1912-02-07

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by -an asterisk).

Mr. MARTIN (Regina) :: 1.	Has the attention of the government been directed to the following resolution unanimously passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan on March 16, 1911?
That whereas the government of Canada has under consideration the advisability of extending the boundaries of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba so as to include the hinterland lying adjacent to the north of these provinces;


BEVISED
[Stage Direction]
And whereas the several areas proposed to be included in the said provinces are at present the property of Canada and any action by the parliament of Canada to transfer the ownership of the property to the provinces referred to will have the effect of altering the terms and conditions upon which such provinces entered confederation;
And whereas the extension of the boundaries of the said provinces northward will bring within their respective borders areas very similar to the territory comprising the northern part of the province of Saskatchewan;
And whereas under the terms of the Saskatchewan Act, the Alberta Act and the Manitoba Act, the compensation payable to the provinces in lieu of lands is based upon the principle that the Federal Government should retain control of the agricultural lands, of western Canada for colonization and immigration purposes;
And whereas the said northern part of the province of Saskatchewan is not required by the government of Canada for the purposes of carrying out its colonization and immigration
policy;
And whereas in addition to the agricultural lands there are certain natural resources within Saskatchewan which are purely of local concern and which are not required by the federal authorities for the carrying out of its colonization policy;
Therefore it is resolved that in the opinion of this House the government of Saskatchewan should proceed with negotiations with the federal authorities for the purpose of having transferred to the province all that part of the hinterland of Saskatchewan, together with all natural resources of purely local concern contained within the province, not required for colonization and immigration purposes.
2.	Is it not a fact that in the statement of policy of the Dominion Conservative party, promulgated by Mr. Borden in 1907 and known as the Halifax platform, the following appears as paragraph fifteen:
* The restoration of the public lands to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan upon fair terms.'
3.	Is it not a fact that during the Dominion election of 1911, the platform of the same party as published in western Canada contained the follawing paragraph two:
'The granting of their natural resources to the prairie provinces.'
4.	Is it the intention of the government to give effect to the policy of the Conservative party as thus declared in their platform?
5.	If so, will measures be submitted to parliament for this purpose during the present session ?
Right Hon.   R.@: I,. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :
X. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government has no definite information on the subject but believes that the fact was as stated.
4.	Yes.
5.	The terms alluded to in the second question have not yet been settled. Their


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
determination will require negotiation and inquiry which will be undertaken and carried on with such expedition as may be practicable. It will be impossible, however, to undertake or conclude them during the present session.

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works intend to continue the works commenced on the construction of a wharf at L'Assomption and to use the money placed in the estimates of 1911-12 for that purpose?
2.	If so, when will the work be continued?
3.	If not, for what reasons and at whose request was it stopped?


Mr. MONK:: 1,	2 and 3. As work cannot be proceeded with during the winter it is impossible to make any further use of the amount in the current year's estimates. The question of providing an additional amount in next year's estimates will have careful consideration should there be further supple-mentaries this session.


ST. GABRIEL DE BRANDON-DISMISSAL OF POSTMISTRESS.
Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has Mrs. Paul Farly been dismissed as postmistress of St. Gabriel de Brandon, county of Bertliier, and at what date?
2.	What are the reasons and at whose suggestion ?
3.	If she is dismissed, who has been appointed to succeed her and at whose request?
t. Was there an inquiry? If so, by whom?
5.	Were there complaints against her? If so, by whom made and of what nature?
6.	Did the Postmaster General receive any requests or letters asking that a change be made and giving the reasons therefor?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes, on the 22nd December, 1911.
2.	Political partisanship. On recommendation of Mr. J. A. Barrette, M.P.
3.	Mr. Telesphore Michaud, on recommendation of Mr. J. A. Barrette, M.P.
4.	No inquiry was necessary.
5.	Answered above.
6.	None except what is above mentioned. MANSEAU-DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTER.


Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	Has Mr. Kirouac, postmaster at Manseau, in the county of Nicolet, been removed?
2.	If so, at whose request and what were the reasons for his removal?
3.	Who has been appointed to replace him, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On recommendation of Mr. P. E. La-marche, M.P., for political partisanship.


Mr. BORDEN.: 3.	Mr. J. A. Neven, on recommendation of Mr. P. E. Lamarche, M.P.


QUESTION RULED OUT.
[Stage Direction]
On 
question No. 8-Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. SPEAKER.: This question, in my judgment, is not in conformity with the rules of the House with regard to questions put by ministers. Such a question should contain no statement of fact beyond what is absolutely necessary to make the question intelligible, and should not contain any reflection upon a member of the House. I think this question contravenes the rules in both these particulars. It will therefore stand for amendment.


PICTOU, N.S., CARRYING MAILS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Were tenders called for carrying mails from the post office to the railway station at Pictou, N.S., on January 6, 1912?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Tenders were received for this service on 5th of January, 1912.
2.	Peter F. Foley, 25 cents per trip; D. W. English, 35 cents per trip; Alex. Sar-son, 40 cents per trip; John A. Brennan, 60 cents per trip.
3.	Peter F. Foley.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY, LATE STRIKE OF TRAINMEN.
*Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Wliat were the conditions under which the late strike of the trainmen of the Grand Trunk Railway was called off?
2.	Was the late government in any way_ connected with the making of those conditions? If so, how and who represented the government?
3.	Is the government aware that the Grand Trunk officials have not carried out the agreement made between the trainmen and the late government and the railway company?
4.	Is the government aware that His Honour Judge Barron, of Stratford, Ont., was appointed by Chas. M. Hays, the general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to investigate the individual oases of men who were not reinstated?
5.	Was Judge Barron paid by the government for bis services, or by the railway company or by Chas. M. Hays, and what remuneration did he receive?
6.	Has the government been furnished with a copy of Judge Barron's report? If so, what recommendations concerning the matter did it make, and have those recommendations been carried out? If not, why not?
7.	How many men affected by the late strike of the Grand Trunk railway have not been reinstated as per agreement, and what is the number at each point on the system?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	The terms of the settlement were as follows:
Montreal, July 31, 1910.
Re dispute between Grand Trunk Railway Company and its employees in train and yard service.
By way of settlement of the existing difficulties:-
1.	The company will put back as soon as possible the men, other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
2.	The company will put into effect from May 1, 1910, the rates named in schedule of rates dated July 18, 1910, those rates to be embodied in the present schedules now in effect on this line, it being understood that those rates shall in no instance effect a reduction in any existing rate.
3.	The company will, on January 1, 1912, make effective in train and yard service on the Grand Trunk Railway the rates of pay and the rules contained in the schedule or agreement on that date in effect on the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway east of Fort William.
The three above propositions shall apply also to the Central Vermont Railway Company, the said railway company to be substituted for the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Rutland Railway Company to be substituted for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wherever the same are used or understood in the above. (In the case of the Central Vermont, by the 'schedule of rates dated July 18, 1910' is meant the schedule issued by the management of that company since July 1.)


CHAS. M. HAYS,
[Stage Direction]
President.
Grand Trunk Railway System.
For the Order of Railway Conductors:
Robert Kelley.
N. Foy.
* Ed. Z. Sinclair.
J.	E. Mann.
Approved by

[Stage Direction]
Vice-President.
For the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen:
John Maloney.
J. A. Conner.
W. E. Berry.
P. A. Hebert.
Approved by

[Stage Direction]
Vice-President.
Attest i
a.'b. garretson,
President.
Order Railway Conductors.

