing for which the members of the government took credit, one ground upon which they appealed to the people, it was that, if returned to power, they would do all they could to crush the combine. We all know, that for twenty years, that was one of the principal cries of the hon. gentlemen when in opposition. I can well remember speeches made by leading Liberal members of this House, as well as speeches of their prominent supporters throughout the country, denouncing combines in the strongest terms. One would naturally expect that, when returned to power, they would take every opportunity to carry out their promises, not only on this point, but others as well. There were many of these promises made that everybody knew to be incapable of fulfilment. But this question of binder twine was one over which they had full control. Here was an opportunity to smash a combine, an opportunity to carry out at least one of the many pledges they had made. They had it in their power, in selling this binder twine, to regulate to a large extent the price at which this commodity was sold to tlie farmers. Some hon. gentlemen may say that the government control only one-tenth of the quantity used in Canada, and that by reducing the price of that small percentage, they could not keep down the price of the whole product. Any man who has been engaged in business will know very well that if one-teutli of a given product is placed upon the market in a judicious manner, it will have a tendency to bring down the price of the whole. If this five hundred tons that the government manufacture annually had been placed upon the market in a judicious manner, it would have influenced the price of all the twine sold to the farmers. But, instead of that, they sold it in such a manner-taking no precautions-that those who purchased it, were enabled to make a profit evidently of about one hundred per cent. We have the proof of that in the fact that the Brantford binder twine factory were enabled to pay a dividend of 100 per cent one year and of half that on an average for two other years, besides that the price at which the twine was sold each year was not more than half the average selling price throughout the Mr. SMITH (South Wentworth).
country. The government knowing, as they ought to have known, that they had it in their power to implement, even in a small degree, the pledges they had made, they ought to receive-as they did receive in the province of Ontario-the condemnation of the people for their management of the binder twine factory in Kingston. But the past is gone ; the future is before us. What action do the government intend to take in the future ? The motion of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) is that the government should sell this twine to the farmers at an advance of one cent per pound on the cost. I am not one of those who believe in revolutionary measures or undue interference with trade. I think it is not the province of the government, under ordinary circumstances, to interfere to any great extent with trade. But, during the past four years, there has been an extraordinary occasion, an occasion when it was evident there was a strong combination amongst the twine manufacturers to raise the price of twine unduly. Here was the opportunity ; and it seems to me that it would have been proper for the government to have adopted what might be called even a revolutionary measure. I would not ask them to do that in the future, but I would ask them to place the twine on the market as any business corporation would, to sell it as the large manufacturers of twine would sell it, either direct to the farmers or to the retail merchants. And, in order to prevent the charging of extortinate prices to the farmers, let them make an agreement with the retail dealers that, if they sell it, it shall not be in excess of a certain price. The Brantford binder twine people claim that, though they have made these large profits, they have never sold the twine at more than 1 cent per pound advance on the cost. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. But, in any case, let the government sell the twine to the retail dealers or farmers at such an advance on the cost as will enable the government to have a small profit, say of 10 per cent. That would be a fair profit for any manufacturer, and I think that any manufacturer would be satisfied with it. I know that the government will say that they offered this twine to the farmers, and that the effort was not a success, that it cost the government a good deal to advertise, and that the farmers bought only a small quantity. Well, there are ways and there are ways. It is easy for a government or a corporation, if they wish to take a certain course, to put obstacles in the way of every course that might otherwise be adopted. The government ought to form its plans as a corporation would form theirs. Any corporation could find ways and means of placing this twine upon the market and getting :t in the hands of farmers and retail merchants without this high percentage of expense.

X notice in tlie first year the government offered it to the farmers it cost 50 per cent of what was sold to them for advertising the offer and the next year, last year, it cost 10 per cent of the total sale for the same item. There are ways that the government can easily find if they wish to place this twine in the hands of the farmers without an extraordinary cost for selling. It is not my duty nor the duty of any gentleman of the opposition to dictate to the government the method that they should follow in disposing of the twine, any business corporation can do it, and any business government ought to be able to do it. It seems to me that this article so commonly in use by. the farmers ought to be sold in such a way that they would not be pillaged, as I am bound to say they have been pillaged during the past four years through the binder twine combination in this country. I maintain that the electors were right in condemning the government for their course in this matter. The government had it in their power to prevent this combination, they had their hands -on the lever, and could have used that lever to prevent this condition of things arising. They did not do it, and they received the condemnation of the electors in Ontario for their course upon this subject, and I am bound to say this question had more to do with their defeat in that province than any other question.
Now, it may be said, I know it will be said, that the government did all that any government could do when they took the duty -off twine. It will be said, as it was said in the campaign preceding November 7, that the government took the duty off twine, and what more could they do ? Well, it is true they took the duty off twine, and I am obliged to condemn them for doing that, as I did all through the campaign. 1 maintain
and it was taken off to catch the farmers' votes. Now, what was the result ? While that duty was on, the twine we used was mostly manufactured in this country. We imported last year under the 10 per cent tariff, 3,301,000 pounds of twine. Even the ten per cent duty, small as it was, was sufficient to enable the manufacturers of twine in this country to live and to make most of the twine we used, giving employment to a large number of men and to a certain amount of capital. These manufacturers in turn afforded a market for a considerable portion of the perishable products of this country that cannot be conveniently exported. Now what was the result of taking off the duty ? The twine factories were closed up all but one or two of them, and in 1899, instead of importing 3,000,000 pounds, we imported over 10,000,000 pounds of twine, that is to say, a large portion of what was previously made in this country was thus made on the other side of the line, giving employment to men and capital there instead of to our own people and to our own capital. Now what was the result ? Was it to reduce the price of twine ? I presume the hon. gentlemen who proposed and carried out that measure believed it would have that result, but the result was quite the 'opposite, and naturally so. Similar results often flow from such legislation. The removal of the duty caused the downfall of certain factories that had been in operation in Canada, and the handling of the twine fell into the hands of the large combines that exist in almost every article on the other side of tlie line. As soon as they obtained control of the manufacture here, and our factories were mostly closed, they raised the price of twine, and have kept it up ever since. I am sorry to say that apparently this government has been acting in collusion witli them in creating a condition of tilings
it was a great injury to the people of this under which they could pillage the farmers country. Surely 10 per cent was not too to the extent of 3, 4 and 5 cents a pound on high a protective duty on twine. Hon. j their twine. This amounts to a considerable gentlemen opposite believe in a revenue sum in the aggregate each year. We import tariff, so I am told ; well, 10 per cent is 110,000,000 pounds of twine ; I do not know surely not more than a revenue tariff. The | how much was made in this country by tlie farmers of the country never asked this , Brantford people. There was a million duty to be taken off entirely ; the farmers pounds made in Kingston, and probably fif-of this country are not beggars and paupers teen or sixteen million pounds of twine are
that they desire to be placed in a different position from any others of their fellow
used in this country altogether. Four cents per pound upon that quantity would be a
citizens. They were quite willing and are matter of $000,000, and I am bound to say always willing to bear their fair share of . the farmers of this country during the past the taxation of this country. Ten per cent is \ three years have lost at least two million not an excessive taxation, even if the farm- dollars on the binder twine they have bought ers paid the whole of it, which I deny. But in consequence of the action of this govern-if the farmers paid a portion of that 10 per rnent. I think it is the duty of the govern-cent in 1898 and of the 12A per cent in 1S96, ment at once to declare their intention with they were quite willing to do so, and to regard to what they propose to do in tlie bear their fair share of taxation. But they manufacture and sale of binder twine the did not ask for this duty to be taken off. coming year. It is a matter which cannot Who did ask for it ? Why, the government long be delayed, and if they intend to take a simply took it off to catch their votes. It certain course they should take it immedia-was not taken off because there was any tely. I lie agents of the Brantfoid factory demand for it, the duty was a small duty, ! and of the United States factories are al-
[Stage Direction]
ready taking orders throughout the country, and if the government intend the coming season to offer this twine to the farmers in a way that will enable them to purchase it in quantities according to their needs, they should announce their policy at once. This is an important question to the farmers of this country, and they are anxious to know what the government proposes to do.
Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE (Halifax).: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you wish to collect the opinions of the members from various parts of the House. Those hon. gentlemen who speak from the front benches speak so frequently and debate so keenly the subjects which are brought to your attention that no doubt you are often puzzled to ascertain the true sense of the House and of the country. Prom the serener atmosphere which we occupy on the rear benches we can look down upon the troubled arena below us, and form our opinions in a more judicial and in a calmer manner. Indeed, those gentlemen before us, from the heat of their arguments, would almost appear to us as partisans. I was interested in the first discussion that took place on this subject to hear from gentlemen of the opposition the remark reiterated with a good deal of fervour that they did not wish in the slightest degree to embarrass the government. I propose to return the compliment, and to say that in the few remarks which I intend to offer to my brother farmers in the House, I do not desire in any way to embarrass the opposition. In the part of the country from which I come we have not the advantage of living near the penitentiary, wThich some hon. gentlemen opposite have. Nor am I like that periodical, fair weather farmer, who announced that ho farmed two months in summer only, and went far from the ' maddening crowd ' in that season only, to revel in the cool airs and quiet of the country. We and my brother farmers in Nova Scotia, have to farm summer and winter for a livelihood. I have said that I did not wish in the slightest degree to embarrass the opposition. We have, in our part of the country, Sir, one of those odious combines which manufactures cordage and incidentally also manufactures binder twine. I do not have any wish to embarrass the opposition in this, but I would say that the learned leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), out of his hundred odd majority, had a hundred of his majority from that institution which manufactures binder twine. WTe heard from him how the sentiment of this House operates upon the degree of profit which they hope to get from the country by the manufacture of this twine.
I opine that the gentlemen who have advocated this measure have no doubt done so with the desire that their fellow-farmers in the country shall participate in the benefits derived from the decrease in the price of this article, to the amount that the govern-1


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: ment manufactures at its factory at Kingston. To the extent that they partake in that consumption, they reduce the sum which these combinesters and others can extract from the horny-handed sons of toil in the country. I have said that I think the farmers benefit, certainly to some extent, by the amount which the government factory reduces the price of the binder twine supplied to the farmers. Well, now, I believe it is a fact, and I believe it is the sentiment of the hon. gentleman who supported this measure, and who addressed us yesterday afternoon. Let us see how he lias carried out that idea. In this resolution, he has said that this binder twine is to be sold in the manner prescribed in this resolution, and in no other manner. I think, without revealing state secrets, that I may declare that some of the binder twine factories obtained their dividends during the past year by borrowing money. We all know that the price of the raw commodity has increased twofold, if not fourfold. It is the intention of the combines and the operators of factories, as the prices of the raw commodity decrease, to place that upon the market, no matter what price it obtains. If the government have laid in a supply of raw material, either of the rnanila hemp, or sisal, to manufacture this article, they have it laid in at the high prices of the present time. Not only is the price of the raw material double, or fourfold what it was previously, but the rate of freight is about double that which obtains under ordinary circumstances. When the government factory supplies my brother farmers with that commodity, it is to be remembered that they have had the raw material laid in at a high rate, and that they have had to pay a higher rate of freight, and they are bound, in addition, to charge a specific sum, increasing the cost of the article to the consumers of the country. If the combinesters put their heads together, finding that this resolution has been passed, they will sell their commodity a little cheaper than the rate at which the government can manufacture it, they will hold the market and grind my fellow-farmers in the west and east by high prices, and the government cannot sell their commodity unless they lose money upon it. If they did lose money upon it, would not the Argus eyes of the opposition be turned upon them, and would not they inveigh against the loss of the public money ? It would be like a thunderstorm among a flock of young turkeys, It would smell to high heaven just like that $1.50 barrel of onions that an hon. gentleman referred to the other evening. Then, the government factory would be bound to sell its own twine. Here is the House putting a specific sum upon that binder twine, tiie combinesters would reduce the price to secure control or the market, and my fellow-farmers would be ground between the upper and nether millstones, exposed to all the ex-

actions which this unprincipled combination could put upon them in the shape of raising the price of their binder twine. That is something that should be avoided. I do not believe the hon. gentlemen meant to ask the House to adopt what is contained In their resolution, and in order that we may come to their rescue, I propose this amendment. The combinsters will set the price of their article at 5 or 10 per cent profit, because they have 10 or 20 per cent profit upon the raw material, and they are prepared for twelve or twenty-four months to sell below cost, in order to obtain the market. They will have a sliding scale to go upon, and the government, being bound hand and foot, will not be able to aid the farmers by competition. I will move in amendment, if it is the desire of the farmers to have competition between the government factory and the private operator, to add these three words after the word ' with,' in the yth line : ' not more than,' so that it will read : ' with not more than one cent per pound added.' That will give an opportunity to the government to act upon the good old rule of trade, to supply the article according to the demand, and regulate the price by the competition which will take place throughout the country. If this is to be the desire, honestly expressed, with no intention to embarrass the government, or to produce any political effect, with a sliding scale by which the government can compete with others, the price of binder twine, before twelve months have passed, will be reduced one-half to the farmers of the country, and they will reap all the benefit.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: Mr. ' Speaker, it would be hardly expected that I should remain quiet while a subject of so much magnitude was being discussed in this House. Representing, as I do, a constituency in which there are two binder twine factories, you would naturally suppose that I should know something about the subject of binder twine.


