Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Notwithstanding the minister's statement, I am here to see that the discussions are in order, and I say that the tariff is not now the subject before the Chair. It is entirely out of order to discuss the propriety of giving a duty on other things. Unless the committee will decide to discuss the general question of the tariff, then I must keep the committee within reasonable bounds.

Mr. MACLEAN.

I think the Minister of Finance has raised the general question of the tariff by proposing a bounty. We are raising the question that duties by customs can be levied more advantageously to the commerce of the country. I think, I am in order, when the issue of protection and

free trade is raised as it has been, to refer to the general issue, and on that line, unless you interfere with me, 1 propose to continue for a few moments. My statement is that if we had had due protection in this country, not spasmodic protection like this, we would have a new era of prosperity. We would be in a position to take care of ourselves now when this threatened invasion of our territory is likely to take place. For the Americans see that we are not genuine in our protectionist views, because we know, as has been stated here to-day, that our liberty in respect to binder twine is controlled by an American trust. There are other industries that have been ignored in this country. I refer to the ship-building industry. A bounty might very well be given to the steel ship-building industry. I believe the case that has been put forward in favour of a bounty in connection with ship-building in this country is unanswerable. The hon. gentleman must have had the papers presented to him. I have seen some of them, and so far as I can gather from these papers, the time has come when a bounty ought to be applied to the steel ship-building industry of Canada, and foreign built ships ought to be excluded from the coasting trade of Canada. All we are told here to-day is that we are to have bounties on iron and steel and on lead and on binder twine. The fact is that there are a great many industries that ought to be taken up and ought to have protection applied to them in order that we may be able to meet the threatened American invasion, and get the benefit of keeping our work for our own workingmen and our own market for our own products. That time seems to be near at hand. There is another instance which I wish to mention, and that is the market gardeners of this country. Their market has been given over entirely, for all kinds of early fruit and vegetables, to the Americans. They have petitioned us from time to time for some kind of protection. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would apply the bounty principle to them. But so far the hon. gentleman has given them no encouragement, and their market is departing from them.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

I must insist upon the hon. gentleman keeping to the question. I am going to make this a test, and if the committee do not stand by me, they will have to appeal to the House in the matter. My decision is this, that the speakers must confine tlieir remarks to the question before the Chair. We cannot wander away to steel, and market gardens, and a hundred questions besides. My decision is that the discussion must be limited to the propriety of this parliament granting a bounty on the manufacture of twine in Canada.

Mr. MACLEAN.

I am discussing the bounty question.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

The bounty is applicable to one hundred and forty questions. We are now discussing the propriety of giving a bounty to a certain industry.'

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Is it not perfectly proper for the hon. gentleman, in criticising this resolution, to point out to the House that it is not wide enough ? I do not regard that as beyond the bounds of criticism. The hon. gentleman finds a resolution here which proposes to give a bounty to the manufacturers of binder twine ; is he not perfectly in order in pointing out that the resolution should not stop there, but should extend to various other things, which in his opinion, should receive encouragement by way of bounty ?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

I cannot understand how it could be argued in considering this question, that a bounty should be given to market gardeners because they raise cabbages and other vegetables, I cannot see the relevancy at all. I do not see the relevancy of the question of giving a bounty to every industry in the country to the special question that is before the Chair.

Mr. SPROULE.

Is it not in order to discuss the principle of bounty ?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

No.

Mr. SPROULE.

Well, that is narrowing it down to a very small limit.

Mr. CLARKE.

Might I ask if we could put the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) in order by moving that the committee rise ?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

No.

Mr. CLARKE.

Can we not move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again ? May I ask your ruling on that point ?

Upon such a motion as that we could not depart from the subject under discussion, the discussion would have to be strictly confined to the subject in hand. Therefore the hon. gentleman would not help us by moving that the committee rise in order to give the floor to another member. For myself, if I may assume the role of a peacemaker, although we are transgressing to some extent the rules of the House, I would be willing to allow my hon. friend from East York to speak upon the tariff question, wrhich he has so miicli at heart. Though I think he is in the wrong, I would be quite willing to allow him to expound his views.

Mr. ROCHE iHalifax). In regard to this subject of bounty

Mr. MACLEAN.

Mr. Chairman, then with your indulgence, I will put it that way

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Am I to understand that the committee is satisfied with the present range of the discussion ?

Mr. MACLEAN.

No.

Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Because' if the committee is satisfied, then the responsibility is taken off my shoulders and I lose control of the committee.

Oh, no.