[Stage Direction]
President.
Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen.
1.	With reference to the meaning to be attached to the words ' as soon as possible ', occurring in the above agreement, the former Minister of Labour made the following statement to parliament on March 21, 1911:	'Mr. Wainwright came
82*
up to Ottawa on a train about the same time as the one on which I came and as vice-president of the Grand Trunk railway he gave me an assurance in the presence of two of my colleagues here that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway would consent to giving to these three words ' as soon as possible ' the definite meaning of three months,' which was the time Sir Frederick Borden and myself said we thought would be sufficient.
2.	(a) The former Minister of Labour stated to this House on March 21 last the connection of the government with the making of the terms of the agreement set forth above, namely: ' The agreement was not with the government, but was between the parties to the dispute, the Grand Trunk railway on'the one hand and the organization involved in the dispute on the other. They were the parties to the dispute, and they were the parties to the settlement. The government helped to bring about an agreement-brought the parties together and, through its representatives, assisted the parties in trying to reach satisfactory terms. But the agreement was an agreement between the parties to the dispute, and the best evidence of that is that one party is now saying that the other is not carrying out its agreement.'
(b) The former Minister of Labour, on the same occasion, stated to the House that he and the then Minister of Militia and Defence went to Montreal to represent the government as above in the negotiations held between the parties.
3.	The government is aware that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has failed to reinstate, as required by the agreement above indicated, a number of former employees concerned in the strike and recommended for reinstatement by Judge Barron.
4.	Yes
5.	So far as concerns the original investigation made by Judge Barron, as above indicated, the government made no payment to Judge Barron, and the government is not aware of the conditions as to compensation, whether from the Grand Trunk Railway Company or from Mr. Hays, under which Judge Barron conducted the inquiry. In August, 1911, however, the then Minister of Labour directed Judge Barron to proceed to Montreal to make some further efforts in connection with the reinstatement of certain of the employees, and Judge Barron received from the government as compensation for services then rendered the sum of $125, with $25 allowance for expenses, as per account rendered, the services then rendered being understood to have been of a conciliatory nature.
[Stage Direction]
6.	The government has not been furnished with a copy of the report made, as above indicated, for Mr. Hays, and is not aware of its nature. The government has, however, received what purports to be a copy of a statement made by Judge Barron to Mr. Hays, under date of August 18, 1911, and apart from the report proper. The statement thus received contains recommendations for reinstatement which have not been carried out. The government is not able to state why the recommendations have not been carried out.
7.	The official representatives of the trade organizations concerned, representing the men concerned, have informed the government in a communication under date of December 6, 1911, that the total number of men not reinstated as per agreement then stood at 77 at various points over the line, as follows, namely: Brock-ville, 3; Stratford, 7; Palmerston, 7; Hamilton, 6; Montreal, 1; Sarnia, 2; Portland, Me., 1; Island Pond, Vt., 3; Toronto, 10; Allandale, 5; East Toronto, 1; Belleville, 1; Niagara Falls, 7; Bridgeburg, 1; London, Ont., 7; Detroit, Mich., 9; Windsor, 6.
MAIL CARRIER-ST. PAUL I/ER.MITE AND DE REPENTIGNY.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the name of the person at present in charge of the carrying of His Majesty's mails between the post office of St. Paul l'Er-mite and that of de Repentigny?
2.	Has the contract of that person been annulled? If so, at whose request and for what reason ?
3.	Who has been recommended to take charge of that contract for the future, and what is to be his salary?
4.	Who recommended the new contractor?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Joseph Larose.
2.	The contract will, in the public interest, terminate on or about the 21st of April next, as provided for by one of its clauses.
3.	Albert Juneau, at $102 per annum, the same rate as paid to the other contractor.
4.	Mr. Joseph Morin, K.C.


MATE CARRIER-ST. PAUL L'ERMITE AND CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the name of the person at present in charge of the carrying of His Majesty's mails between the railway station of the Canadian Northern and the post office at St. Paul l'Ermite?
2.	Has the contract of that person been annulled? If so, at whose request and for what reasons ?
3.	Who has been recommended to take
charge of that contract for the future, by whom was he recommended, and what Is his salary?	. *	^. Mr. CROTHERS.	:	2


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Camille Seguin.
2.	The contract will, in the public interest, terminate on or about the 21st of April next, as provided for by one of its clauses.
3.	Albert Juneau, who is to be paid $150 per annum, the same as the other contractor receives. He was recommended by Mr. Joseph Morin, K.C.


MR. HECTOR CHAUVIN, K.C., DISMISSALS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What are the names, residences and salaries of the Public Works officials, suspended or not, against whom Mr. Hector Chauvin,
K.C., of Ottawa, special commissioner, has been instructed by the Minister of Publio Works to investigate certain charges of political partisanship?	,	.
2.	Has any recommendation for the dismissal of above officials been made by any member of parliament? If so, whom?
3.	Who has laid the charge of political partisanship against each of the above public works officials


Mr. MONK:: 1.	All workmen employed in the shops at Ottawa:
Elevator men, paid at the rate of $60 a month-J. Bureau, J. Whelan, J. B. Rioux, N. Proulx, W. Connelly, - Charron, N. McCarthy, P. Blondeau, Wm. McEwan.
Electricians-B. J. Nolan, $60 a month, James Gleeson, $75 a month.
Engineers and firemen, $55 a month-S. Lurette, A. Bastien, W. Lurette, - Newington.
Watchmen, $60 a month-P. Moyneur, S. Chapman, J. Simms, R. Cornwall, John Whitton.
Roads and bridges-C. Leblanc, $85 a month.
Mechanical staff-F. Desmarais, $60 a month; W. Daly, $60 a month; F. Kennedy, $55 a month; D. Lang, $60 a month.
*Carpenters,$2.50 a day-A. Oaron, C. Hebert, J. Grusson, H. Theberge, T. Shea, Jas. S. Oakley, -. Bradshaw, W. L. St. Pierre, D. Sullivan.
Gardeners, $48 a month-E. Gagne, J. Chartrand, A. Bergevin.
Clerks of Works-Wm. Slack, $100 a month. G. Gibson, $2.50 a day. R. Hen-ault, $65 a month.
Painters, $2.40 a day-C. Wall, J. Randall, A. Beaulieu, J. Boileau, J. H. Char-lebois, D. Proulx, F. Lamb.
Roofers-A. Spenard, $86.66 a month. A. Monette, $2.25 a day. T. W. French, $2.25 a day.
Masons and bricklayers, $3.50 a day-C. Merrifield, C. Monette, A. Auborne, J. O'Donald. E. St. George, J. McGuire, W. Drake. J. Baxter, $90 a month.
Plasterers-J. Foley, $3.50 a day.
!

Shipyard, B. Gorman, -. Trudel.
Labourers, $1.75 a day-E. Gorman, F. Berthiaume, H. O'Neill, J. Duhamel, J. Oarriere, J. O'Connor, Percy McGrath. W. A. G. Bedard, $90 a month.
Upholsterer-Alfred Trudel, $2.80 a day.
The following were dismissed, and have asked for an investigation: Michael Flan-nigan, $60 a month. J. Cleary, $60 a month. Jos. Piche, $60 a month. Alb. Dunn, $55 a month. Ferd. Cossette, $2.50 a day. Edmond Gariepy, $70 a month. Thos. Chapman, $60 a month. A. St. Denis, $60 a month. Omer Sabourin, $55 a month. Janv. Trepannier, $60 a month. E. Sauriol, $90 a month.
Carters, $4.50 a day-Oct. Latremouille, F. Landry, Harold Green.
The department does not keep the residence address of its employees.
2 and 3. (a) Yes. (b) By Messrs. Chabot and Fripp.


POSTMISTRESS OP SAYABEC.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	In regard to the postmistress of Sayabeo station county Rimouski, was there a petition sent to the Postmaster General praying for the dismissal of the postmistress and for the appointment of Miss Bonlay in his stead?
2.	If so, how many people signed the petition ?


Mr. PELLETIER :: 1 and 2. No.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH MARCONI COMPANY.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General been called to the following despatch published in the press of Canada:-


WIRELESS TO ALL DOMINIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Marconi Company makes Arrangements with Government.
New York, February 1.-The London correspondent of the New York 'Times' cables that he has the best authority for announcing that negotiations which have been going on between the British government and the Marconi Company for over a year, rumours of which resulted in wireless shares recently rising from 14s., are now completed.
In fact the arrangements arrived at between representatives of the British post office and the Marconi Company only required certain formal signatures, which in the case of ordinary business would have been forthcoming yesterday, but in the present instance are delayed by the red-tapism of the government departments.
Under the new scheme the Marconi Company will be in a position, to make enormous developments. While it is as yet impossible to give details, it can be said that the contract creates a system of wireless communication between all the British dominions throughout the world.
2.	Has there been any communication on the above subject between the Postmaster General and the British government?
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


I.C.R.-FENCE POLES AT STE. ANNE DE LA POCATIERE.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Is the government aware that the cedar fence poles of the Intercolonial railway at Ste. Anne de la Pocatifere are said to have been taken and carried off?
2.	If the allegations are true, who carried the said poles away, and at whose place were they found ?
3.	How many of them were there?
4.	Was captain or policeman W. Moore, of Levis, instructed to make inquiries and to verify the facts in this connection?
5.	Has he made a report on the subject? If so, what aTe the contents of that report?
6.	Were those poles put back on the ground of the railway? If so, how many of them were put back?
7.	Did the head seotionman on the Ste. Anne section of the Intercolonial railway inform the government or the Railway Department on this subject, and what information did he give?
8.	What was decided about the person who took them?
9.	Is the government aware if there are any more of such poles on the property of that person?
10.	Does the government purpose proceeding against that person?
11.	Was this same person in the employ of the government as overseer of works on the wharf or otherwise at Ste. Anne and elsewhere ?
12.	Is that person still in the government employ ?
13.	Is he not employed at the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatifere?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Poles were carried away by a farmer named George Beaulieu, on whose property they were found.
3.	350 poles.
4.	Trackmaster Lavery sent word to Inspector Moore, who went to this man and had him return the poles.
5.	No.
6.	Yes, they were all returned.
7.	No.
8.	No action was taken.
9.	Answered by No. 6.
10.	The matter will be considered.
11.	12 and 13. Not to the knowledge of the Department of Railways and Canals.


INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARITIME LAW.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1. Has the government been invited to participate in the International Conference on Maritime Law, to be held at Brussels, Belgium, in September, 1912?

2. If so, has the government decided to he represented at such conference, and by whom ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by reply to No. 1.


POSTMASTER AS TOWN COUNCILLOR.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is it against the rules of the Post Office Department for a postmaster to become a municipal or town councillor?
2.	If so, what is the regulation in regard to it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 and 2. There is no special rule.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY BRIDGE AT MORRIS.
Mr. MOLLOY:: Have any representations been received by the Railway Department objecting to the establishment of traffic facilities in connection with the proposed Canadian Northern railway bridge across the Red river at the town of Morris, Manitoba? If so, when and by whom ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: The department has no knowledge of any representations being made, objecting to the establishment of traffic facilities in connection with the proposed Canadian Northern railway bridge across the Red River at the town of Morris, Manitoba.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
-Por a copy of all documents, papers, petitions, letters, &c., relating to the dismissal of Louis Girard, postmaster at Ste. Angele de M6rici, county of Rimouski, and relating to the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Lapointe- (Kamouraska).
-Por a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, charges, complaints, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, relating to the proposed dismissal of James McGrath, postmaster at Aspen, Nova Scotia.-Mr. Sinclair.
-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, charges, complaints or other documents in the possession of the Department of Marine and Fisheries relating to the proposed dismissal of Patrick Conway, ligbtkeeper at White Head Island, Nova Scotia.-Mr. Sinclair.
-For a return showing for each department of the government the names, post office addresses, offices, employment, and salaries of all persons employed either in the inside or outside service thereof, and of such persons not in the civil service, employed by the government in any department, on the tenth day of October, 1911, who have been removed from office or employment by dismissal; specifying in each case the manner of and grounds of such dismissals and the length of notice given to the persons removed, and also indicating
Mr. MURPHY.: in each case whether an inquiry was or was not held prior :to such dismissal.-Mr. eyte.
-For a copy of all letters papers, charges, affidavits and other documents relating to a charge against W. W. Gray, coal inspector of the I. C. R. at Westville' N.S., and of all evidence, documents, reports, or other papers connected with the investigation of said charge hy H. P. Duohemin.-Mr. Macdonald.
-For a copy of all chargee, letters, and other documents relating to complaints against John Conno-lly, of New Glasgow, coal inspector, for partisanship, the evidence taken in the investigation before H. P. Duchemin, and all other papers in connection therewith.- Mr. Macdonald.
-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, charges, complaints, reports and other documents relating to the dismissal of W. II. Harris, postmaster, at White Head, N.S., and relating to the appointment of his successor.- Mr. Sinclair.


POSTMASTER AT ST. ANACLET.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska) moved:: For a copy of all documents, papers petitions, recommendations, &c., relating to the request that was made to the Post Office Department for the dismissal of the postmaster of St. Anaclet, county of Rimouski.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There has been no dismissal.


Ernest Lapointe: I know there has been no dismissal, but I would like to know the circumstances relating to the request.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I suppose the hon. gentleman would like to know why there has been no dismissal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. KYTE.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) based npon an item that has been going the rounds of the ministerial press. I quote from the Montreal * Gazette ':
Ottawa, Feb. 2-The government has decided in favour of granting substantial bonuses for the encouragement of iron making in Canada.	_
Your correspondent can state this to-night authoritatively. The great smelting industries at Sydney and the Soo were established largely hv means of bonus aids. The last of these expired in June. There were the bounties in steel rods. There had previously been bounties on billets and other forms of iron and steel which had expired and tvhich Finance Minister Fielding failed to renew.
The government has decided that the state of the industries and the prosperity of the country warrant a restoration of this bounty aid. Therefore it has been practically decided to give a bounty of a dollar a ton on pig iron produced from foreign ore and a dollar and a half a ton on pig iron pro-

duced from domestic ore. These bounties will likely run until the Tariff Commission is appointed and has looked into the question of aid for steel works. It is likely that then the bounties will be dropped and the steel industry aided by means of tariff protection for which they have always expressed a preference	I '
I desire to ask the government if it has been decided to renew the bounties, and if any information to that effect has been given out by the government?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: In answer I may say, what I think my hon. friend must know, that it is not the custom to make any announcement in a matter of that kind except in the budget speech.


George William Kyte: Are we to understand that this statement is not authoritative?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. BORDEN.: My hon. friend will have to use his own judgment.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I would like to refresh the memory of the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Borden) as to the return regarding the appointment of commissioners under the Boundary Waters Treaty. My right hon. friend thought he had the return and, if so, I would like to know if he is prepared to produce it?


Robert Laird Borden: It cannot be produced until assent is obtained for bringing down certain documents. That has been asked for but has not yet been obtained.


William Pugsley: When is it likely to be obtained?


Robert Laird Borden: I could not say-as soon as possible. We are asking for it.


William Pugsley: That means right away?


Robert Laird Borden: I think so-with the least possible delay.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: In reference to Bill (No. 95) respecting the National Transcontinental railway, I have understood from my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) that he would bring down the factum of each party in the case before the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: It was so intended.


William Thomas White: 
PEACE MEMORIAL MONUMENT.
Mr. GERMAN.: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) to an article which I saw in a newspaper yesterday stating that he had been interviewed by some prominent gentlemen in reference to the building of a peace memorial monument in Queen's Park, Toronto, to commemorate a hundred years of peace between the British and United States governments. The right hon. gentleman is aware that there is considerable earnest feeling-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. German) would be going beyond the rules in entering upon a discussion and not simply asking a question.


William Manley German: I only intend to mention what will lead up intelligently to the question which I purpose asking. The Prime Minister is aware of the feeling existing in Canada and the United States that there should be some International Peace Memorial Monument erected and I desire to know from the Prime Minister if he has considered the question and if any action will be taken by the government in reference to it in the near future.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman inquiring as to a peace memorial or as to the memorial mentioned by the delegation?


William Manley German: The peace memorial which is being suggested to be erected by the governments of the United States and Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. German) that the subject to which he has alluded has been brought to the attention of the government on more than one occasion in an informal way. I understand that an association has been formed in the United States for the purpose of assisting in the celebration of the anniversary of peace between the two countries in a way that would be worthy of the very great event that it would commemorate. I also understand that an association has been formed by some prominent men in the mother country and I think that perhaps more than one association may have been formed in Canada although I am not aware that they have organized in any very effective way up to the present time. As far as the government of the United States are concerned, I am not aware that they have taken any action in the matter, nor have I received any information that the government of the United Kingdom have taken any action up to the present time. The government of this country would be prepared to take any part in the celebration of the peace anniversary thait might be decided upon after the necessary conference with the

government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States. We have not received any intimation with regard to the matter from the mother country or the government of the United States. For that reason the matter has not come, except in the informal and unofficial way to which I have alluded, to the attention of the government. I do not think I can give my hon. friend any further information on the subject at the present time.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Part 4 of the report of Ithe Department of Trade and Commerce-Mr. Foster ^Toronto).