Mr. GANONG.: Are you a shareholder also ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I am sorry to say that the hon. gentlemen who have discussed this question, have discussed it without that intimate knowledge of the binder twine business that is absolutely necessary in order to have an intelligent comprehension of the subject that is now before us. In order to relieve the mind of my hon. friend (Mr. Ganong), who fancies that I may have a financial object in view, I may tell him that I have not a five-cent piece of interest in any binder twine establishment in this country, but, while I have no personal interest in binder twine, I have the interest in the binder twine industry that every Canadian citizen should have, and I am free to confess that the only words that
appeal to my mind that were addressed by the speaker from the other side, were those in which he condemned the government for taking off the duty on binder twine. With those words I sincerely agree. I think it was a mistake. I believe that the binder twine industry, like every other industry in this country, should be protected from undue competition from outside, and that it, like every other industry, should have the right to live in this country of ours. I believe that this industry, like every other, should be made to pay a duty on every pound of twine that comes into this country. I agree with our friends on the other side in that. Now, then, I approach the subject not as a politician, not with a desire to embarrass the government, not with a desire to contradict a truthful word that may have been spoken by hon. gentlemen opposite, but I approach it as a business proposition. We are manufacturing twine at the Kingston penitentiary, and how are we going to handle that product in such a way as to result in the greatest benefit to the consumers of binder twine, and at the same time to produce it at the least cost to the taxpayers of this country. I propose to approach that business question as a business man, and I shall try to put myself in the position of a man who is going to invest his money in that concern with the expectation of realizing a reasonable dividend out of his investment. The speeches made by gentlemen on the other side of the House have been apparently made for the purpose of discrediting the government, and of appealing to the prejudices, and sometimes to the parsimony of our farming friends. The question arises here as to what consuming power we have in this country for binder twine. The Trade and Navigation Returns show that last year there was entered for consumption in Ontario 3,900,000 pounds of binder twine, at 12 cents a pound ; in the province of Manitoba 3,400,000 pounds at 10 cents a pound, and in the whole Dominion there were 8,000,000 pounds of twine entered at 11 cents a pound. The prices given are from the invoices of the merchants, who swore to them when the twine was entered. Let us deal with a proposition which represents an importation of 8,000,000 pounds of binder twine, or 4,000 tons. Now, according to the calculations of those familiar with the subject that 4,000 tons is about five-tenths of the total quantity consumed in Canada, or in other words, we import about half the actual quantity used. Eight million pounds of binder twine are imported from the United States, and that comes into direct competition with the twine that is manufactured in this country, which amounts to another 4.000 tons, including the product of the Kingston and Toronto prisons. Let us realize that the government manufacture of twine would represent

about 5 per cent of the total consumption. Last year we produced 408 tons, not 500 tons-and in the discussion of this question there has been a looseness which shows that the gentlemen who spoke have not carefully considered the various phases of this problem. With a producing capacity of about 5 per cent of the quantity needed, it is proposed here that we should proceed to regulate the price of binder twine in Canada. I appeal to any business man in this House if it is feasible, in view of this fact, that we could obtain the results which we are asked to achieve. Are we likely to bring down the price of binder twine because we, the Dominion of Canada, inject into a consumption of 8,000 tons, about 5 per cent. I say tliat from the standpoint of a business man, who is going to invest his money in that business, that I would not put a dollar into an undertaking that could only control 5 per cent of the total consumption.
Then when we have solved this problem, the question presents itself : How are we going to sell this twine which we produce at Kingston. We have gone into the business for various reasons, but I shall not now deal with the history of our connection with it. The Minister of Justice (Hon. Mi-Mills) says that we went into the business for the purpose of giving these young prisoners who are not wicked by inheritance an opportunity to learn a trade whereby, in after life, they might make an honest livelihood. I can tell the Minister of Justice that the man who works on a twine machine in the Kingston penitentiary is no better qualified to earn a living when he gets out than he was the day he went into the penitentiary, because the clumsy fingers of the prisoner who has been accustomed to wheeling bricks and carrying mortar, will never be able to compete with the deft fingers of the Canadian girls, who can produce twine better in quality, and in twice the quantity, that these prisoners can. There is no justification in that argument of the Minister of Justice, because the convict can never earn his living by making twine when he gets out of the penitentiary. It would be a legitimate argument to say that we have gone into the business in order to provide occupation for the prisoners. It is the duty of the government to give these prisoners ; these forsaken ones ; these men who have inherited the evil tendencies of their progenitors, an opportunity in this world to employ the faculties with which God has endowed them. To that extent I sympathize with the attempt to provide employment for these prisoners in their leisure hours. It is, however, a great fallacy to expect that these men will be able to earn a living by making binder twine from the knowledge of the trade they acquire in the penitentiary.
I desire to say one or two words with reference to the remarks which have been Mr. HEYD.
made by gentlemen on the other side of the House, in order to show the unfairness of the motives that apparently animate these lion, gentlemen. If they were honest they would at least be truthful. In a question of this kind we want facts. We do not want imagination ; we do not want talk about combines ; we do not want the experience of these so-called farmers, who for only three months in the year vegetate upon the land. We want something you can rely upon when you begin to add up figures and declare a dividend on the business you have done in the past year. The hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution says we will overcome the whole difficulty by simply adopting his motion which says that we shall sell to the farmex-s the binder twine at the actual cost of px-oduction plus 1 cent a pound. That is a business pi-oposition, but let us look into it and see if it is feasible. We can find that out by ascertaining what other people pay for the labour involved in distributing 400 tons of twine. What have we to compete with in the selling of this twine ? Do not make the mistake of supposing that we are going to run against people who do not understand their business. Much has been said about the Farmers' Binder Twine Industry of Brantford. and the mere feet that they have been enabled to pay the large dividends that have been referred to hex-e, indicates that the Bx-antford factox-y is in the hands of men who thoroughly understand their business. The Farmers' Binder Twine Company has 4,000 stockholders, and it has about GOO agents, the qxxalifieations of evex-y one being thox-oughly known. These men are out in the field to-day competing with us. How are we going to compete with an organiza- ' tion managed by the keenest bxxsiness men of this country ? The product of these xxiills is sold by the most skilful salesmen in the country at one cent per pound. The Farmers' Binder Twine Company pay their agents who ax-e stockholders a commission of one cent a pound; they prepay the freight, assixme all risk of loss, and trust the men who Inxy fx-orn tliexn for five or six months or even a year. How are yoxx going to get hard cash, and sell your binder twixxe at one cent a pound ? Tliei-e is the proposition.
I guarantee that my hon. friend from West Toronto, who is a farmer for three months in the year, would not take stock at 2 cents on the dollar in such an undertaking. Leaving that aside, yoxi find that the Deer-ings, the McCormacks and the Plymouth concex-n in the United States, have fac-tox-ies equipped with appliances to which ours in Kingston are as a rush light to the sun. If our people were wise, they would take every machine that is at Kingston and destroy it, and pixt in its place something that would be able to compete with the developments which have taken place in the past ten years. At the present time we have free trade with the United States in
5G1

binder twine. We liave not a little pre- twine will be bought up, and there will be
serve within which we can say :	Here is
the Kingston twine; come, farmers, buy it. They are not 'going to buy it unless they can get it cheaper than they can get binder twine anywhere else; and we cannot produce it cheaper than these men do. Notwithstanding that they pay the full cost of the raw material and pay dividends to their shareholders, these companies can sell their twine to the consumer cheaper than the Kingston penitentiary under whatever devices we manage it. That is one of the peculiar features of this binder twine business. My hon. friend says that we are going to overcome that by simply selling the twine to the farmers at one cent above cost. When was that twine sold to the farmers at more than one cent above cost ? We have heard a great deal about combines. There has been no combine in binder twine in Canada for years. We have heard gentlemen say that these companies have been able to divide 100 per cent dividends through the action of the government. What companies in Canada have done that 1 Yon would think there were fifty or sixty companies each dividing from 50 per cent in 100 per cent dividends among their shareholders. We have only two operating companies in Canada to-day: the Consumers' Company of Montreal, and the Farmers' Company of Brantford. These gentlemen talk about combines. What combine could you get up in Canada, which would be able to compete against the Deerings and the McCormacks and the Plymouth Companies ? If it were not for the silliness of the proposition, and tlie serious consequences involved, and the attempt to make political capital out of it, it would be laughed out of court. There are not live business men on the other side of tlie House, who believe that the proposition now before us is practicable. It will not do what its friends propose to do. If they say, let tlie government make binder twine, and sell it to the farmers direct without the intervention of a middleman, I am with them. As a political move that would be tlie best thing the government could undertake. It would give us an opportunity to shout and say :	See what the
government are doing for tiie farmers; we are trying to kill out these great combinations, these great monopolies, and produce binder twine, and sell it to tlie farmers at cost. It would be a political move that anybody might adopt. But is it feasible V I say it is not. You cannot sell binder twine for one cent a pound, when the Brantford people are paying one and a half cents. I predict that if this resolution carries, and the attempt is made to sell the twine at one cent a pound, and only to farmers, it will have this result: in famine years, when binder twine is scarce, our agents will have at their side in distant parts of the country, men who are a good deal sharper than the farmers, and long before they know it. the
an advance in the price. In years of plenty, when we have more twine than we know what to do with, it will not be sold, and we know how binder twine deteriorates in the process of keeping.
My opinion is that the government should consider this question seriously, and try to sell binder twine to the consumers at the least possible expense, doing away with the intervention of middlemen when possible. I hold as a business man that up to the present time the management of the sale of the product of the Kingston penitentiary has been a dead failure. It was worse under the old regime, because wre lost money. Under the present regime, with all its imperfections, it has at least been able to declare a slight dividend. This is an important question, when you come to realize that the binder twine industry has had expended in its development a large sum of money. Those who are not familiar with what is going on do not realize that an attempt is being made to drive the Canadian companies out of the business. The Plymouth concern, which produces twenty times as much as the Brantford concern, the Deerings, the McCormacks, and the other great American binder twine producing concerns are trying to capture the Canadian market, and the one thing that has prevented the farmers of Canada during the last few years paying more for their binder twine has been this very company, the Brantford Binder Twine Company, and hon. gentlemen appear to be under the impression that they have made their money in an illegitimate way. I do not for a moment suppose that the conditions existing in the past two years are going to be permanent. There has been a condition of great fluctuation in prices, and business men, with business training 05[uiu of aiqu uaoq OAuq 'Aploatp Xnq o} soi} -tuupioddo puq oaui[ 'pijtdBO popiuipin puts large sums of money. I said a year ago in this House that had the Brantford Binder Twine Co. sold their raw material and never made a pound of binder twine, they would have cleared ,$225,000. On an investment of that kind with a capital of only $05,000, it is easy to declare dividends of 00 per cent, 100 per cent and 00 per cent. When you come to realize that that company does a business of $300,000 a year on a capital of only $05,000, and with a dividend of only $6,500 a year, you see how easy it is to pile up and accumulate funds which at last must be divided. That accounts for these immense dividends, which are now inviting a competition in the binder twine industry that will end ultimately in the loss of every dollar invested, because I do not believe we can ever compete, in the circumstances in which we are placed, with the great manufacturers of the United States. My opinion is-and it is the opinion of a business man -that every dollar put into binder twine in Canada will ultimately be lost, no matter

