June 7, 1905 (10th Parliament, 1st Session)

LIB

William Alfred Galliher

Liberal

Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Kootenay).

Representing, as I do, a mining district, I can appreciate to the full what my hon. friend from the Yukon has stated to this House. There are but one or two points in his discourse on which I propose to touch at present. His reference to mining machinery deserves the consideration of this House. My hon. friend said that, not only for placer mining, but quartz mining also, the machinery made by Canadian manufacturers was not equal to the American implements. No doubt that is true, but it is easily explained. Mining in Canada, both quartz and placer, is practiaclly in its infancy, whereas in the United States mining has
been going on for a much longer time and on a much larger scale. In the United States the manufacturers, for many years past, have been making mining machinery and have had a large market for it in their own country and abroad. Consequently, they have familiarized themselves with a particular class of machinery suitable to the reduction of certain classes and grades of ore. For years they have been engaged in solving these problems and devising machinery to meet the requirement. In Canada, on the other hand, the manufacture of certain classes of mining machinery has only recently begun. True, for certain purposes, the Rand Drill Company make machinery equally as good as any made in the United States. *
But there are other processes for the reduction of ores, and other machines for, carrying out those processes manufactured, in the United States that are much better suited for the purpose than are our Cana-( dian-manufactured machines. I do not} say that in disparagement of our Canadian! manufacturers. They are doing very weli indeed for the experience they have had and the time during which they have been manufacturing this class of machinery. But the law providing for the free adrnis-' sion of mining machinery not manufactured) in Canada should be much more liberally! interpreted than it has been hitherto. At| the very least this should be the case until; time and experience have enabled the Can-) adian manufacturer to produce an articlei as good and as well suited for the purpose as that produced by the American manu-) facturer. There are certain supplies used in mining to which the same principle! would apply. For instance-though it may seem a simple thing-candles should he admitted free. In working in shaft or tuni nel the miner must use a candle. Now, we| have no mining candles manufactured in) Canada. Therefore, that is an article that should be on the free list. There are other articles that are in the same category ; and I think that when the commission sits-as I understand it will in the near future-to consider all tariff questions, I will be pres pared to furnish them with a list of those) articles that are not manufactured in Cans ada and that, though small in themselves when combined, represent a considerable) share of the cost of mining in any part ofl Canada. There is no reason why these ar-i tides should not be on the free list, be-i cause their free entry would not involve competition with any Canadian manufac-! turer. By the free admission of machinery) and supplies needed by miners and not manufactured in Canada you can help the) mining industry greatly. I believe that,) for a time, there was an exemption in the) case of mining dredges imported into the| Yukon. That exemption was for a year,) and, at the end of that period, it was ex-| tended for another year.
*071

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE YUKON TERRITORY.
Subtopic:   ROBERT BELL.
Full View