Hon.  W. T.@: WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 88 to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission. He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this Bill to create a Tariff Commission, I am sure I need not say that it is not the intention of the government to delegate or attempt to delegate its powers and functions with regard to the making of tariffs to any outside body. Under our parliamentary system, the duty of originating Bills for the raising of revenue devolves upon the government, and the responsibility for such Bills must remain with the government. Under this proposed Act creating a Tariff Commission, the duty and responsibility with respect to the tariff shall remain precisely as it is at present, precisely as it has been in the past. In this respect there is no departure whatever from the former practice. The wish has often been expressed that the tariff could be taken out of politics and that a commission akin to the Railway Commission might deal with it; a commission having power not only to obtain information but to actually fix tariff rates. The idea underlying this wish is, of course, that the tariff and the fixing of tariff rates might be removed from the sphere of political influence, or the sphere of_ party favouritism, and that a commission should fix the rates of the tarff upon a basis that would be fair, and just, and equitable to all classes of the community, producers, and consumers alike. Now, apart from the question of governmental responsibility for national expenditure and for the raising of revenues, such a proposal could only be regarded as Utopian, and impractical, because there is probably no question in the whole realm of political science upon which men and parties and economists have more widely or more earnestly differed than as to the principle upon which tariff rates should be based and established. There are those who are free traders, and who believe Mr. BORDEN.
in a tariff for revenue only, but they differ among themselves as to the particular commodities that should be taxed and as to the proportion of the tax that should be borne by the several classes of the community-I am not speaking particularly with regard to Canada now when I speak of free traders and those who believe in a tariff for revenue only. Then, there are those who are protectionists, and they differ among themselves as to the degree of protection that should be accorded and the extent of time and the period over which pr flection should extend. I think we may safely say-and I am sure it is not necessary to elaborate the point in a representative assembly of this kind-we may safely say that there is no matter in the realm of political science about which men and parties are more apt to differ than the question of the proper basis for, and the principle of establishing tariff rates. I think, therefore, we may assume in view of this and other considerations, that the tariff cannot 'be taken out of politics, that it is in reality the most vital and essential feature in politics, that it is, and probably always will be the chief topic of political discussion.	_
Now, in any modern society, the task of tariff making or of tariff revision, especially upon a comprehensive scale, is one of very great difficulty and complexity, involving, as an indispensable preliminary, a more or less exhaustive investigation into economic conditions. In other words, where the tariff is a tariff for revenue only, or partly for revenue and partly protective, its basis should be the ascertainment, as accurately as possible, of facts. Let me give a practical illustration. From day to day in my office, the tariff being in the Department of Finance, I have applications from business men, from manufacturers, from others throughout the community, with regard to the tariff. These applicants have, or fancy they have, some grievances; they either wish a higher degree of protection, or, some of them may complain, and they may justly complain, that the tariff unduly favours certain industries, that the rate of living has been unduly enhanced by reason thereof, and they ask that the matter be looked into. Now, Tight at the outset, and before that matter can be properly investigated, there comes up the question: what are the facts. In other words, tihe question of facts is an absolutely necessary preliminary to proper tariff investigation, and to proper and just tariff action. In Canada, with our vast extent of territory, with our great variety of resources, with our great industrial establishments, the task of tariff making is one of very great difficulty, a fact that has been recognized by previous governments whenever they have undertaken the task of tariff making

or tariff revision. They have tried to meet the situation by organizing committees or commissions-I prefer to call them committees, although they have been called by the ministers themselves commissions, they tried by this means to obtain the necessary facts and data upon which a tariff can only be justly and fairly and intelligently constructed. They have gone through the country, they have visited the principal places in Canada, and have there sought information. In 1893 a committee of the ministers of Sir John Thompson's Cabinet visited the principal centres of the Dominion for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to revise the tariff. In 1897, similarly, a committee of Cabinet ministers, three in number, visited the leading centres of the Dominion in quest of information. They gave hearings to parties who were desirous to be heard with regard to the tariff or who might have information useful to them in coming to a conclusion. In 1905 and 1906, similarly a committee of ministers visited various points of the Dominion, preparatory to the tariff legislation of 1907.
Now, Sir, I think that such committees would serve an extremely useful purpose. In the first place they would bring the ministers in touch with public opinion throughout the Dominion, the ministers would hear both sides, so to speak; they would hear the side of those in favour of an increase in the tariff or of maintaining the existing tariff, and they would hear, on the otheT hand, those who were opposed to such increase or such maintenance.
But I think it must be obvious to all that it would be absolutely impossible for such a committee of ministers visiting various parts of the Dominion to obtain anything like accurate statistical information, whieh I believe is indispensible to the making of a tariff upon a just and fair basis. It would be absolutely impossible for these ministers to obtain anything like accurate information with regard to the great variety of products and commodities mentioned in -the tariff schedules. Our customs revenue for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1911, was over $73,000,000; our tariff Act embraces something like 740 different items; and these items in turn embrace thousands of commodities. One gets a fair idea from these figures of the great amount of information which would be necessary or desirable before anything like a comprehensive revision of the tariff could be attempted. I do not wish to overemphasize or to magnify the difficulty, because it is only fair to say that it is possible to become academic with regard to getting information; but there is no doubt that our tariff will be on a more just and equitable basis in proportion to the amount of accurate information w'hich we have at
hand at the time the tariff is created or is revised.
Other countries have been confronted with the same difficulty of obtaining facts as a preliminary to tariff action. Germany engaged some thirty experts for the purpose of obtaining information upon which her tariff might be based. Japan, preliminary to any tariff legislation, appoints a committee consisting of civil officials, members of parliament and leading business men, for the purpose of advising with regard to the items in the tariff schedules. The nearest approach to a permanent tariff commission, although it is not a tariff commission in the sense in which our Bill provides for one, is the Tariff Board of the United States. The Customs Tariff Act of the United States for the year 1909 contained maximum and minimum tariff provisions, and it left the administration of the tariff as to these maximum and minimum provisions in the hands of the President of the United States. The following provision was made in the Act:
To secure information to assist the President in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by this section, and officers of the government in the administration of the customs laws, the President is hereby authorized to employ persons as may be required.
Subsequently he appointed three persons, the number being afterwards increased to five, to organize the bureau, and they were known as the Tariff Board. As to the duties of the board there is no definition in any statute, but the president of the board has thus defined them:
The duties of the board are the ascertainment of the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad and the ascertainment of the prices at home and abroad and their relation to local conditions.
The President desired to have the board made permanent, but in the meantime public sentiment had arisen calling for the creation of a Tariff Commission. In the United States there were two distinct notions prevalent as to the scope of this commission. One was that the commission should have the powers which I mentioned at the opening of my speech

that it should be absolutely independent of Congress with the power to fix the tariff rates. The other was that the commission should be auxiliary to the government, for the purpose of obtaining information on which tariff rates might be founded. A Bill was introduced founded on the latter conception, though slightly different in form, and passed both Houses, but failed of final enactment. It is generally acknowledged that the Tariff Board of the United States has performed very important and valuable services. Among the different works which if has undertaken I might mention