what action this government may take, unless they restore the duty ; and ultimately the manufacturers of the United States will do the hinder twine trade business of this country no matter what efforts we may put forth at Kingston and at Toronto.
X want to impress upon the minds of our farmer friends here that the influence which has regulated the price of binder twine in this country for the past four or live years has never been any combine. There has never been a combine in this country in binder twine for ten years, and all those statements made by the hou. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) to the effect that the government have been conspiring with the binder twine companies and thus enabling them to declare 100 per cent dividends, are purely imaginative. The hon. gentleman has the reputation of being a business man, whose opinions on financial subjects are worthy of consideration ; but with all deference to his gigantic ability as a business man, his statements with respect to the connection of the government with these various binder twine industries, I would describe, if I did not know him so well, as the imaginations of a mind diseased. The hon. gentleman went on to say that by means of the conspiracy between this government and these great manufacturing industries, this great combine had declared dividends of 100 per cent. But who is this great combine 1 Where are the factories that make it up ? Why, there are only two firms In the whole country-the Farmers Binder Twine Company and the Consumers Cordage Company-and they are diametrically ojiposed to each other. They are as opposite as the poles. The object of the hon. gentleman in making that statement was evidently to try and show that this government has been derelict in its duty and had conspired to advance the interests of its political friends.
But how could the government advance the interests of its political friends ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the Plymouths and the Deerings and the McCormacks, and the other great manufacturing establishments on the other side, are all a party to this combine ? To show how absurd is the statement, all you have to do is to look at what it actually costs to produce twine in the prison and then see what it was sold at. The figures given by the hon. gentleman are purely imaginary. It costs a great deal more to produce the binder twine than he stated. One gentleman says it costs 61 cents. That statement is not true. By referring to the Auditor General's Iteport and taking last year's purchase of supplies and dividing it into the amount that they actually cost, you will find that the raw material costs 7 cents per pound. And if you will take the 400 tons that were produced and divide them into the entire cost, you will find that it costs 81 cents per pound, and yet the hon. gentlemen who sup-Mr. HEYD.
ported this resolution for the purpose of injuring the government, tell us that binder twine, which it costs 01 cents to produce, was sold to the farmers at 14 cents. Why did these hon. gentlemen take the highest figure ? But when hon. gentlemen have a political object to serve, they are not deterred by any little obstacles of that kind.
Up to the present the only sensible utterance pronounced was that of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), who said that it is the duty of the government to put selling agents in the various townships of this country and sell, at the lowest possible cost of distribution, the output of the Kingston penitentiary to the actual consumers and do away with the middleman. That is a sensible proposition, which 1 commend to the judgment) of the government. I hope the time will come when the government will be able to sell its binder twine direct to the farmer, so that if we are only able to supply one farmer out of twenty, lie will get his binder twine at the lowest cost price. But what are you going to do with the other nineteen farmers ? How will you sell this twine so that there will be an equal distribution ? It is easy to get up and make academic speeches, but the moment you begin to sift every proposition from a business standpoint and see how you can make this thing operative, difficulties stare you in the face on every hand, and it is evident that since the Kingston penitentiary makes only 5 per cent of the binder twine consumed in this country, we cannot hope to make any impression on the price, and all these promises made are bound to result in failure. I intend to oppose this resolution because one cent per pound will not sell our manufacture of binder twine, because we will be fighting competitors who pay twice as much for selling and who have at their disposal more skilled binder twine salesmen than we can hope to secure. We will be bound, if that resolution carries, to meet failure the very first time we come into competition wTith these men. At the same time, I hope that this discussion will induce the government to consider the question and devise some means of removing this binder twine matter from the realm of politics and thus give our hon. friends opposite no excuse for saying that we arc using that industry for the benefit of our friends. If the government are bound to sell the twine to the wholesalers, let them advertise in the public markets and sell to the highest bidder, whether he be Grit or Tory and thus remove the stigma these men are attempting to fasten on us. I have not the slightest doubt that the government can overcome the difficulty. There have been fabulous jumps in the market in the last two or three years and great opportunities to make money, but I have not the slightest doubt that when the industry assumes its ordinary condition, the government will be able to devise a scheme

of disposing of the product of the Kingston penitentiary to the people who want it at the least possible expense to the countiy.
Mr. GEORGE STEPHENS (Kent, Out.) 1 notice that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) said that when the Liberal government came into office, in August, 1896, they found all the twine on hand that had been made the previous year. I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me why this twine had not been sold for the harvest of 1896 ? Was it because the previous government had entered into a combine with the Consumers' Cordage Company, in order to allow that company to sell their whole output at 71 cents per pound, which they did. The raw material had fallen from about 6 cents per pound to a little less than 4 cents. The twine could surely have been sold to the farmers in 1896. But the government d d not sell any twine whatever that year. They had in the neighbourhood of 500 tons on hand. Twine had gone down from 104 cents to 71 cents, and was still declining, hut the government held the twine, though it was manufactured and ready to go into the market. When the Liberal government took office on the 6th August, 1890, it was too late to sell that twine for the harvest of 1896. The hon. gentleman complains that this binder twine was kept over and sold at too cheap a price. I want to show him that some merchants in his county bought twine in 1897. And what did they pay for it ? Mr. S. A. McCartney, of Alton, bought twine at 54 cents ; Messrs. Peaker & Son, Brampton, at 51 cents ; Mr. R. HewSon, Malton, 51 cents ; Mr. J. E. Harris, Cheltenham, 51 cents and 04 cents ; Geo. McClellan, Cooksville, 5f cents, and Messrs. Kelley & Marshall, Orangeville, 5| and 6 cents. Now, this twine, the hon. gentleman says, was sold to Coll Bros, at 44 cents a pound. That, I believe, is a fact. But hon. members should bear in mind that the twine was a year old, and not of as good quality as that which was bought at 54 cents. Any one who has handled binder twine knows that when it is carried over a length of time the quality depreciates. Twine that was sold at 44 cents at the penitentiary, allowing for freight and interest on the money for one year, was a good sale, as compared with twine delivered at the merchant's storehouse at 54 cents per pound. 1 would like the hon. member for Peel to answer the question why this twine was not sold and used in the harvest of 1890.


David Henderson: It is not my intention to prolong this debate a great length, but I cannot allow some of the statements made by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) to pass without some notice. He seeks to convey the impression to the House, and through the House, to the country, that the twine made in the Kingston penitentiary last year cost
8J cents per pound, instead of about 6 cents or 04 cents per pound, as stated by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) ; and, by that means he seeks to justify the government in placing that twine upon the market and selling it to the farmers of this country in quantities' of less than one ton, at 14 cents per pound. Now, there need not be any question as to the actual cost of this twine to the government. We do not require to examine the cordage journals or any other journals, or to ascertain the price of manila in New York or any other place, to find just what the government had to pay for their raw material. We can go to the Auditor General's Report or the report of the Minister of Justice, and take the items under the head of Kingston Penitentiary. There we find exactly the figure the government paid for the raw material from which the twine sold to the farmer during the summer of 1900 was made. I find that these figures were correctly stated by the hon. member for Peel, who, by the way, 1 must say, made not only a very excellent speech, hut a very carefully prepared speech, showing that he desired not to mislead the House or to misstate the case in any way. The hon. member for Peel stated that the government bousrht in 1899-1900. or the year preceding the 30th .Tune, 1900.140.335 pounds of manila hemp, at 54 cents per pound. 123,344 pounds of manila hemp at 54 cents, and 8,320 pounds at 9 cents. These were the only purchases made by the government during the whole twelve months preceding the 30tli June last, and this is the raw material out of which the twine was made that was offered to the farmers of this country at 14 cents per pound. The average price of these 272,000 pounds, or 136 tons, of raw material, was $5.60 per hundred pounds. We all know that there is not a pound of raw manila in a pound of twine ; at the most, there would not be more than 85 per cent of fibre in a pound even of pure manila twine. At that rate, the price of the raw material in a pound of twine would be 4-76 cents. To this, we will add the price of the cordage oil, which would not be more than 15 cents per hundred pounds of twine. In all, the cost of the raw material for a hundred pounds of manila twine would be $4.91. We are credibly informed by the Minister of Justice that this raw material can be converted into twine in the Kingston penitentiary at the rate of 75 cents per hundred pounds, or J cent per pound. This makes the total cost of binder twine in Kingston penitentiary $5.90 per 100 pounds, or. say 6 cents per pound. Yet, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd), without giving us any data upon which to make the calculation, makes the assertion that it costs 8J cents per pound. I need not, and do not intend to prolong the debate by giving the average prices of the sisal, because that has not been brought very prominently into question. But, I do say that if the gov-

eminent offered to the farmers of this country the output of the Kingston penitentiary last year in quantities of less than one ton at 14 cents per pound, they were seeking to get too large a profit from the farmers, seeing that the cost to them was 6 cents per pound, the profit thus being over 12.1 per cent. Now, the hon. member for South Brant tells us, by way of excuse for the Brantford company, making such an enormous profit on the output of their factory, that they made that profit from the sale of raw material. But he does not tell us that they sold the raw material. He says had they sold the raw material without making it up they might have made a profit of $225,000. But there is an ' if ' in it, they probably could not find a purchaser. It may be that in the late part of the season, for a few days or a few weeks, the price of the raw material rose rapidly to a high figure, but we have no assurance that the Brantford people could have sold the large quantity of raw material which they had at that large price, and no assurance that they could have realized the $225,000 out of their raw material because they had no purchasers for it. His plan of making a sale of binder twine in the Kingston penitentiary is one, I am sure, which this House will condemn. He says it should be put up at auction and sold to the highest bidder. Now, that is just what we do not approve of. You can rest assured that if the Kingston penitentiary output of binder twine was put up at auction to be sold to the highest bidder, a very good price indeed would be realized for it. American buyers would come in, I have no doubt, and purchase the whole output at a high price, knowing by that means they would destroy all competition and be able to get a high price for every pound of twine required by the farmers of this country. What we want is to retain in our own hands the entire output of the Kingston penitentiafy, to keep it as a lever for the purpose of maintaining a level of prices. The hon. gentleman from 'South Brant (Mr. Heyd) says that 5 per cent is all that the Kingston penitentiary can turn out of the total requirements of Canada, and that 5 per cent of the total quantity would never control the price. But
I	think he destroys the whole force of his argument when he shows that the twine imported into this country last year cost
II	cents per pound. It appears from his statement that this 5 per cent, produced in this country, when put on the market by the government at 14 cents per pound, had the effect of enabling the American manufacturers of twine to raise their price up to 11 cents. I think that is clearly the case, and if the government, by inflating the price and holding back the twine from the farmers of this country, unless a very higli price was paid for it, had the effect of enabling the American manufacturers to sell the twine required by the people of


David Henderson: this country at an enormously increased price over its actual cost, 1 think that fact destroys the whole force of his argument. To my mind if we could judiciously manage the sale of this small quantity of twine, sell it only in small quantities, it would be quite sufficient to maintain a level of prices, and I know that was all that was expected by the late Sir John Thompson when the plant was installed in the Kingston penitentiary. It never was intended that the government should make money out of that twine business, that idea was entirely foreign to those who began this industry there. The sole intention was to use it for the purpose of preventing an undue inflation of price, and so long as we carefully guard the sale of this twine I believe that it is quite sufficient to maintain a control over the price of the entire requirements of the country. I repeat again, if putting the price of that twine at 14 cents a pound is sufficient to enable the American manufacturers to increase their price far beyond its value, on the other hand, retaining the control of the twine in our own hands and keeping it at a low price, will in the same manner affect favourably to the farmers the price of the remaining quantity of that twine which we are unable to produce in this country. I need not say that I should support the resolution of the hon. member for Peel. I think it is a motion in the right, direction, and I hope the government will accept the resolution and be guided by its terms. I pay no attention to what the hon. member for South Brant says when he contends that the increase of 1 cent to cover the cost of selling the twine is not at all sufficient. I fear the hon. gentleman is putting in a word for his own constituents who are large manufacturers of twine, and that, although he pretends to be a friend of the farmer, he is desirous of enabling his constituents to obtain as big a price for their output as they possibly can, notwithstanding that the farming community will suffer in consequence.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Mr. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I was unfortunately absent when this debate originated the other night, but I have read carefully the speeches that were made, and the conclusion to which I have come is that there is a great deal of inaccurate information in reference to the binder twine industry, either on the opposition benches or in the Department of Justice. The member for Grey made a specific statement which I think it necessary at the outset of my remarks to contradict ; he made the statement that in 1000 the government sold binder twine to their own friends at 7i cents per pound, and that they sold it to the farmers at 14 cents a pound. The question as put to him directly by the Minister of Railways and Canals whether he intended to give to the House the information that they were selling the same twine at the

same time at these different figures. The answer he made was : 'Yes, at the same time and the same quality of twine.' Now that is a serious statement, an extremely serious statement to make, because it necessarily implies dishonesty on the part of the officers of the government charged with the administration of this industry. To that statement I wish to give an absolute, unqualified, positive denial. What the lion..gentleman no doubt meant to say, because I would be loath to insinuate for a moment that a gentleman occupying the position he does in this House would attempt deliberately to mislead the House and the country-what no doubt the hon. gentleman intended to say was that in the year 1899 the output of the Kingston penitentiary was sold to Hobbs Hardware Co. by public tender, and sold to them without competition for 7i cents a pound; and that that twine, so sold in 1899 by public tender was delivered to them in 1900, and the delivery took place in 1900 at the price stipulated and paid in 1899. Their basis of comparison fails absolutely. In one instance you have got the twine that was sold in 1899, as I said a moment ago, by public competition at 7-1 cents a pound, at a time when the raw material was sold at 5J cents a pound ; and on the other hand you have the twine that was sold at 14 cents a pound in 1900 at a time when raw material had actually gone from 5i cents a pound up to 10 cents a pound, at certain dates in that year. Now it seems to me that in discussing a matter of this sort, and especially in discussing it in the interest of that important element of the community which is called the farming class, the least that element has a right to expect is an honest and fair statement.
I will now proceed to deal with the motion, and in speaking of that motion, I would state immediately that we have no quarrel with a portion of it. With a portion of it we cannot have a quarrel, because, since August 1899, we have been doing what that motion says we ought to do. Since August 1899, it has been open to the farming class of this country, who apply to the Kingston penitentiary direct to get binder twine in lots to suit them from the penitentiary, and at what price V At the price of the raw material to which is added the cost of manufacture, and when the purchase is for less than ten pound lots, one cent a pound is added for profit. That has been the system since August 1899. It was in existence from August 1899, for the balance of that season, it was in existence throughout' the whole of the season 1900, and it is well known to hon. gentlemen opposite, those who were here during the course of last session, and those who took cognizance of it but who were not here, that the information was given publicly in this House that the twine was disposed of in this fashion. [DOT] I therefore say that we have no quarrel with that portion of my hon. friend's motion
which asks that the government should go that far, because it is merely giving effect to that which we have been doing since August 1899. But, when it goes farther than that, and asks us to pass a motion that we should dispose of binder twine to the farmer at a price to cover the actuffi cost of the raw material and manufacture with one cent per pound added, and goes on to say that-
No twine manufactured or paid for out of the Dominion treasury shall be sold or disposed of in any other way.	,
It is asking .us to do a tiling which, when my hon. friend comes to consider it, he will see is almost, I was going to say, absurd. Let us not deal with generalities, but with concrete facts. I said a moment ago, that we disposed of our binder twine to the farmer. What happened last year ? At the end of the season, the 1st of August, 1900, we had not disposed of more than half of the whole output for the year. We had half of the output still on hand. What are we going to do with that-keep it over until next year, when it will become practically valueless, and then dispose of it to the farmer, because, if this motion is adopted, we are not free to dispose of it in any other way '! This motion goes too far, as my hon. friend must see at a glance. It is all very fine to ask that we should dispose of this to the farmer, but, why is it that we cannot get the farmer to deal with us ?


