I wish to finish by six o'clock, but I will answer briefly. The reason is the iron industry in the United States has got a start. It 'had immense capital to develop it, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on plant, railways and steamship lines. They have a development there which we cannot compete with at the present time. My hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) tells me that the industry in the United States also started with a bounty. They have millions of dollars tied up in that industry, and our poor little mines in northern Ontario, wdth no capital to speak of, cannot compete with them. The claim is also made, unfortunately, that our iron ore which has been developed up to the present time is not equal in quality to the iron ore of the United States.
Some of the iron ore in Minnesota can be more easily mined than any we have yet discovered in Canada. Some they can simply dig out with a steam shovel, but that is exhaustible. Jim Hill-J. J. Hill, the great Canadian whom you all know-made the statement fifteen years ago that within 25 or 30 years the iron ore of the United States would be within sight of exhaustion. About 60,000,000 tons a year of iron ore are being
used over there. The United States still has a vast amount of iron ore in the country, but rather than use up its own supply it is looking to other countries, including Canada, to meet its demands. It would be far better, for this generation at least, if we could utilize our own resources and build up in northern Ontario, in British Columbia, in this particular section of Canada, and in the Maritime provinces, a large iron industry. Viewed from every possible standpoint that would be a good thing to do. I submit that a bounty, such as we are discussing to-day, would be one of the fairest ways of establishing such an industry in Canada. I submit further that the government should consider very seriously, before they wipe out the bounties upon oil. They should likewise seriously ponder the question of whether they should not join with the province of Ontario and aid, by other bounties, in the development of industries like the iron industry.
committee and I might say that a conference was arranged between the Private Bills committee of this House and the Divorce committee of the Senate. They reported back to the Private Bills committee that this was the better form of bringing down the bills. It was agreeable to the Senate committee. .
The question is why the change has been made back to the old form embodying a distinct clause permitting the divorcer, that is the petitioner, to marry again. I raised the point that that power naturally follows from the dissolution of the first marriage, and as well that to be logical we Should go on and provide special power for the divorcee to marry again. I do not know why the change back has been made.
I understand this change has been made by the Private Bills committee. I saw something about it in the newspapers, but I should like the chairman or some member of the committee to explain what really took, place. I do not know. I have no objection to letting this bill stand.
to interrupt, I might say that a conference was arranged with some members of the Senate, and under the authority of Rex versus Mill's, volume 10, Clarke and Finnelly, page 534 it was decided in 1844 that the English canonical law formed a part of the common law of England and that the canonical rule 107 forbids marriage of divorced persons. It was thought there was some doubt as a result of that, and the case of Hodgins versus McNeill, volume 9, Grant, page 305 decided in 1862. seems to indicate that, so I am told by Mr. Mackinnon, a member of this House, who is a member of the Private Bills committee. As a result of a conference between the law clerk of the Senate and, I understand, counsel of the House of Commons, it was agreed between the committee and the members of the Senate-although I do not know whether the Senate officially endorsed it-that it would remove any doubt if this second clause were added.