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: What ever criticism I might have to offer upon the Bill, the second reading of which has just been moved by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White, Leeds), no one can take exception to the clear explanation which he has given the House, of the proposal and his own intentions in regard to the proposal. As to much of what he has said, I can agree with him, and to many parts of his address I take no exception.
But I must disagree with him on the method he has adopted in seeking to obtain information and facts, which I believe all members of this House will deem t-o be necessary to enable us to bestow proper consideration upon any of the tariff questions which from time to time arise in this House. I object to the form in which the government has brought down this measure, and as I proceed, I think I can point out to the satisfaction of the House that the form is objectionable, and if persisted in, as brought before us in the shape of the present Bill, its operation and ultimate result will not only be objectionable, but I think I may go so far as to say may be disastrous to the great body of the citizens of this country.
I believe that the Finance Minister recognizes that this Bill is in the nature of a new departure. It is a radical departure from anything which we have hitherto known in our parliamentary or constitutional practice. In order to justify so radical a departure, strong reasons, substantial reasons, I think should have been given to the House. Mere matters of expediency are not sufficient for the purpose. Our constitutional practice, our parliamentary practice in respect to tariffs,
and in respect to the great question of national taxation, has not been the growth of a year, or of years, or of generations, but of centuries. It is the outcome of long centuries of ripe experience, and the rights which we in this parliament possess of dealing with matters of revenue and of taxation are rights not lightly to be interfered with, not lightly to be limited, and no government, I submit, is justified in raising any barrier between a government and the people who puts that government in power; and this Bill, in my opinion, raises at the outset such a barrier.
I think, too, that my hon. triend the Minister of Finance might at the outset have given the House some reason for bringing in this measure at the present session. What public demand has there been in Canada for such a measure? Has there been any demand? Has the question ever been discussed in this House or outside this House? Has it ever been discussed as a question of vital importance by the press of the country? I know, as every hon. member knows, that the question of the appointment of a tariff commission was raised by my right hon. friend, the leader of the government, in one or more than one of his many pre-election manifestos. But I know that I am quite within the mark when I say that the matter as a live issue was never discussed, either on the platform or in the press, and up till the present moment, so far as my knowledge goes, it has never been discussed in the parliament of Canada. Now what call or what demand has there been for such a measure? The Minister of Finance gave the House not a single instance of any demand, of any request, which had been made upon the government to formulate such a measure as that proposed in this Bill for the employment of a permanent tariff commission. We know that there is one important body in Canada that has called for it, and called loudly for it. We know that it has been a sort of an ideal of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for a number of years back. We know that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has year in and year out, in open session and in secret session, and at its banquets, announced its desire that a permanent tariff commission should be established in Canada. But apart from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, has any call come from any other section of the country? I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance:	Have any agricultural societies in Canada asked for the establishment of a permanent tariff commission? Have any of the dairymen's associations, any of the live stock associations, swine breeders' or sheep breeders' associations any western association, the Grain Growers' Association, the Dominion Grange-

have any of these men asked for it? Have any of the great consuming classes asked for such a measure? Has any request come from Boards of Trade? If so, the Minister of Finance did not give the House any information. Has he received requests from the great industrial classes, the Trade and Labour Congress, the trades unions, any of those representative bodies of the great consuming classes, have they made any request to the government, direct or indirect, that a permanent tariff commission should be established in Canada? I venture to say that, with the single exception of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, there has never been a request or a suggestion from any of the great public bodies in Canada for a Bill such as the one which is now under consideration.
Now, on the face of the Bill, one might suppose on a superficial glance, that it is perhaps innocuous, perhaps to some extent harmless. But I venture the assertion that any one who will carefully read the Bill, any one who will observe what I believe to be its real intent and purpose, will see that it is one of very far reaching scope, and of very serious consequence to the people of his country. It does, Sir, seem to me a strange thing that the first important official act, the first act, at all events, of any consequence or any magnitude, performed by the Minister of Finance in this House since his appointment to that high position a few months ago, should be the introduction of a Bill to establish a permanent tariff commission in Canada, a Bill which, on his own statement, both in foTm and in substance, I think I am safe in saying, is practically borrowed from the highest protectionist country in the world, from the United States of America. It is a strange comment, a strange sequel, upon events which happened just about a year ago in Massey hall, Toronto, at a tremendous gathering called by so-called Liberals to protest against the proposed reciprocity agreement with the United States. The hon. the Minister of Finance was on the platform at that gathering, and they tell me he made the best speech that was made on that occasion, and I am sure he would. His theme was that the United States systems are bad, their laws are bad, their methods, their manners are such as should not be adopted in Canada; they ' would lower us, they would not ennoble us. And now, Sir, we see that the first act of consequence or of magnitude, of that same hon. gentleman occupying the high position of Minister of Finance of Canada, is to bring in a Bill, to find a model for which he has gone across to Washington. He has culled the ' Con-Mr. GUTHRIE.
gressional Record ' of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and he has brought here in concrete form what the high protectionist party in the United States deem a proper thing to safeguard high protection in that country.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, knows that he has perused that ' Congressional Record,' every page of it, dealing with this subject. I do not object to his doing so, but I say that his remarks are tainted with the arguments which were advanced by the high protectionist party in Congress for the passage of a similar measure. He will remember, as I do, that one member of the House of Representatives said: I support this -Bill because it is the best way to sustain the glorious doctrine of protection. That is one of the Tea-sons given in the House of Representatives and I, for one, have not a single doubt in my mind that the real object, purpose and intent of the present measure is to perpetuate and sustain, not the present system of protection, but a higher system of protection in the Dominion of Canada.
This Bill cannot be said to be original in any respect. There are only two or three countries, I believe, in the world-only two or three at all events, of which I know -which have adopted tariff commissions and it is a strange thing that the countries which have adopted this method of procedure, are the highest protected countries in the world. A tariff commission board seems to be a necessary adjunct to the high protective system, and I do not think I am going one jot beyond the truth when I say that this Bill is brought in here-almost the first important Bill of the first session of this parliament-as a quid pro quo for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to redeem the promises made to them for their generous and lavish support during the election on the 21st day of September last.
Well, how will the Bill operate? Opinion may be divided upon that question and probably will. We have perhaps no plain statement of fact which you can lay before the House as to what will be the exact operation of the Bill and we cannot more than surmise what are the real intentions of the government in bringing it forward. But, straws show which way the wind blows, and we must gather these things from the material at hand. I think I am within the mark in saying that the operation of this Bill will not be such as was pictured in such a masterly way by the Minister of Finance, but that it will go much further. It is a matter which will enter much deeper into our fiscal system than the Minister of Finance would lead us to believe, if we can judge of its provisions and by the remarks which he has made to this House to-dav. I believe I am right in saying that the only occasion

on which the question was ever mentioned in this House during the past ten or twelve years, was during the last session of the last parliament, about a year ago. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) on that occasion, speaking in the debate on the question of reciprocity with the United States, did make a reference to the question of establishing a permanent tariff commission. It was not a lengthy reference, it was a brief reference and I give it now as being the only reference I can find in this House by the right hon. gentleman or by any one else to the matter. He said in that speech, at page 3311:-
I believe that we in Canada, in the future still more than in the past, should attempt to shape our tariff upon scientific consideration of known facts. I believe it would be well that we should have exact information as to these matters laid before parliament. I believe it would be well if we established a permanent tariff commission in Canada so that our tariff should not be made by rule of thumb.
And further, in column 3312, he says:
My idea of a tariff is one which would give the industries of this country a fair chaace, and more than a fair chance perhaps, to stand up against competition of countries where, it may be, the standard of living among the labouring people is lower than in Canada, and lower than it ought to be any where. That I think is a reasonable proposition. A permanent tariff commission if established would be the most fitting authority to , decide as to these points.
If that language correctly expresses what was the view and the opinion of my right hon. friend the leader of the government, when he spoke in this House one year ago, the intention of the tariff commission, and of this Bill which has been introduced, go much farther than the Minister of Finance would lead the House to believe. The right hon. leader of the government said last year that in his judgment a tariff commission would be the proper tribunal to decide these weighty matters, and he was then in favour of giving to the industries in Canada not only a fair chance, ' but more than a fair chance perhaps.' Why give to the industries of Canada more than a fair chance, let me ask my right hon. friend? Was that expression purposely used as a bait for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and did the Canadian Manufacturers Association take the bait? Why give them more than a fair chance? Do they ask for more than a fair chance? I assume they do, but if that language correctly expresses the views of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking in this House one year ago, and if this Bill is to establish a permanent tariff commission, and to give that commission power to decide these questions, as intimated by the right hon. gentleman
last year, then the Bill is not so simple, and not so innocuous as the Minister of Finance would lead the House to believe in his statement. But, Sir, I am backed up in that view by a statement which appeared a day or two ago in the columns of the ' Toronto Mail.' This is about the first serious reference I ever saw in the newspapers of Canada to the question of a permanent tariff commission. It is contained in an editorial in the ' Mail and Empire ' of February 1. It is only a passing reference, it is true, but, as I said, straws show which way the wind blows and there are one or two sentences here which indicate quite clearly that, notwithstanding the language used in the Bill, and the language used in addressing this House to-day by the Finance Minister, the real object and intent of the Bill go much farther than he would lead us to believe, and it will mean a general raising of the tariff of this country and the erection of a barrier between the people and the ministers who should be responsible to the people but who hereafter will try to shoulder that responsibility upon the board which they propose to create by this Bill. The Toronto ' Mail,' in discussing what the commission has to do, and referring to the material which the commissioners are to collect, says:
This material will not only be collected, but, which is scarcely less important, it will be organized, and something like a starting point for a scientific tariff will thus he fixed.
That so-called scientific tariff is to be organized from that starting point to b( established by these permanent tariff commissioners. Further on, in the same article, it says:
The commission's work will establish a new landmark in the history of Canadian tariff legislation.
Is that not plain enough? Do the people not believe that the government's proposal means that the board of tariff commissioners shall, from time to time, make reports upon which this government will act, and that these reports, in the very nature of things, will be in the interest of higher duties or greater protection to the industries of Canada; or, in the words of the Prime Minister, will be designed to give the industries of Canada more than a fair chance? If they give them more than a fair chance somebody is going to suffer. It is at the expense of somebody else.
At whose expense is it to be? Certainly, at the expense of the great consuming-masses of this country. I might mention one or two other matters which tend to lead me to the conclusion that we do not see the intention and the purpose of the government on the face of this Bill. It i3 only a few weeks since there appeared in the newspapers a letter from the right