William Findlay Maclean: You hay forked the farmer once ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: He was hay forked once no doubt. Probably my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) knows when and under what circumstances. lie has no doubt a knowledge of the transaction. How is it that we cannot get the farmer to deal with us V We have offered this twine to him on the conditions specified by my hon. friend in his motion. Last year half of the output of the penitentiary was left on our hands. I think my hon. friend might go further; when he says that we shall be obliged to give all the twine to the farmer and no one else, he should adopt the other branch of the argument, and so be strictly logical, and say that so long as we have to dispose of the twine to the farmer, the farmer must deal with us, or that he shall find us a purchaser. I said that we disposed of this twine at the cost of the raw material, adding to it the cost of manufacture, and adding one cent a pound. Hon. gentlemen opposite undertook to tell us that the farming class were practically buncoed, to use an expression which I would borrow from the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), by the government in connection with the sale of binder twine; that is to say that they paid much more for their twine than should have been legitimately asked of them. My hon. friend ought to bear in

miiul tlnit binder twine is a marketable commodity like any other. When yon pnt it on tlie market, the i>rice lias to be regulated by tlie law of supply and demand, and in order that the House may determine whether or not the farming community paid more for their twine than they ought to have paid, it is necessary to examine the prices at which others dealing in the same commodity in the same market disposed of their article. Let me point out how that applied. The government had no monopoly of this twine. They were competing in the market with others. What did we find ? We found this circular was issued at the time we were disposing of our twine to the farmers, issued by a concern that sells what they call the Plymouth Binder Twine. These gentlemen are dealing with the Kingston output :
In the hope of moving the accumulated stock of twine at Kingston penitentiary, the warden has again reduced prices, but thus far there has been no visible increase in their orders. With few exceptions, the farmers of Ontario, remembering past experiences, are apparently not willing to take chances with convict-made twine, or they do not consider the penitentiary article .as a bargain, no matter how low the price; otherwise, that twine should have been disposed of as rapidly as made, as the government's price has been, all season, from 1 to 2 cents per pjuud below the market quotations for twine of reputation.
That is what has tiikqu place, and that is evidence of those who are competing with us in the same market. It is that we are selling this twine from one to two cents j)er pound less than our competitors, and yet we are told that we tire endeavouring to impose on the farmers.


Mr. BLAIN.: At what date was that ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The date marked on it here in writing is August, 1900. My non. friends have reierred to tlie origin ol this industry at Kingston. They have told us that the intention was to start this industry for the purpose of regulating the price of binder twine in Canada. Bear in mind that the output of Kingston penitentiary is 5(j0 tons a year, and that the amount of binder twine used in Canada, is about 8,000 tons. We import over ten million pounds free of duty. How far are you going to regulate the price of binder twine with the amount we have at our disposal, it is impossible for me to see. But, we are also told that the intention of the government. when this binder twine factory was started in 1894, was that it should be used exclusively for that purpose, that it was not to be looked upon as a business industry to be dealt with on business principles. Let me draw the attention of m.v lion, friend to what took place in July. 1894, when this question was under discussion. At that time Mr. Davin asked that the government should pay the freiclit on the binder twine Mr. FITZPATRICK.
up to the North-west, and Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, said :


Sir JOHN THOMPSON.: I should very much like to be able to do so, but I am afraid I cannot make such a promise. Companies already engaged in the binding twine business are in the habit of paying the freight as far west as Owen Sound, but we would not be able, without involving loss and without calling on parliament to make good that Pss, to pay the freight on binding twine sent to the North-west Territories.	.
There is no suggestion there that this is to be dealt with on any other principle but a business principle.


Mr. MULOCK.: I should like to ask if binding twine is being sold under ccst?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: No, it is not. I mentioned the rates the other day, and I forget them fcr a moment, but binding twine is not being manufactured under ccst-the price covers the cost, and an allowance for the labour of the prisoners.


William Mulock: Is that calculated as free labour, or as convict labour?	[DOT]
[ Sir JOHN THOMPSON. As convict labour, 50 cents per day, because their hours are shorter and work lighter than free labour. The product is sold at a price coveiing tlie cost of the material, also interest on the expenditure for plant, allowance for deterioration, and everything that enters into the calculation of a private manufacturer.


William Mulock: Except the lab ur.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Not excepting the labour, but excepting free labour prices. We charge for the labour, but less than free labour prices.


William Mulock: A question here arises with respect to goods manufactured by convict labour, and the prices at which they are put upon the market. The government are calculating the price at convict rates, and are placing convict labour in competition with free labour. There is a large question involved; and I do not wish to enter into it now, but I want to be sure as to what is the practice of the government.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: That question does not arise in this instance. The labour is computed at 50 cents per day, and it is w rth no more than that. Convict labour terminates in winter at four or five o'clock in the afternoon ; the prisoners are also later in beginning work, and the work is lighter than with free labour. In addition, I may say that we are selling the product at the same prices as the Central Prison in Toronto, the firm at Brantford, and the Consumers' Cordage Company, alth ugh I have not made an agreement with any of them. That does not look as if Sir John Thompson was regulating the price of the output. He was selling it at the same price that these competitors were seling their product at, and we forsooth are blamed because we are selling It at one or two cents a pound less than our competitors. Now, since 1880, how have we dealt with this output of binder twine ? It has been not only suggested, but it has been made a matter of positive statement that in 1S96 the output of the Kingston penitentiary was disposed of to friends of the government at a figure less

than it cost to produce it. That is charged against us. Let us look how this twine in-*dustry was dealt with previous to 1896. Let us see how those who charge us to-day with dereliction of duty acted themselves, and how many of these gentlemen protested against the action of the Conservative government.
This industry was started at Kingston in 1S94. It lirst began by installing the plant and the people of this country were made to pay $40,000 for a plant that cost the contractor in the vicinity of $18,000.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They were preparing for the elections of 1890 then.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, this was previous to the elections of 1896. Not only did the people of Canada pay the figure I have mentioned, but they paid it notwithstanding that the government had called for tenders and that they had a tender for a plant of the same sort for $20,000.


James Clancy: I am sure that the hon. gentleman will do himself the justice to produce the evidence of the statement he has made. The Solicitor General made a similar statement last session and he expected the House to accept it without giving any proof beyond the mere statement itself.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Last session I made the statement and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) did uot contradict me, but some one on the other side suggested that perhaps my statement was incorrect. What did I answer ? I said the public accounts are there open to you.


James Clancy: No.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to be* allowed to proceed. This system of interruption I am not going to stand just at the present time. Last session, when a similar objection was made, I suggested that this matter should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and I challenged the hon. gentleman to bring it before the committee. I then said that I would produce Mr. Mackey, the auditor, from Toronto, who was specially charged in connection with the suit-to which I shall have occasion to refer later on-with the examination of these accounts, and who would produce the invoices to prove the statement I made. The challenge I made then I repeat now. I say that this matter would be better dealt with before either the Public Accounts Committee or the Committee on Agriculture, where we would have an opportunity to bring witnesses and to prove the statements I have made. That is (lie place to deal with this question, and not here where we have all sorts of vague statements made by gentlemen on the other side of the House, arising from what I must at least call imperfect knowledge.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is very kind of you to call it that.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The very same year that this twine industry was inaugurated in Kingston let us see what became of the output. Was it sold to the farmers of this country or was it sold to the combine ? I charge that in 1894, when the industry was first started, the output of that year was sold to Mr. John Connor, who at that time was the moving spirit in the binder twine combine in Canada. Mr. Connor was the man who controlled the whole of the twine industry in Canada. It was sold to him, and he entered into possession of it. He sold it as he thought best throughout the country in the interest of the combine. And then, what occurred ? At the end of the year after he had got possession of our twine he owed us for the output of 1894 something like $0,009.


James Clancy: You once said it was


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Oh, I am going to show you in a few minutes that it was $53,000. There is no use in confuting these facts with me to-night. That was in 1894. and 1895 what happened ? The output of the penitentiary in 1895 was sold to the same Mr. John Connor, notwithstanding that in the previous year he was indebted in the sum I have mentioned. In the month of June, 1895, he had received on account of sales made of this twine which belonged to us and for which he had not paid us one farthing ; he had received $28,000. In August he got another $5,000, making it $33,000, and when the month of December of that year came around he was indebted to the government for the twine he had actually received during that season in a sum amounting to something like $40,000. And how did the government settle with him ? Notwithstanding that he had received the money and put it in his pocket in the interval. ho was settled with by taking notes from him. All that in the interests of the farmers of course. But that is not all. That goes on until the month of March, 1896. In that month it is found that there is such a thing as a Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons. It is discovered that perhaps a question can be put with reference to the industry, and what happens ? Then Mr. Connor makes an assignment of certain claims which he has, in order to refund the government apparently the amount of money he had received during the year for the binder twine output of the Kingston penitentiary.
Then what happened? You see that up to that time we were dealing with Connor, who had sold the output of 1894. and that of 1895. and had-paid something on the output of 1894. and for 1895 had paid out .$174. on an output of $153,009. These gentlemen. who had the interest of the farmers so much at heart, could not deal with Connor any more ; that would be too barefaced ; and in 1896 what do they do? They

look around, and in place of Connor, they take Patrick Kelly, the cliief clerk of tlie Brantford industry, and constitute liim the agent for tlie sale of tlie binder twine output of that year. What does Kelly do V He makes a bargain in March. Then March goes by ; April, May, June, and July go by. Up to the change of government in July, Mr. Kelly never thought proper to carry out his contract, and the binder twine of that year was all stored at Kingston. The season went by ; the combine had accomplished their purpose ; our twine was bound up ; and the market was free to them. And yet these gentlemen talk about combines.
But that is not all. They were not content with tying up the product of 1891! in the manner I have described, and keeping it out of the market for the benefit of their friends of the combine by storing it away in the storehouse of the Kingston penitentiary. They then deliberately rise up and tell us that that twine which they had arranged to dispose of in the fashion I have described, remained on our hands to become practically valueless. We sold it at less than it cost, and they make that a crime in us. Assurance lias limits at times, but it does not appear to have many in tlie present instance. Do you realize what it means? l'ou have this binder twine stored in the spring of 1S96 ; we come in in July, 1895 ; we find a million pounds of this binder twine in the Kingston penitentiary, stored away ; the time had gone by to dispose of the output of the season. August was not the time to dispose of it. We then endeavoured to force upon Kelly the execution of his contract. He had promised to give security that he would faithfully perform his obligations under the contract, and so forth. The next thing we heard was that this clerk of the combines had disappeared and left the country. We were left in September or October with this binder twine ; and then what did we do ? Our opponents say that we sold it to friends of ours. We advertised publicly in the newspapers for tenders for tlie purchase of tlie output. We disposed of it by competition. Coll Bros, were the highest tenderers. There were three tenderers : Wood, Val-lance & Co., the Hobbs Hardware Co., and Coll Bros., who were the highest, and who got the twine. And from that time up to the first of August. 1899, the output of eacli year was disposed of in the same fashion, that is to say, by public competition, tenders being called for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him if the output of 1898 was disposed of in that way ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were public tenders invited, or was it sold to Bate & Co. without tender ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Tenders were called for.
Mr. MONK, By circular or by public advertisement ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: By circular.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: By private circular ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: By private circular.


William Barton Northrup: And that is the government's conception of public advertisement ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In 1898 circulars were issued, and the product was sold to Bate & Son. Competition took place between Bate & Son, the Hobbs Hardware Co., and Coll Bros, again. These were the only persons, besides Wood, Vallance & Co., who tendered in the previous year in answer to the public advertisement. But perhaps my hon. friend would be interested to know that when we came into power in 1896 about $50,000 was due us in connection with the output of two years previous, and it took us four years to collect the money. We had to sue for it and carry it through the courts for four years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask another question ? I would like to know if the invoices in connection with the disposal of the output of 1898 were not made out to the Hobbs Hardware Co., and if the Hobbs Hardware Co. did not pay for the output ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not aware of that. I am not concerned with tlie private dealings of Bate & Son, or with how they disposed of the product.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was not my question. I am speaking of the dealing with the department.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not know any further than I have stated.
Mi1. MONK. The information we have is that it was so disposed of.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It may be. I do not say that the information tlie hon. gentleman has is not correct. The output was sold and the money paid. The output was not given to an agent to collect the money, and the money carried in his pocket for twelve months, a note taken for the amount, and the money never paid.
These are in general terms the condition of this binder twine industry. Hon. gentlemen opposite took it in hand, they burdened it at its inception by paying for the installation of the plant 100 per cent more than it ought to have cost. They added to that their mismanagement of the output of 1894, 1895 and 1896. Then, after we came in, we disposed of the output of each year by


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: public tender until August, 1899, when we made It a condition tliat the farmers should have the right to come in and make their purchases in lots to suit themselves. This has been continued during the present year, and it is now a question to determine what shall be done next year. Notwithstanding the facilities given to the farmers to make these purchases in the manner I have described, half the output or thereabouts remained on our hands on the 1st of August last. How shall that be disposed of at the end of the year ? Shall it be disposed of at a sacrifice ; and, if the farmers will not buy the twine themselves, are we to keep it there or force it upon them in spite of themselves ?
I have stated all the facts in connection with this matter, and I repeat that the place to investigate this question, as it is one of facts and figures, is either the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee on Agriculture or a special committee. Establish the facts once and for all, and settle the position of the government with respect to their dealings with this industry, and it will be found that the only object the government have had has been that for which the industry was originally created, that is to say, to give employment to the inmates of the Kingston penitentiary, and then to dispose of the product at an honest, fair price, so that the public of this country shall not be burdened with any portion of the cost.
It seems to me, and I am sure that the farming community agree with the others in this respect, that no one class can be burdened in order that another may be benefited. It is not the desire of the farming community that we should run this at a loss to the public generally in order that they may be benefited. What they ask is that they should have an opportunity to buy the product at the cost of the raw material, plus the cost of manufacture, and something in the way of an addition to cover a reasonable remuneration in return.


William Barton Northrup: I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I was a little surprised at the remarks which fell from the lips of my hon. and eloquent friend the Solicitor General, as although in one sense strictly professional, in another they were hardly such as I would expect to hear from a gentleman so quite up to date as he is. It is an old rule-so old that I thought it had become obsolete-that when the facts and the evidence are against you, be sure and oppose the attorney opposite. But, it seems to me that when a deliberative body such as this is asked to consider a simple proposition, which in no way reflects on the administration, but which simply suggests, in the interests of the people, a wiser way of conducting a certain industry, a gentleman occupying the position of the Solicitor General would have endeavoured to con-19
tribute something to assist the House in arriving at an intelligent conclusion as to' whether the system proposed was better than that hitherto followed. I venture to say that at present we might just as well discuss the events of a hundred years ago, as those of five or six years ago, even when these touch the binder twine industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Barton Northrup: Hon. gentlemen opposite seem amused, but, perhaps, they do not care to have the events of the last four or five years discussed. But even admitting their contention that the system now. followed is that which they inherited from their predecessors, that is no answer to the argument that the plan now proposed is an improvement on that which has been in vogue in the past.
We owe the hon. the Solicitor General thanks for telling us that from the time the present administration came into power the whole output of the penitentiary was put up to public competition. But this public competition was invited, not by means of advertisements in the newspapers, but by private circulars, and this is the hon. gentleman's idea of public competition. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how many of these private circulars were sent out, and who were the parties that were favoured with them.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I cannot give the exact number.


William Barton Northrup: Would the number be two or three or four ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: About five or six.


William Barton Northrup: Here again we have an interesting piece of information and it shows what a different meaning may be attached by the hon. gentleman to certain words, compared with that ordinarily given them. I should have thought that the word ' circular' was a word, the use of which would depend a good deal upon the number that had been sent out. Supposing only one had been sent out it would be perfectly clear, it would be more properly called a letter. If it was only two that were sent out it would still be clear that it was only a letter, and that the word ' circular would be out of place as applied to it. And I venture to say that the great majority of people would think that if five or six letters were sent out privately to friends of the government, it would be hardly a fair description of the action of the government to say that this was advertising for public competition. But I rose mainly because a question was asked that I thought I could, in some part, answer. The Solicitor General asked why the farmers declined to deal with the government. A suggestion with regard to this was given by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). I venture to give



another. Last year-I cannot give the exact month, but it was several months before the general elections and, X think, in August or September-I was shown a letter received from the warden of the penitentiary by one of the farmers who had written to that official for the price of binder twine. The receiver of the letter brought it to me. It was somewhat similar in its general effect to the statement of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blaiu), giving different figures for different quantities of binder twine delivered on the train at Kingston. But the farmer, being dissatisfied with the figures quoted, had gone to a dealer in Belleville-a good Reformer-and had bought twine at a much lower cost than the price he was asked by the government for twine delivered on board the train at Kingston. The Solicitor General asked a perfectly fair question when he wished to know why the farmers would not deal with the government, and I think I have given a fair answer-the reason being that the government, while professing to be interested in the farmer's welfare actually proposed to charge him more for binder twine on board the cars at Kingston than the dealer would sell it for delivered at his door. A large number of people are interested in the binder twine industry and in what becomes of the product of the government factory at Kingston ; and the hon. gentleman who brought this question before the House felt, as I Judge from the line of his remarks in which he referred to the disposal of the binder twine from 1896 down to this date, that the people who were interested were not fairly treated. Ascertaining from such facts as those brought before us by the hon. member for South Brant that in the sale of binder twine there were enormous profits, he naturally said that if private binder twine works are making-large profits, and if the government, composed of men of great ability, carries on a similar industry, there must naturally be large profits for that industry ; and the question naturally arises where those profits go. No one can look at the prices paid by friends of the government-and no one can deny that those who were fortunate enough to obtain this binder twine were friends of the government-and see also the prices at which the material was sold to the people and fail to see that not only was a profit made but that it went in a direction in which it should not go. The simple issue before the House is. whether the profits that have been made will continue to go to those who have handled the binder twine for the last four or five years, or to the farmers. The hon. member for Peel objects to the present plan, and the appeals to the House to adopt a better way, one by which the profits will go to the farmer rather than to the friends of the government. I would have thought that the hon. member for South Brant would have given some arguments to show that the course Mr. NORTHRUP.
adopted by the government was that best calculated to promote the interest of the majority of the people or else would have adopted the course suggested by the hon. member for Peel. But, if this debate has had no other advantages it has had two. it has had the advantage of teaching us the meaning attached to certain words by the Solicitor General, who, no doubt, speaks for the government ; and it has given us the pleasure of hearing a speech from the member for South Brant as thoroughly protectionist as any ever delivered on this side of the House. I wonder if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) also attached a different meaning to the words he used from those that we attach to them and is prepared to call himself, in certain quarters, a protectionist, meaning thereby, protection to that in which he is interested and free trade for the rest of the world. I hope that the government will consider the proposition made by the hon. member for Peel. It is possible it may not be the best means of dealing with the question. I am not certain that a better plan may not be suggested ; but I shall support it because it is incomparably superior to the course followed by the government for the last four years, and I consider it to be my duty on this floor to support the best measure proposed, even though it may not be in every respect perfect.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have received a memorandum which enables me to give the information with reference to tenders asked for by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup). Tenders were advertised for in all the years except 1898, and in that year tenders were called for by circular. Then the leading wholesale dealers, without respect to politics, had circulars sent to them on the recommendation of the inspector, Mr. Stewart, who was instructed to send them to all such. At least one dozen were sent to various parts of the country in 1898.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am glad the hon. Solicitor General made that statement before I spoke, because the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) will now see that there is no need for a new dictionary. If for two years there was advertisement in the public press, and if, in the third year, knowing just the parties who took advantage of the opportunity offered. circulars were sent out to them under the direction of a well-known Conservative at the head of the business, a gentleman appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite, I think the government have done everything they ought to be called upon to do. There is one thing that the hon. member who has made this resolution should do. In fairness he should stand up now and offer to do it. He should offer that if the farmers do not take all the binder twine manufactured at Kingston he will purchase the bal-

ance. He wants the government to carry on this business. He should desire the government not to lose in doing so. If, in response to the government's advertisements all the parties who might have done so, did not send in tenders for the product of the factory at Kingston, it may have been for one of two reasons.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They did not get a chance.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) think it fair, when advertisements were inserted in the newspapers for two successive years calling upon people to tender and only certain people did tender, to say, that, because in the third year, all the parties who did tender were asked to tender again, they did not have a chance ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) wishes me to answer his question, and I shall do so. I do not think it is fair to sell 1,429,035 pounds of binder twine at $66,883.27 to parties who can sell it agaiii for $199,750.72, making a profit of $133,167.15.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is that from the Public Accounts ? Now, if the hon. gentleman thinks that that is smart, I venture to say this House does not think so. If he reads from an article got up specially in the interests of his own party, he will not find that a sufficient answer. What was the hon. gentleman reading from ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do you deny the figures ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do deny them. I rather think that the Tycoon of the opposition leadership would have appeared to better advantage if he did not attempt to answer in that way. The dual capacity in which the party finds its leadership will not be strengthened by efforts of that kind. I was about to say that, for myself, I think the late government entered into this business on purpose to fool the farmers ; I have no more doubt of that than I have that I am talking. For the last ten or twelve years I have heard men in this parliament who wanted to get the farmers' vote, talking about binder twine It has been a continual subject of discussion.


James Clancy: On your side, too.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not deny that. But with the exposure made by the Solicitor General, and the challenges made to hon. gentlemen opposite to call for a committee and examine witnesses under oath, I do not think we will have as much trouble in the future in relation to this question. For myself, I think the government should never have entered into the business. We have paid twice as much for the machinery as it ought to cost. I do not believe it is the business of the government to enter into the manufacture of binder twine at Kingston, any more than it would he to enter into any other manufacturing business. There is plenty of other work the 19}
convicts could do. I think, now that the duty is off binder twine, that the case is quite clear. What would any business man do to-day ? Let the government, now that the duty has been taken off, put up at competition the manufactured product, and every bit of raw material that they have on hand, together with this machinery that has cost twice as much as it should cost, and let them sell it all and go out of the business. At least, by that means we would avoid all the trouble of these discussions. Then, if binder twine is an absolute necessity to the existence of the farmers, they could get it without duty from the outside, in case it could not be manufactured within this country. Here is a way in which the whole problem could be clearly solved. The hon. member for East York (Mf< Maclean) has a panacea for everything that comes up, namely, to take the railways over, and then all difficulties would be solved. But I think he will admit that this Kingston penitentiary difficulty would not be solved except by the government going out of the business altogether. I may say that this is a question that does not affect us so much in Nova Scotia as it appears to affect the people of Ontario. But if, as has been clearly shown, the government have sold an article at the lowest price, if these people who are in the same business are to be believed, and I would trust them to tell the facts more than I would that single individual farmer that the hon. member for Hastings has told us about, if the evidence of the Solicitor General is to be taken, the government have sold the twine at a less price than it was sold elsewhere; and having taken the duty off binder twine, I think they have done all that they should do. Now, I would suggest to them that they should clear the decks of this question altogether, sell out everything ; and that would prevent a number of hon. gentlemen from talking for ever about this question of binder twine. It would give an opportunity to the manufacturers of the country to compete with each other in manufacturing a good article for the farmers, that they could get at the lowest price. I offer the suggestion in all modesty, and I trust it will be accepted ; and I have no doubt hon. gentlemen opposite will join with me in endeavouring to relieve this wicked government, as they consider it to be, from the necessity of dealing in binder twine to the disadvantage of the farmers.