hon. the Prime Minister addressed to Sir Sanford Fleming in regard to the cement merger. In that letter the right hon. gentleman said that the legal aspect of the question should be decided by the courts, and in that, I agree with him. But, he said, the question of the raising of the price by means of the merger is a matter for the Tariff Commission to deal with. It is only during the present session that I asked the Minister of Customs, on behalf of some of my constituents, whether a certain heavy triphammer could be imported from Chicago free of duty, the same not being mentioned in the Canadian Tariff and not being manufactured in Canada. I suppose my request could have been granted by order in council, but my request was refused courteously by the Minister of Customs and in his letter of refusal he said: this is another of these matters for the Tariff Commission to deal with. Now, when facts like that come to one's knowledge and when we know that the people who have established permanent Tariff Commissions throughout the world, are people who believe m the doctrine of protection to the hilt and the highest kind of protection; when we know that the only demand in Canada for a permanent Tariff Commission has been from the high protectionist party, the Canadian Manufacturers Association; when we know there has not been any earnest demand or suggestion for it from any other body of people in the Dominion, then, taking the statement of the Prime Minister, with the statement of the Minister of Customs to which I have referred and with the statement of the ' Toronto Mail and Empire ', may we not reasonably conclude that the functions of this hoard are far greater than would appear on the surface, and that the proposal is in reality a radical departure from British and from Canadian parliamentary practice?
The Bill is largely an American model, nothing more or less than a cheap Yankee device of the Finance Minister, copied from the United States; a device notoriously invented by the high protectionist party in the United States. I challenge the Minister of Finance to contradict that statement. It cannot be contradicted because it is the absolute truth. In form and in substance we have in this Bill, an American article, a cheap Yankee device, which, as one man said in Congress, was intended to sustain the glorious doctrine of protection. Coming to the Bill itself, the third clause deals with the number of commissioners, the appointment of commissioners, etc. and I notice it is not set out in that clause that these commissioners shall be possessed of any special qualifications.
I heard the Minister of Finance state in the House a few days ago, and I think Mr. GUTHRIE
quite correctly, that he would appoint no man on account of his business or calling, and that he would not refuse to appoint any man on 'account of his business or calling. But as this Bill is to create a special board for a particular purpose, I think the commissioners -to be appointed, if we go that Length, should be men having some special training or qualifications. However, no qualification at all is mentioned in the Bill, and in that respect the government will have a free hand. Now, there is one qualification that a man must have if he is to sit on that board, and that is: he must not only be a consistent supporter of the Conservative party right up to and including the last election, but he must also be a High Protectionist before he will sit on that board. The members of that hoard will be appointed from the friends of the government, 'and possibly some of the members will be recruited from the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I do not know that these people have any special qualifications to perform this class of work, but I mention this particularly because this commission is a permanent body They are not to be such a commission as the Minister of Railways had to deal with the other day when he said they were only appointed during pleasure, and he removed them. This commission once appointed cannot be removed except for cause, which means by impeachment as you would remove a judge. Once appointed they are there and they are permanently there, and the words ' for cause ' .are put in just to assure them that they are safe even if in two or three years my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should again obtain power, so that he will not be able to dismiss them. The fact, therefore, is that we are going to have three permanent tariff commissioners a board just as permanently appointed as a Bench of Judges is appointed; and that the qualification is that they shall be loyal subjects and followers of the-.-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Of the King.


Hugh Guthrie: Of the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada. They are to be Conservatives first, last, and all the time, and if they aie, they have also got to be Protectionists and High Protectionists. We may make up our minds to it that we are going to have a board made up of individuals who rightly or wrongly hold opinions in favour oi a highly protective system in this Dominion.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is not my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) a Protectionist himsellf?


Hugh Guthrie: I believe in a certain amount of protection; a tariff for revenue.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Tariff for tariff, the old cry.


Hugh Guthrie: A tariff for revenue affords enough protection in my community and in my opinion it is sufficient. Let us reason the thing out a little further. I believe that there are men in Canada, and many of them, as stated by the Minister of Finance, whose opinions are fixed on the question of Protection and High Protection. With them it is not a matter of a mere change of opinion from day to day or from year to year; they have an absolute and honest conviction that high protection-some of them would have it as high as Hainan's gallows-is the best system for Canada. I give these men credit for honestly holding these opinions. Then, there are a large number of people in this country, who believe as I believe, that if we adopt a tariff for revenue, we will have sufficient incidental protection-and some protection is necessary-for the industries of Canada. But there are also a large number of people who believe in free trade. Here we have three distinct classes of opinion on the fiscal policy of the country, and there may be more. I give these all credit for honesty of conviction, and I will ask the Prime Minister from which of these classes he proposes to appoint a permanent tariff board? I believe that_ if he appoints a board of high protectionists they will view the facts and conditions and circumstances which they are called upon to inquire into through one set of spectacles. I could name for him another set of commissioners who are just as clearly convinced that the best fecal policy for this country is free trade, and who would from the same facts the same conditions, and the sarnie surroundings, form a different conclusion altogether.
I put the matter more pointedly than that; I will put an extreme case. Take a tariff board composed of three men holding opinions such as those of my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor); they would certainly be extreme protectionists. Take another board composed of three men such as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whom I believe to be the ablest exponent of the doctrine of free trade either in this House or in this country. I believe these two boards would view the same facts, inquire into the same conditions, and come to almost opposite conclusions upon them. Where are you going to draw the line? This Bill in my humble judgment goes much too far in the power which it gives to the commissioners. The United States Bill was more fair than this, f-or that Bill provided that the tariff boaj'd should consist of five members three of whom should be Republicans. We do not recognize the party system in our legislation, and I think it is well that we do not; but this Bill gives the government power to appoint three gentlemen of high protectionist views, and we know, without 83
going a step further, just what their view of the situation will be and what their report is likely to be. Now, the personnel and the functions of this commission are the all important things. I do not think the government should ask us to advance the Bill without giving us some information in this regard, i notice, in reading the * Congressional Record ' of the United States, that Senator La Follette said that it was absolutely essential to the consideration of the Bill that the names should be submitted; and I think it will appeal to the hon. members of this House that we ought to know something of the man whom the government intend to appoint in order that we may reach a conclusion as to their qualifications and as to whether they are men likely to perform properly the duties which this Bill proposes to assign to them. Passing on to the functions of the commission, I notice that by section 4 subsection 1 after full inquiry has been made the commissioners are required to report to the Minister of Finance. I believe it would be far more satisfactory if that were changed and the report of the commissioners were to be made directly to parliament. I see no reason whatever for limiting such a report or tying it up in the files of the Finance Department. If the information which this board obtains is of any practical value, then surely it ought to be submitted to this House in order that all hon. members would have an opportunity of perusing it. I take issue with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in regard to the application of subsection 3 of section 4, which provides that these commissioners may inquire into combines. The Bill does not in express terms repeal the provision of the Customs Act which provides that the Governor in Council may institute proceedings before the judges of this country to inquire into combines. That provision would probably continue to be in force; but to my mind it is nothing short of ridiculous to ask a board of hidebound political commissioners to inquire into the combines and mergers dominated by their own political friends. That would be the position. Why, Sir, with a board of three Conservative commissioners of the high protectionist stripe there is not a merger or combine or trust in Canada, but would laugh in its sleeve when these gentlemen talked about having its affairs investigated. That provision in the Bill might well be removed, so that the power would remain where it now is, in the Customs Act, permitting the Governor in Council to empower the judges to make such an inquiry. 1 understand that the present Customs Act is not effective in this respect. I believe there is very much to be said in favour of the position taken by the hon. member