Mr. JOHN SHBRRITT (North Middlesex).: I have listened with a good deal of Interest to the discussion that has been in progress to-night. I may say that this is a question of considerable interest to the farmers in North Middlesex, the riding which I have the honour to represent. I may say also that I am a farmer, and I never was more proud of being so than I have been tonight, when I heard the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche), getting up and calling

himself a farmer, whom I am informed on good authority is one of those wealthy coal merchants down in Nova Scotia. This binder twine question is one of considerable importance to the agricultural community. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Fraser) proposes that the government should go out of the business altogether. That hon. gentleman, and some others who have spoken on that side of the House, have had a good deal to say, but they have all failed to suggest any way by which the business could be carried on on business lines. The hon. member for Guysborough started out to draw comparisons. I do not think that is the proper course to pursue on this question. It would be just about as fair to argue that, because a man has had his hat stolen at some time, another man would be justified in going and taking his boots. The hon. gentleman states that it costs 7i cents to produce this twine. I have not heard any argument put forth that would show this House that the government ever offered this twine at a time when it was possible for the farmers to obtain it, at any such figure, or at any figure that would be a fail-price, as their advertised price to farmers was 11 cents to 14 cents per pound. Some wild suggestions have been made from the other side of the House, but there has been no proof that binder twine had ever been offered to the farmers, as I said before, at less than 14 cents for best quality.
Now, it seems to me this is a state of affairs which should not exist. The motion before the House, I approve of in the main, though I do not believe exactly in that one-cent proposition. I think it possible that some way could be devised by which this twine could be sold to the farmers at a less price than nearly double what it costs to produce, i was thinking, when listening to some hon. gentlemen opposite that if they had been in my riding previous to the 7th of November last, they would have had some difficulty, notwithstanding the talent they exhibited here to-night, in convincing the farmers that they have been properly dealt with in this matter. The result of the election in my riding shows that the policy of the government in reference to this binder twine question as well as other matters, had been distasteful to the farmers. Ontario has spoken out against the government on this matter, and I believe, amongst all the bad things that have been done by the government, no action that has been taken has promoted the interests of the opposition more in that province than the action of the government upon this very question. It was not on account of the unpopularity of our late member, or on account of my own popularity that the campaign in my constituency resulted as it did, but it was the action of the government on this and other questions that placed me in this House. I do not wish to detain the House or to enter upon Mr. SHERRITT.
a lengthy discussion of the matter, but my idea is that this binder twine was offered at a time when the farmers could not avail themselves of the offer. The offer was made so much in advance of the time that they actually needed it, the time that many farmers were not prepared to purchase it. I think if the government desired to assist the farmers they would leave the offer open until the 1st of July. That would give them ample time, and if they then found that orders were not coming in from the farmers they would have an opportunity of sending men out and in some way disposing of the twine throughout the country. I believe the matter has been very badly handled in the past. When the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) referred to the question the other day he stated that he was an independent man. We should show, on both sides of the House, that we are all independent men. It does seem to me that we should show our independence on these lines, notwithstanding the fact that we may be sitting on one side of the House or the other. I know what I am speaking about when I say that if any hon. gentlemen, sitting on the other side of the House, representing a farming community, who-votes against this motion will be giving a vote contrary to his own opinion, and which, apart from political considerations, he would not give.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, this question of binder twine is a most important one to the agricultural constituencies of this country. I am very sorry that the motion and the mover of the motion have not been paid a greater compliment by the hon. members who have spoken, supposedly to the motion, but really not to it at all. I think there has seldom been a motion presented to this House which has been less discussed than this motion now before us. We have heard a rehash of certain pages of the Conservative literature of the last election, which most of us have all heard for hour after hour, given with the utmost gravity and good faith, as if it were something original and something that no one had ever heard before. I did not suppose, when I read that literature first, or when I heard it delivered from platform after platform during the election, that the men who used it believed it. I did not suppose that they were so lacking in ordinary knowledge and common sense, but now I am bound to believe that they talked it so long that they not only have come to believe it themselves, but they think they can make other people believe it by continuing to talk it. What is the purpose of all this talk about binder twine ? What was the [DOT] purpose of the literature that was circulated through the country, and what was the purpose of the campaign that was made in regard to binder twine in the late election ? I am at

a loss to understand what the purpose is of the greater part of this debate, but the purpose of the attack upon the policy of the government in regard to binder twine during the election was to blind the eyes of the farming community if possible to the wise action of the government in abolishing the duty on binder twine, and making that product, at any rate, free to the farmers as far as the tariff was concerned. Whatever pledge in regard to the reduction of the tariff the government may have failed in, it did not fail on the article of binder twine. Therefore, as binder twine is an article of the highest importance to that part of the community which forms the largest part of the electorate, it was necessary to deceive, if possible, the farmers as to the value of the action of the government to them. It was for that reason and that alone that the campaign of misrepresentation, of slander and falsehood, which has seldom or never been equalled in any country, was carried on on the basis of binder twine during the late election, and the fact that in that part of the country where binder twine is more important than in any other, the government's policy was sustained by a vote of four to nothing, is a sufficient answer to it. The government abolished the duty upon binder twine ; they fulfilled to the utmost limit their pledge in regard to the tariff on that article, they benefited the farmers by doing so, and then the charge was made that they had used the output of the Kingston penitentiary to unduly increase the price of the article to the farmers. A case was built up in regard to the misuse of the binder twine of the penitentiary which the bon. gentleman (Mr. Sherritt), who preceded me in this debate, declared was the cause of his return to this House and the defeat of his opponent. So successful were the opposition in that campaign of misrepresentation that they made a majority of the electors of North Middlesex believe that the government, by manipulating one-tenth of the binder twine used in this country, bad increased the price by 100 per cent. I will admit that you can manipulate the output of the Kingston penitentiary so as to affect the price of binder twine to a proportionate degree, but that was not the contention that was put up. The contention was exactly what I say, that the government had so manipulated the output of the Kingston penitentiary, being one-tenth of the total consumption of the bidder twine of this country, that they had doubled the price of twine to the farmers, an utterly preposterous proposition. The idea has been held out to the farmers that they depended on the output of the Kingston penitentiary for their binder twine. My opponent said to the farmers in one section of the country, where 1 had the pleasure of meeting him : You do not use American binder twine: ' It
makes no difference to you that the duty has been taken off twine. As long as the government hold up the price of twine manufactured at the Kingston penitentiary, so long will you have to pay that price. That is what interests you.' I made inquiries and I found that there never had been a pound of Kingston penitentiary twine sold in that part of the country. The point I want to make is this : That the idea has been attempted to be implanted in the minds of the people of this country that something has been done, or attempted to be done with the twine output of the Kingston penitentiary that never was done or attempted to be done by this government or by the late government, and that never could be done by any government. However that is in regard to the last election and having fought through that campaign. Having heard the slanders that were hurled against the policy of the government; it is certainly a pleasure for me now to come to this House and find a member of the Conservative party coming forward with a resolution endorsing the policy of the government in regard to binder twine. That disposes effectually of all the slanders uttered during that campaign and puts them exactly where they belong. We need not consider them any more. As the Solicitor General said : The government did during the past year offer the twine direct to the farmers at a fixed price. The charge was that the government had sold the twine to a combine, whereas as a matter of fact they had offered the twine to the farmers and part of it they were unsuccessful in selling to any one. The motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) endorses the principle pursued by the government last year. I do not know that it is a principle of universal application. I do not know .just how well it will work out in practice. It may be that sometime we shall attempt to sell twine direct to the farmers on the basis of the cost of the raw material. In the meantime the raw material may go down in price and the farmer can buy his twine cheaper from the other manufacturers. Another feature is that if the raw material maintains its price or if it increases in price, it is possible for the government to make a very considerable difference between the price of the penitentiary twine and the market price of twine, and then I am afraid we will have our friends opposite charging that the output of the Kingston penitentiary is being used as a bribe to the farmers of the country, by giving a preference to the friends of the government on this low priced twine. I am perfectly satisfied that so long as the present government is in power there is no danger of that taking place, but I am not at all satisfied that should the opposition come to power they will not carry out the traditions of their Conservative predecessors. These features

are worthy of consideration, hut they are questions of the future. The question of the present is, that for some reason or other, whether on account of the combine or whether it is an accident of the market ; the binder twine of this country has been sold at abnormally high prices during the past year or two. We do know that the government of Canada controls the output of the Kingston penitentiary, and I am entirely in accord with the hon. gentleman's motion -which I distinguish entirely from his remarks-that at the present time it is the duty of the government to use the output of the Kingston penitentiary to check, so far as that output can, any possible combine whereby the price of binder twine is increased to the farmers. That being the case X would have been very glad to accept the motion, but it contains a feature which is a very great weakness and which is not necessary to its principle. That is that in the case of the farmers not purchasing the total output (which occurred this year) no provision is made as to what is to be done with the residue. Is it to be carried over to another year when possibly the price of the raw material having gone down it will be unsaleable except at a loss. The suggestion made by the hon. member for North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt) was that the twine should be offered to the farmers up to a certain date, and that after that date It should be offered for sale to the highest bidder. That is a fair proposition and I will take the liberty of moving an amendment along that line, I do not exactly agree however that the government should be entitled to a cent a pound over the cost of manufacture. The government having control of the penitentiary and having to find work for the convicts, it is right that they should sell that twine at its fair cost. But then comes the question of the cost of twine manufactured by prison labour, and I do not wish to conflict with our friends in the House who are here in the interests of labour, and who have a very natural deep rooted objection against the competition of prison labour. I would like to have their support for any motion I put before the House, because I believe that the true interests of the labouring men of Canada are exactly the same as the interests of the farmers. I propose to amend the motion by striking out the cent a pound extra over cost, and placing the cost as if the twine were produced by free labour. My amendment is this :
That so long as the government continues to manufacture twine, the same shall be offered for sale directly to farmers up to July the 1st of each year at cost of material and manufacture, calculating wages on the basis of fair wages for free labour ; and that the twine unsold and on hand on July 1st of each year be sold by tender to the highest bidder, after advertisement.
That is entirely in line with the policy pursued by the government during the past Mr. OLIVER.
year, except that ?t carries it a little further and makes it more definite. It is also in line with the motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). As the representative of an agricultural constituency, I would ask the members representing agricultural constituencies in this House to vote for that amendment without respect to politics or arguments in respect to past transactions either by one government or the other.


James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the tone of the hon. gentleman's speech was such that he might ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to vote for the proposal that he has made; for those who followed him somewhat closely could see that he spoke entirely from a non-partisan standpoint. The hon. gentleman was very moderate, I fancy he thought himself. He commenced his speech by declaring that the whole country were fools, that no man of ordinary intelligence could have believed a single word contained in certain campaign literatures which was circulated in the country. I desire to remind that hon. gentleman that he sat in this House, and his leader sat in this House when those statements were made here, and that up to this moment not an hon. gentleman has challenged one of those statements.

 I do not think the hon. gentleman intended to reflect upon his leaders, but he has not shown that knowledge of the question one would expect from a gentleman who assumed such a lofty tone as he assumed a few moments ago. If he will take his pencil, and go to his room, and spend a few hours there, he will never again make such an exhibition in this House as he has made this evening. I venture to repeat the statements which were made here on former occasions, and made in what the hon. gentleman rather opprobriously called campaign literature, and which have remained to this moment uncontradicted.
What is the position of the Solictor General to-night ? He set forth as a proper answer to the charges that the machinery at the Kingston penitentiary had been purchased at an exorbitant price; but he sat down without giving a single particle of evidence in support of that bald statement. He simply said that one Mr. Munro would be able to present the evidence at the Public Accounts Committee. Well, the Solicitor General made the statement, and it devolves upon him to bring the matter before the Public Accounts Committee and there present the evidence to prove it. It does not devolve upon this side of the House to do that. The first thing the hon. gentleman said was that in August, 1809, the twine had been sold to the farmers of this country on precisely the terms proposed by the motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). Now, I have here an advertisement that appeared during last session in the public press. It is dated the 26th of February,

and I believe this House met last year on tlie 1st of February. An advertisement appeared in the public press some time before that; but, public attention was called to it during the session, and the hon. gentleman saw fit to amend the notice with regard to the sale of twine; and what does it say ?
Orders from farmers in pursuance of the advertisement dated January 22nd will be received and filed until the 20th of March, instead of the 1st of March, as stipulated in the former advertisement.
Now, what were the stipulations sent out to the farmers ? Let it be remembered that this twine with one cent added for manufacture was sold at 7'51 cents a pound. What is the farmer asked to pay ? In lots of fifty tons and upwards-for manila 124. cents, for mixed 94 cents, and for New Zealand 84 cents. No farmers are likely to buy twine in fifty ton lots, as the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well, and it was idle to put such a notice before them. The price to the farmers in carload lots, which is less than fifty tons, is for manila 13 cents, for mixed 10 cents, and for New Zealand 9 cents. In lots of one ton up to a carload, the price was-for manila 134 cents, for mixed 104 cents, and for New Zealand 94 cents. For smaller quantities, such quantities as my hon. friend knows the farmers will purchase, what was the price to them ? Bearing in mind that the cost price of this twine, including manufacture, was an average of 7-51, what was the great inducement offered to the farmers ? Why, in lots of less than one ton, they were paying for manila 14 cents, mixed 11 cents, and New Zealand 10 cents. After that advertisement had appeared on the 25th February of last session, this is what the hon. gentleman gave out, and yet he does not hesitate to rise in his place and declare that the twine from 1899, up to the present was sold at a slight advance on the cost of producing.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is prepared to withdraw the statements made in this House last session, of which I gave him a sample a moment ago? I do not say that he intended to mislead the House, but he made statements by which the House was misled.
Another statement which the hon. gentleman made was that if the twine were held over it would be a loss. In other words, that if the twine were held over more than a year it would have to be sold at a loss.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


James Clancy: I shall not ask this House to rely entirely on any statement I make in this matter, but we had an investigation, and had witnesses examined. Mr. Hughes was examined, and the hon. gentleman tried to make it appear that twine would be deteriorated by being held over, but Mr. Hughes stated that being held over one year would not matter, but it would not
do to hold it over two years, so that there is nothing in the hon. gentleman's plea that he was justified in forcing a sale because it would not do to hold over the twine.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am instructed by the warden of the penitentiary to that effect.


James Clancy: The warden is a man new to the office, and his opinion cannot be taken against that of Mr. Hughes, who has had many years experience in the business.	_
Then the hon. gentleman said : Well, the farmers will not deal with us. I think 1 gave the reasons a moment ago. The farmers were led to believe by the hon. gentleman's friends that they would get the twine at a price slightly above cost. But they had to pay very exorbitant prices. My hon. friend replied that some dealers in twine had said : You are selling twine much less than the price manufacturers ought to get. But naturally the very men who wished to put up the price could not be expected to say anything else.
The hon. gentleman made some statement with regard to Mr. Connor to which I desire to call particular attention. One was that Sir. Connor had sold twine in 1894 at excessive prices.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: He bought it from the department and retailed it to the public. I never was aware of the prices at which he sold it, and it did not concern us.


James Clancy: Yet the hon. gentleman stated that Connor was in the combine, and was selling at combine prices.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes. In 1894 he purchased the output outright and disposed of it in the market himself. In 1895, he sold it as agent of the government, and received 10 per cent commission on the sales, but simply forgot to pay for it. That is all.


James Clancy: That is what Connor has to say on that subject when brought before the Public Accounts Committee.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not care what he says, I have the contract.


James Clancy: That is what he says with regard to the prices at which he sold it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The statement I made was that Mr. Connor was the chief factor in the combine that existed at that time, which combine had closed up all the factories in Canada except the ones at Brantford and at Montreal, and that, in that capacity, he secured the agency for the sale of the government twine at a commission of 10 per cent.


James Clancy: Connor swears that he was under special instructions in 1895. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked him : ' What did you sell the twine at in 1895 ?' And Connor replied :	' The
average price for mixed was 5J cents.' The member for Leeds then asked him :	' The
government gave you a limit to sell at ?' And Connor replied :	' Yes, from time to
time I was to advise with the warden and be governed by him.' Now the hob. gentleman has made the charge, first, that Connor in 1894 secured the binder twine and fleeced the people.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.
Mr, CLANCY. Has the hon. gentleman offered a tittle of evidence to prove that V He has utterly failed to do so. We come to 1895, and we have the fact that Connor, who sold the twine for the government, was under special instructions, and sold the twine at 51 cents.
Then the hon. gentleman said that in 1896 Mr. Kelly had the contract, and the government tried to get him to give security. But if the hon. gentleman has told the whole story, he would have been more frank. What was it ? It was that the late government exacted that Kelly should give security for the twine, and Kelly having failed to give security, they would not give him the twine. I ask my hon. friend if he did not find that state of things when he came into office. Mr. Kelly was unable to furnish the secruity, and the result was that the twine was held over and not sold that season. But, did the hon. gentleman wait till next season ? No, he sold the twine in September of that year, after he had been only a few months in office to Coll Bros.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Connor.


James Clancy: Connor was acting for Coll Bros. Are they twine dealers ? No, they are soap manufacturers in St. John. Yet the hon. gentleman made the sale on the plea that the twine would deteriorate if left over, although we have the evidence of an expert that it was without a tittle of foundation. And who is this man Connor ? Has not the hon. gentleman had dealings witli him during last year ? Did he not sell Mr. Connor a good deal of the twine of 1900 ? And why did he do that if Mr. Connor is not in favour with the government ? I take it that he is the same man who went to the county of Victoria, N.B., and helped to buy out the opposition candidate. Mr. Connor is a friend of the hon. gentleman opposite, though the hon. gentleman assumes to blame him here tonight. Mr. Connor gave evidence in the presence of the hon. gentleman himself and swore that, from 1890 to 189S, three successive years there was collusion in regard to the binder twine, and that the ministers of the Crown were aware of it-they knew that


Charles Fitzpatrick: there was a combine. The hon. gentleman asked how the price could be affected by the small quantity of twine produced in the Kingston penitentiary. The hon. gentleman has political friends in Toronto who were clamouring as lustily as hon. gentlemen opposite did for years to have factories started in the Kingston penitentiary and the Central prison for the purpose of compelling manufacturers to accept fair prices. I will call one of the most respectable witnesses on this point, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who is always moderate and thoughtful in his statements. If hon. gentlemen will turn to ' Hansard ' of 1893, page 3433, they will find that, in the course of a discussion on the desirability of establishing a binder twine factory in Kingston, the hon. Minister of Customs says :
The government is taking this action with a view to employ prison labour and at the same time keep the manufacturers at Halifax from obtaining too high a price for their product.
Then, we have Mr. Dryden, the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario. In a speech made on January 24, 1894, at Columbus, in his own riding, he said :
Another reason why this industry was established was that the farmers laboured under the burden of a monopoly, and it was thought desirable that the product of the prisoners' labour would be used in the interest of the farmer. He showed how the farmers had paid monopolists for the ropes, wrappings, &c., at the twine price, but in future

This is a pledge to the people

-they would have a guarantee that the prison twine would be all right in quality and weight. He intended to use his influence in future to supply the farmers with the twine at first cost. Business must of necessity be done on a cash basis. But as a good many farmers cannot pay cash, some means will have to be devised to give them the benefit of this industry.
He is not only to sell it at cost but he is going to trust the purchasers. And how did it turn out ? Precisely as the professions of the hon. gentlemen opposite tprned out who, for years, clamoured to have this industry established but who, the moment they came into power was shown by sworn evidence, while knowing there was collusion, allowed the combine to be formed. And how was it formed ? By Mr. Connor and the Coll Bros, going up to Toronto, purchasing the twine there and getting the two years' output of the Kingston penitentiary-making a large quantity of twine-and then combining with the American Cordage Company. And who are the agents of that company ? Why, Hobbs Bros, of London. So that all that was necessary was to call in Hobbs Bros, and the combine was formed. And the result was that the twine that was purchased from the government at 4 cents was sold to the farmers at 10, 12 and 14 cents. It is well enough for hon. gentlemen opposite to say that there was no combine ; but I would like any hon. gentleman who is disposed to

look at the question fairly to account for the great disparity between the prices at which the twine was sold by the government from year to year and the price at which it was sold to the consumer. No attempt has ever been made to do that.
I will not pursue this subject any further.
1 have to say to the Solicitor General that he is bound, after the statement he has made this evening, to call his auditor, Mr. Munro, and to make his case good. As for Mr. Connor, that gentleman is a friend of his own, and we have no concern with him. As regards the motion in amendment, I do not think it is in order. It simply reaffirms what is affirmed in the original motion, it does not substantially contain new matter, as it must do in order to be an amendment. It simply repeats, by the variation of dates, the substance of the motion of my hon. friend. I consider it to be entirely harmless, but not in order. I wish to point out to hon. gentlemen that if they accept that motion they bind themselves by the dates; and I ask the First Minister if he is prepared to bind himself in the sense of that amendment as to the dates. I desire to say to the Solicitor General that I do not think he was quite fair in his mode of dealing with this question to-night. There was really no need for the heat he displayed in the discussion. In the iirst place lie utterly failed in making a single statement good. His statement with regard to the cost of the machinery may be true, I do not offer any opinion upon it, I have no information on the subject; but if it be true, it does not affect the case in the slightest, it has nothing to do with the sale of twine. Now there is twine enough manufactured in the Central prison and in the Kingston penitentiary, if the hon. gentlemen can control their friends there, they too affect materially the price of binder twine In Canada. It has been stated here tonight that the consumption of twine is something like sixteen million pounds, and that a considerable share of it is manufactured in those two institutions, and the others will be governed to some extent by the price at which this is sold. I know there is always a difficulty in dealing with so many persons in a business of this kind, I grant it is not an easy thing for the government to sell twine in a satisfactory manner. But, I agree with the hon. gentleman's motion that if we are going to employ prison labour in Canada it ought to be employed for the benefit of the people of Canada. The object of the motion is to secure that the twine should be sold in the best possible way to the farmer, and in order to do that hon. gentlemen will hardly pursue the course of asking as high as 12 and 14 cents a pound for twine when it is sold to dealers at an average of -S7.51 per hundred.


Mr. RICHARD  BRAIN@Peel: I wish to say to the House that I see very little
difference between the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and the resolution I submitted to the House a few days ago. I have to say that I am willing to accept the motion in amendment because I see very little difference between that and my own. Now, I wish to say a word as to the motive I had in introducing this resolution; and to show that I had no political motive, and had no desire to catch any special vote in this country, I want to read the words of the Prime Minister at the close of the debate the other day :
The government certainly has no right to complain of the manner in which my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has introduced this motion.
I think that is good proof from the leader of the government that what I said upon the question is not open to the criticism that has been made by some hon. gentlemen opposite. I want also to draw attention to the fact that no farmer, no gentleman engaed in agricultural pursuits speaking from the other side of the House, has said one word against my motion. The first gentleman who spoke upon the question was the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd), but he represents a constituency that contains a binder twine manufactory. Then the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) ventured to state that the leader of the opposition received a very large vote from the binder twine manufactory in the county of Halifax. I thought we had a secret vote in this country. How can any man say how people voted in that county on the 7tli of November ? Then we have the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) speaking in defence of the twine industry in this country, but, I believe he is a large seller of binder twine himself, and, therefore, he wants a little protection upon that point, not having the interest of the farmer in view at all. Then we had the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser), who is a lawyer, I believe, and not a farmer, who spoke in defence of the government. Therefore, the House will see that no gentleman representing the agricultural interests of the I country attempted to say anything against ; the motion that I had the honour to introduce. Then, I think I ought to get some credit from the House, because my motion has brought into the House, the hon. Solicitor General, who is not often in his place. I was only sorry that he was not in better temper after being away so long.
In my resolution I ask that two things should be done; first, that these middlemen should disappear. If the terms of the amendment of the member for Alberta be adopted by this House, then Coll Bros, will be no more in the transaction, because they are not farmers. They bought the twine in 1896. In 1897, the Hobbs Co. bought it. and they will be no more in the business because they are uot farmers. The twine was sold to H. N. Bate & Sons in 1898, and as they are grocers they will uot come in

under the new deal. Therefore, I willingly accept the terms of the amendment, because all these middlemen, who the farmers claim have been making large profits out of the binder twine industry, will disappear, and that is what I want. There is one other point, and that is as to what the profits should be. My motion says that the profits should be one cent; the amendment says that the profit should be based upon a calculation of paid labour in this country. I am not quite sure what difference there would be in the calculation, but I am sure there could not be much. Therefore, upon that point I am willing to accept the amendment of the member for Alberta. I am glad to know that hon. gentlemen opposite, including the Solicitor General, 1 presume, are willing that there should be a change. The member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) said that the transaction was altogether unsatisfactory to himself as a supporter of the government; so of course I should have his support. I am delighted to see that the government are willing to change their plan, and that they are now willing to adopt the terms of the resolution; therefore, I presume It will pass unanimously.
the legitimate industries of the country, it is only fair and reasonable and right, under conditions of free trade, there being no duty, that we should not put prison labour in competition with free labour, and that while we are competing with outside factories, whether it is the combine in Halifax, which elects the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax)-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is wrong ? I speak that which I know. I say that if it were not for the combine votes, I doubt if the hon. gentleman would have a seat in this House, and then we would only have three leaders on that side of the House instead of four, as at the present time. I say that when we have to compete with the legitimate industries of the country, even though you may call them combines, it is not fair in competing to place prison labour against free labour, and therefore the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) says that in any calculation that can be made in respect to labour, that calculation must be on the basis of free labour, and not prison labour.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (lion. .Mr. Fielding).: As we are about to vote upon these propositions we had better have it clearly understood what they are. When the hon. gentleman says the two propositions are the same, he is certainly labouring under a misapprehension. There are two radical differences between the two motions. First, in relation to the cost ,ol* producing the binder twine. So far as that is an element in the motion of the member for Peel (Mr. Blain), he proposes that no regard should be had to the distinction between prison labour and free labour. We propose, or the member for Alberta proposes-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: WTlio are we ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am going to vote for it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then it is a put up job.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then it is a very good job, because it is common sense, and the hon. gentleman is going to vote for it too, and will set a very good example, because sometimes he votes for propositions which are not sensible. So far as the cost of labour is concerned, the hon. mover of this motion makes no distinction between free labour and prison labour.


Richard Blain: We are willing to do so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has come to that. I hope he will continue to accept useful suggestions from this side of the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: How long is it since the hon. gentleman has come to these views ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What are the views that the hon. gentleman refers to ?


Andrew B. Ingram: How long is it since the hon. gentleman has entertained the view that the labour employed in the Kingston penitentiary in the manufacture of binder twine should be equal to that of free labour ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend will find that has always been held. His complaint is that we have been charging too much, and that clearly shows that we have net been putting it on a basis of prison labour, which would make the price less. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) says that we have been Charging too much for prison-made twine.