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: But it was not on the doctrine of protection, which doctrine always brings such a cheer from hon. members opposite, but on the question of reciprocal trade relations with the United States. The bulk of the farmers of Ontario are not high protectionists. And this matter will vitally affect them when brought to its logical conclusion and put in full operation. Why not let them have a fair chance to digest the Bill, to consider it? Why hurry it through? It is not going to affect the government's determination on the question of the iron and steel bounties. Because I assume that that will be announced in the near future, even before the Tariff Commission is appointed. If the leader of the government would consent to my proposal, I think it would be in the interest of everybody. If he will not consent to it, then there is nothing left for me to do on behalf of this side but to move an amendment, seconded by Mr. Pardee:
That this Bill be not now read the second time, but that it be read the second time this day six months.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Hugh Guthrie: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I took down his words.
I withdraw the meaning which I would have otherwise attributed to them, if he tells me that he did not intend to convey that meaning. But he certainly did, in the latter part of his speech, use words which conveyed that impression to my mind, because I took them down. He said:
The result of this would be a tariff brought in by an irresponsible Tariff Commission.
That is what he said, I do not know what he meant. If he did not mean that, I accept at once his disclaimer; it is my duty under the rules of parliament to do so. This Tariff Commission will bring in no tariff; the government of this country wij.l bring in the tariff, in the future as in the. past. To contrast the two methods, I myself remember what took place in this Houise in 1897, and more especially in 1907. When the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had .ionrneyed around this country, had listened to speeches here and there, from this man, and that man, and the other man, in every city and every important town in Canada, they came back to parliament and brought down a tariff, and I ask what information was available to any man in this House from all the peregrinations and pilgrimages of these three gentle men? I asked that the result of their labours should be brought down, and they brought down, in typewritten form, not even printed and indexed, and piled up on the table of this House a mass of papers two or three .feet in height, and I do not think any member of this House ever took the time, or pains, or trouble to pay the slightest attention to it, from beginning to end of the debate. My hon. friend may have been an exception, I do not know whether he was or not; I know that he is very industrious in sudh matters. Now, what we propose is to have a Tariff Commission of mien who will be wisely selected for that purpose, and who will collect information in a systematic and effective manner, and put it in such a form that the government can avail themselves of it; information which will he available for the purpose of discussion in this parliament when any tariff changes are proposed. Surely there is no radical departure in all that. My hon. friend repeated over and
over again that this is a radical departure, that this would create a barrier. Let us take his own illustration. He says the same result could be arrived at if the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Customs would add certain officers to their staffs	and	acquire
information in that way. May I be permitted to inquire of the thoughtful members of this House who listened to my hon. friend, why the obtaining of information in the one way would create a barrier and would not create a barrier in the other way. Has a single hon. gentleman in this House been able to compass the argument of my hon. friend in that respect? I do not think he has been able to compass it himself; at all events, he will have an opportunity, I hope of telling us on some later occasion, just what he meant by that extraordinary argument and still more extraordinary suggestion. Then he is very much disturbed as to some of the provisions of this Bill, he was very much disturbed as to the provision that evidence not taken under oath may be used. Does he not remember that about ten days ago lie and a number of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House were very much disturbed because a commission was to be appointed who would take evidence on oath? At that time the great danger was that commissioners should be appointed to take evidence on oath, and now he Is greatly disturbed because commissioners are to be appointed who may take evidence not under oath.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not take any exception as to the question of oath, it was the kind of evidence I objected to, it was to be too wide.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought my hon. friend was alluding to that clause in the Bill which says:-
For the purpose of any inquiry under this \ct the commissioners may obtain information which in their judgment i9 authentic, otherwise than under the sanction of an oath or affirmation, and use and act upon such information.
I may have misunderstood my hon. friend, I am sorry if I did so. But I understood that the objection he raised to that section was that evidence not taken under the sanction of an oath, might be used by the commission. Was not that the objection which he raised?


Hugh Guthrie: What I meant to say, was that material which was really not evidence at all, might be used if the commissioners saw fit; letters, conversations, or anything of that kind. The objection was not to the lack of an oath.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, then I do not understand my hon. friend's objection at all.

I would not suppose that a commission of this kind would he bound by formal rules of evidence; at all events, I would hope that they would not make any attempt to restrict their inquiry by rules of that kind. Therefore it seems to me my hon. friend's objection falls to the ground.
Now, my hon. friend was very much concerned about the attitude of the government towards the Manufacturers' Association. I want to tell my hon. friend that he ought not to assume too much in these matters without due inquiry. So far as I am concerned, no man connected with the Manufacturers' Association of Canada ever spoke to me on this subject, except one, and he was absolutely opposed to the establishment of a permanent tariff commission. I want to tell my hon. friend, further, that no promise has ever been made by this government to the Manufacturers' Association; and further than that, the Manufacturers' Association have never approached the government for the purpose of obtaining any promise.	.
My hon. friend must not draw too much upon his own experience or the experience of his party friends in that regard. That -is not the way in which the present administration propose to conduct the affairs of this country-by making promises of modifying the tariff in consideration of political support at elections. We have put all that behind us; the country put such methods behind it at the last election. My hon. friend finds fault with us for establishing this Tariff Commission, because he says that a commission of this character is only to be found in countries that have established a highly protective system. Again, I do not know that my hon. friend has been exceedingly accurate. It is perfectly true that a commission, or something of that kind, exists in France, and it may exist in Germany, although I am not sure of that. A Bill has been introduced into the Congress of the United States, but, if I understand the situation correctly, it has not yet been passed. It has not been passed for the reason that very grave objection, I believe, has been raised to it there. So, if my hon. friend regards the United States as a highly protectionist country, let me point out to him the simple fact that this Bill, up to the present time, has failed to pass the Congress of the United States. Further than that, I think that the object of the President of the United States in introducing that Bill, and in defending the establishment of a permanent Tariff Commission in that country was to cut down the system of protection in order that it might be brought within reasonable bounds. Surely my hon. friend is aware that at the last Imperial Conference held within a year his own leader stood up before that conference and moved I


Robert Laird Borden: for an Imperial Trade Commission to investigate conditions of trade in every one of the great Dominions which owe allegiance to His Majesty the King. I suppose the idea in making that proposal was to establish a means by which the necessary information as to trade conditions in every one of these Dominions, both within themselves and in relation to the people of the mother country, could be gathered in an effective way. If the proposal made on that occasion was a good one, why is it after all that my hon. friend finds any fault with the proposal of the present administration to do in an effective, systematic and thorough way that which in the past has been done in a very differenl manner?
I do not know that there is very much else in w'hat my hon. friend has suggested to which attention need be given at the present time. As far a.s the provisions of the Customs Act are concerned, to which my hon. friend has alluded, the only thing that this Bill accomplishes, if it should pass into law, is this, that it establishes another tribunal to which may be referred the question as to whether or not a particular combine does' or does not exist in this country. It does not take away any existing powers. It simply adds a new tribunal and in that regard surely it is a step in the right direction.
When my hon. friend suggested to us that we should have officers appointed for the purpose of enforcing Dominion legislation, I think he possibly made the most sensible suggestion that I noticed in his speech. But, I am bound to say that, although it has been spoken of in this parliament for the past six or seven years and advocated by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) and other hon members of the House, I do not think that suggestion, up to the present time, has received any sympathy or support from the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and I am glad to observe the newly awakened interest in the enforcement of Federal laws which has just been- developed by my hon. friend. This is a matter to which we intend to give very serious consideration. It is impossible to deal with all these matters at once. As far as my views are concerned, I think there is a great deal in the suggestions which have been made for many" years past by my hon. friend from South York and by other hon. members of this House in line with what has been suggested by my hon. friend from South Wellington.
My hon. friend has screwed his courage to the sticking point and has proposed an amendment. He has proposed an amendment that this- Bill shall not be read now, but that it shall be read this day six months hence. We are glad to