James Clancy: You entered into a combine.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A cent a pound.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Peel says that he has no conception whether that represents the cost of labour at all. He says that he has made no calculation upon that basis. Inasmuch as it is unavoidable from our operations at the Kingston penitentiary binder twine factory that we must enter into competition with


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: lion, gentlemen talk of combines ; why, they flourished on combines for eighteen years.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And you are following that up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I want to call the attention of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), having mentioned this


Richard Blain: one important difference, to the other material difference between his proposition and that of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The hon. member for Peel proposes that we shall sell this binder twine to the farmers at a certain price, regardless of whether the farmer is willing to buy it from us or not, and he then says distinctly that even if the farmer does not buy it you shall not be at liberty to sell it in any other way, and therefore you can keep it and let it rot if you like. That does not strike us as a very reasonable proposition. The hon. member for Alberta says that you shall offer this to the farmers at a fair price up to a certain date, and if the farmers take it at that price, well and good, but if the farmers do not take it at that price, then instead of allowing it to rot, as it would under the proposal of the hon. member for Peel, you shall advertise in the public press for tenders, and sell the balance of it in the open market at the best price.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. gentleman what they are going to do with the amount of binder twine now in the Kingston penitentiary ? Are they going to allow that to rot ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one thing certain ; if it rots now it does not rot through any lack of effort on the part of the government to sell it, but the hon. member for Peel is proposing a scheme, which, no matter how many buyers we might find, would not permit us to sell the surplus at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the question, how long it is since he entertained these views, I was surprised that the hon. gentleman did not answer. I have always found him courteous and all that sort of thing. Since hon. gentlemen have controlled the affairs of this country, I do not know any case where they have been prevented from selling binder twine at the actual cost, that is to say, charging what would be equal to free labour in the manufacture of twine in other factories. Therefore, the hon. gentleman had it right in his own hands if he entertained these views, ever since he came into power. In respect to the motion moved by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), it strikes me that the hon. gentleman must have had this motion placed in his hands, because he possesses the faculty of speaking one way and moving a resolution in an entirely different direction. The hon. gentleman's speech was not the speech of an independent man. I doubt very much, whether, in his election in Alberta, the issue was really on the question of binder twine. I had the opportunity of passing through that hon. gentleman's district, and it struck me that he represented a grazing country. I read the papers pretty
closely during the last campaign, and it occurred to me that the question of scrip had more effect in his election than the question of binder twine. I remember crossing the river at Edmonton, in his constituency, and there was no bridge at the time of my crossing. It strikes me that this was another very important issue in his constituency. So, I say, that instead of charging the electors of other portions of the Dominion with being ignorant on this question and not capable of arriving at a proper conclusion as to whether binder twine was properly dealt with by his government or not, he should have been more frank in his statements, and they should have been more in keeping with the actions of an independent member. Therefore, for that reason, while I support the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman, I entirely differ from the remarks he made in moving his resolution.


Mr.   T.@: 0. DAVIS (Saskatchewan). Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If hon. gentlemen will possess their souls in patience, I can assure them that I am not going to take up the time of the House. I may just say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) who moved the original motion, complained that there were no hon. gentlemen on this side of the House representing agricultural constituencies who had taken any exception to the motion he had moved.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not what he said.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is how I understood the hon. gentleman. However, I am not going to take up very much time. I am sure the farmers of the North-west Territories will be very much pleased to learn that they have the sympathy of hon. gentlemen on the opposition side of the House who sympathize so much with the farmers of the North-west Territories and other parts of the Dominion. I was amused the other afternoon to see one of the hon. members from West Toronto get up in this House and sweat in every pore for the poor farmers of the North-west Territories. He wanted to get them cheap binder twine. If the same hon. gentleman and some other hon. gentleman associated with him would arrange to give the farmers of the Northwest Territories Cheap freight rates, it would be an advantage to the farmers in that part of the country. I am sure that the farmers must be laughing, if they have read the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto. I sympathize with the hon. gentlemen opposite because this was an important plank in the last election ; in fact, they only had two planks, one was binder twine and the other the Minister of Public Works. I do not know

on which they got the most votes, but X fancy it was on the Minister of Public Works. We had this question of binder twine discussed in the North-west Territories. The last hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) mentioned the question of scrip. As far as scrip was concerned, if there was any kudos to be got for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House out of scrip they went us one better because they offered to give scrip to children born up to date if their parents would only vote for the Conservative candidates. They then came down to the question of binder twine and we heard about the sale to Bate & Co. and others from one end of the Northwest to the other, until a gentleman in my constituency suggested that they should get it set to music and play it on a brass band. ' The farmers in the North-west Territories took little stock in that, for we all know that they returned four Liberals with very large majorities. The hon. gentleman for East Hastings, (Mr. Northrup) tried to make a point against the Solicitor General by saying that a farmer in his constituency told him that the government offered to sell twine for 14 cents when he could buy it in the village for 10 cents. Well, there is twine and twine. A man may buy a pair of boots for fifty cents and another man may pay $3.50 for a pair. There are different qualities of twine as well as of boots, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) took care not to say that the ten cent twine was as good quality as the fourteen cent twine. I know personally that the government did offer the twine to the farmers, because they offered to send a car-load to my district and sell it at a great deal less price than the farmers were paying to the implement dealers. i took a good deal of trouble to find what the farmers wanted, and I found that the farmers did not want the Kingston twine because they said it was not as good as the other, for which they preferred paying the higher price.
Som hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Thomas Osborne Davis: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and I always notice that when he gets up that beautiful falsetto treble which distinguishes him, he is always very angry and he is always very incorrect in his statements, and this evening was no exception to the rule. He told us that we on this side had to adopt their amendment. Before that we did not know the government had an amendment, but now we see that they had not the courage to propose their own amendment and so they handed it back to the independent member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), to be seconded by the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint), who is always ready to do such work for the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We never heard of anything of that kind before.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blair) has not spent much of his time in the House for the last four years, or he would see It and hear of it ev.ery day. The Minister of Finance told us that our motion was based on the cost of prison labour, and did not provide for the cost of free labour. The contrary is the fact, because the motion of the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) proposed to add one cent per pound to the cost of labour and raw material, and that would have more than provided for the difference between free labour and prison labour, because the whole cost of manufacture is only about three-quarters of a cent per pound. But when did the government adopt this new policy ? Last year, and the year before, this twine was not sold to the farmers, but it was sold to the Hobbs and the Colls and the Connors and the Bates to speculate in it and double the price to the farmers. As has been pointed out, the American agent of the Hobbs Hardware Company is in the combine, and It was the easiest thing in the world when they got hold of the Canadian product, including that of the two prisons, for them to make a combine and sell at whatever price they pleased. The fact is and cannot be disputed, that binder twine that was bought for about 7 cents a pound by these people was sold to the farmers for 14 cents. There is the whole thing, and I think the country will realize that there are no thanks to be given to the government for the fact, that they will be forced to sell the product of the prison to the farmers of this country at a price that is pretty closely fixed, but that the gratitude for that will be given where it belongs to-His Majesty's loyal opposition. I think we may give our thanks to our worthy colleague from the county of Peel, who has brought this matter to the attention of the House, and has forced the government to their knees, and to follow out the lines of his resolution.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, it is really remarkable to observe the affection which our friends of the opposition have suddenly worked up for the amendment to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). It must be pleasing to every member of this House who has the interest of the agriculturists at heart to see the unanimity that prevails at the present time on this very important question. That unanimity of feeling as to the proper method to pursue, renders it entirely unnecessary for any person to occupy the time of the House at any length on the question.
For my part, I have simply to say that while I "was quite in sympathy with the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Peel, so far as it went, and while I am in more hearty sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Alberta, still I should have been pleased -coming from the North-west Territories, hundreds of miles from Kingston, the place where this binder twine is manufactured- had the resolution or the amendment gone just a little further, and assured the farmers in all parts of the country that they would have been able to participate in whatever benefit will accrue from the sale of the output of the Kingston penitentiary; and I would be very glad to have from the government an expression of intention or a promise that they will see to it that the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories are allowed to participate along with the farmers of Ontario in those benefits, be they small or great.
As I said, I do not propose to take up the time of the House discussing the question, because the matter is practically settled. But on behalf of the hon. member for Alberta, and the district he represents, I would make just one remark, which is called forth by a reference which was made by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). I was very glad to hear that that hon. gentleman had been out through the North-west Territories ; but I regret that he did not remain there long enough to gain some appreciation of the extent of the district of Alberta. He seemed to have come away from that part of the country with the idea that grazing was its sole industry. I may state for his information, and for the information of any other gentlemen who are not familiar with the North-west Territories, that there are many industries and many interests in each of the constituencies of the territories. My hon. friend from Alberta does represent the grazing industry, but he also represents the agricultural industry ; and I will venture to say that there is as much agricultural country in the district of Alberta devoted entirely to that industry as would contain possibly half a dozen or ten constituencies like that represented by the hon. member for East Elgin. In the riding from which I come, the binder twine industry was a matter of interest in the election, and I have no doubt it was also in the district of Alberta. Possibly there was also some interest in the issue referred to by the hon. member for East Elgin-the scrip issue. But if he had remained in the district during the campaign he would have found that the gentleman running in the interest of the opposition was ready to go a greater length than the Liberal candidate, who is now the member for Alberta. That was the state of affairs, I know, in Western Assiniboia, Eastern Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The Conservative candidates were ready to make and did make very much stronger promises to the people respecting the half-breed scrip than the candidates running in the interest of the government found it necessary to make. I have simply to say in conclusion that I was quite in sympathy with the resolution of. the

lion, member for Peel so far as it went; but I am certainly more in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Alberta.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Oliver :
YEAS :
Messieurs '
Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Kendall,
Kendry,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavergne,
LeBlane,
Tolmie,
Tolton,
Tucker,
Turgeon,
Vrooman,
Wade,
Wallace,
Wilrnot,
Wilson,
Wright.-155.
Alcorn,
Angers,
Ball,
Barker,
Bennett,
Bickerdike,
Blain,
Blair,
Borden (King's, N.S. Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Boyd,
Brock,
Broder,
Brown,
Bruce,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Cargill,
Carscallen,
Champagne,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Copp,
Costigan,
Culbert,
Davies (Sir Louis). Davis,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Dyment,
Emmerson,
Brb,
Ethiei,
Fisher,
Flint,
Fortin,
Fowler,
Fraser,
Gallery^
Ganong.
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gilmour,
Girard,
Godbout,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Hale,
Harwood,
Henderson,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Horsey,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Johnston (Cardwell), Johnston (Lambton), Mr. SCOTT.
Lefurgey,
Lemieux,
Lennox,
Logan,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), ), MacLaren (Perth), McCarthy,
McCool,
McCormick,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGowan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
McLeod,
Madore,
Ivfalouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Martineau,
Matheson,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monk,
Morin,
Mulock,
Murray,
Northrup,
Oliver.
Osier,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Pope,
PrSfontaine,
Pringle,
Prior,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Richardson (Grey), Richardson (Lisgar), Robinson (Elgin),
Roche (Halifax),
Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.) Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Scott,
Sherritt,
Sifton,
Simmons,
Smith (Vancouver),
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Stephens,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Taylor,
Thompson,
Tobin,


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Taylor: The hon. member for East Durham has not voted.


Mr. WARD.: I am paired with the hon. member for West Northumberland. If not, I would have voted for the amendment and joined the happy family.
House divided on main motion as amended :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Angers,
Ball,
Barker,
Bennett,
Bickerdike,
Blain,
Blair,
Borden (King's, N.S.), Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Boyd,
Brock,
Broder,
Brown,
Bruce,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Cargill,
Carscallen,
Champagne,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Copp,
Costigan.
Culbert,
Davies (Sir Louisl. Davis.
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Dyment,
Emmeison,
Erb,
Ethler.
Fisher,
Flint,
Fortin,
Fowler,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Ganong.
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gilmour,
Lefurgey,
Lemieux,
Lennox,
Logan,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), MacLaren (Perth),
McCarthy,
McCool,
McCormick,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGowan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
McLeod,
Madore,
Ivlalouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Martineau,
Matheson,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monk,
Morin,
Mulock,
Murray,
Northrup,
Oliver.
Osier,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Pope,
Prefontaine,
Pringle,
Prior,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Richardson (Grey), Richardson (Lisgar), Robinson (Elgin),
Roche (Halifax),
Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
R< ss (Victoria, N.S.) Rousseau,

Girard,	Russell,
Godhout,	Schell,
Guthrie,	Scott,
Hackett,	Shorritt,
Hale,	Sifton,
Harwood,	Simmons,
Henderson,	Smith (Vancouver),
Heyd,	Smith (Wentworth),
Holmes,	Sproule,
Horsey,	Stephens,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Sutherland (Essex),
Hughes (Victoria),	Sutherland (Oxford),
Hyman,	Talbot,
Ingram,	Tarte,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Taylor,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Thompson,
Johnston (Lambton),	Tobin,
Kaulbach,	Tolmie,
Kemp,	Tolton,
Kendall,	Tucker,
Kendry,	Turcot,
Kidd,	Turgeon,
Lancaster,	Vrooman,
Lang,	Wade,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wallace,
Laurier (L'Assomption),	Wilmot,
Lavergne,	Wilson,
LeBlanc,	Wright-156.
Motion as amended agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Thursday.


Thursday, February 28, 1901.