welcome the challenge that my hon. friend has thrown out. He was very insinuating in his suggestion at first that we should have regard to the interests of the people and withdraw this Bill, but, at the end, he made manifest his true intention which was to challenge the policy of the government in this regard and to propose a continuance of the old method pursued in 1897 and in 1907 of conducting by useless and ineffective methods any investigations into the trade conditions of the country, the cost of production and all those matters that are so important to a proper consideration of this question. We believe that this information is necessary, that it ought to be obtained in a systematic and businesslike way and that it cannot be so obtained by the old methods. We propose now a method which takes away from parliament absolutely nothing of that power which is vested in parliament and of which parliament cannot divest itself. We propose to take away nothing of that, but we do propose to appoint a Tariff Commission which will give to the government and to parliament information respecting all matters that have been alluded to which information is vital, essential and necessary in order that a reasonable and just tariff may be made in . the interest of the people of this country. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I do trust that the hon. members of this House will not regard with favour the proposal of my hon. friend to defer this legislation to another session. I trust that the amendment made be defeated and, that this Bill may be passed. So far as the appointments are concerned, I can only say to my hon. friend from South Wellington that we do not know at the present time whom we shall appoint to that commission, but when we do make the appointments we believe they will be such as will commend themselves not only to the judgment of this House, but to the judgment of the country as well. I therefore, say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that the government cannot for one moment think of accepting the proposal of my hon. friend from South Wellington and that we desire to have this legislation passed and passed at this session. We do not desire to limit in any way the discussion upon the question but we believe that it is in the interest of parliament and of the people of the country that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible opportunity.	[DOT]


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: It was so at the last election.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The right hon. .gentleman the Prime Minister complained that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), did noit discuss the principles of the Bill Ibefore the House, but the right hon. gentleman himself did not come within many degrees of latitude and longitude of discussing any single principle involved in the Bill, and it would have been more illuminating to the House had he scolded less and argued more. He referred to the attitude of the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) upon the reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States in a scolding fashion, but what that had to do with the Bill we were discussing is more than I can understand. If the right hon. gentleman does himself understand the principles -involved in the Bill, then he was most successful in neglecting to disclose his knowledge to the House. The hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), was distinctly right when he said that this measure was a mere copy of Yankee legislation which has not yet even received the approval of the American Gongress. There is no originality in the Bill, and, apparently on the part of the ministers there is no attempt to understand what principle underlies it, if principle there be. The right hon. gentleman complained that the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) objected to the appointment of a Tariff Commission as provided for in this Bill, while, at the same time, he formally admitted the feasibility and propriety of the addition to the Civil Service of a certain staff in order to enable members of the government to prepare a tariff. Well, if the right hon. gentleman failed to understand the distinction between the two, he has ' failed to understand what the Bill involves. I am opposed to his Bill, because I believe it is a violation of constitutional practice in all British countries, because it directly or indirectly, and perhaps unconsciously, assumes to give to a Tariff Commission powers of legislation


Some hon. MEMBERS: How?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will tell you how later. I object to it because it tends to weaken the doctrine of ministerial responsibility as it obtains in all British countries; I object to it because the duties which, under the Bill, are assigned to a commission, refer to matters which in all British countries, are dealt with directly by the responsible advisers of the Crown. I object to the Bill, because the purpose sought to be attained by it can be better attained by less expensive and less objectionable methods; I object to it further, because it seeks in a manner-in a veiled manner, perhaps-to validate by a statute the doctrine of protection in this country. Recently the Minister of Finance stated in

the House that this measure was submitted in consequence of the popular demand. I deny that. It is true that the creation of a Tariff Commission has been suggested by the Manufacturers' Association, and by certain other individuals, and at is true that the Prime Minister, during the recent election campaign, did occasionally refer to the appointment of a permanent Tariff Commission, but not in a very serious manner, because I do not remember a single occasion upon which he devoted more than a few minutes to that particular matter. I submit that there is no evidence whatever of any demand by the people of this country for the appointment of such a commission. The establishment of this commission does not meet with the approval of the matured thought of this country, and from personal experience I know that it does not meet- with favour from a great many who live within protectionist circles. I think it may be safely said that the government adopted this idea of a Tariff Commission merely as an expedient to escape a frank declaration of their policy upon trade and tariff matters during the past few months. It was, in the first instance, compounded as a sedative for the people of western Canada, who were demanding wider markets and reciprocal trade with the United States. It is an artificial expedient to escape ministerial responsibility, and its effect will be to further becloud an already difficult problem. When we read the declaration of the Prime Minister, in what is known as his Halifax platform, on the fiscal policy of the country, one would imagine that no other human agency than the government itself was necessary to frame a tariff that would suit all sections of the country, and all classes of people. I shall read the tariff plank from the Halifax platform, and it will then be seen that in some respects it might be properly catalogued as humorous, although it was delivered in the most solemn manner. I might also add that in some respects it is like the Divine peace, which ' passeth all understanding.' It reads:
'Fiscal policy which will promote the production within Canada of all useful articles and commodities that can be advantageously produced or manufactured from or by means of our natural resources, having due regard to the interests of the consumer, as well as to the just claims of our wage-earning population.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen opposite express approval of the declaration of their leader, but if they had faith in the ability of their leader to carry out their trade policy as thus announced, there would be no necessity for this tariff board. When one thinks Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
of the difficulty in framing a tariff in this country that will suit the producer, the consumer, and the wage-earner and remembers that the Prime Minister stated, in announcing his tariff policy, that he and his party could accomplish this difficult task, it is strange that he and his party, having the open sesame to tariff-making on the universally harmonious plan, should seek the intervention of a Tariff Commission or any other body. In his Halifax platform the right hon. gentleman stated that it was his policy, in framing a tariff, to protect the producer, to protect the consumer and to protect the labourer as well, a task which passes the power of any man on earth. Was this declaration of policy on the part of the Prime Minister a wilful deception, or has the boastfulness which characterized hon. gentlemen opposite in the days when they were in opposition been tempered somewhat by the responsibilities of office? Now, the Bill before the House seeks to establish a Tariff Commission to which are as-signed_ certain duties, which are directly or indirectly related to tariff-making. I do not propose to discuss the various clauses of the Bill, as they have already been fully and fairly dealt with by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I desire merely to discuss the principle involved in the Bill, namely, the appointment of a commission to assist in the matter of taxation by tariffs and tariffs for protection.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before recess I was laying down the proposition that there was a principle involved in this Bill. I was submitting that the appointment of this Tariff Commission involved a departure from a well established principle in our constitution and in this respect differs from the appointment of any other commission. The right hon. the First Minister this afternoon argued that as parliament had appointed in the past many other commissions and no objection was raised, there should be no objection to the appointment of a Tariff Commission. If the right hon. gentleman is really of the opinion that this Tariff Commission differs in no essential from others, I can quite understand why he should treat the whole subject so cavalierly. But if there be a distinction between the proposed Tariff Commission and other commissions, I cannot understand the position taken by my right hon. friend. I would ask the government, why in this particular instance, it has departed from the customary practice of administering public affairs

through the civil service under responsible ministers. Why. in the matter of taxation and revenue, interject between the people and the government, between the legislative and executive powers of this parliament, a new body to be called the Tariff Commission? If the Depaitment of Finance is in need of additional expert aid for the transaction of the business of that department, no hon. member of this House will object to any money vote which will give that department the number of competent men required to carry on its business. That would be a much better method than the one proposed, because it would ensure permanency, for, of course, the appointments to the civil service are much more permanent than the appointments of commissioners. Why single out a number of gentlemen as members of this Tariff Commission and give each a salary almost equal to that of a minister, for the performance of duties which can be performed just as well and possibly better by clerks in the civil service? So far as I am concerned, I would willingly vote for the appointment of such extra officials in the Departments of Finance, Trade and Commerce and Customs as would give the minister in each of these departments an efficient staff upon which he could rely, especially in matters connected with the tariff. That has been my view for years, and while I may not have given public utterance to it, I have expressed it to some members of the late government, political friends of my own. If that were done, we would have a civil service staff working under the direction of the minister of the day, no matter to what political party he might belong. The framing of a tariff for Canada is a matter of policy which, under constitutional and parliamentary practice, rests with the government. No money or taxation measure -and the tariff is eminently such a measure-can originate with parliament or any member of it. The government may accept a suggestion from parliament or from any member of parliament, but in acting on that suggestion it does so solely on its own responsibility, because it is the government of the day which is primarily responsible in matters of taxation. Not even the Senate can interfere in such matters. The isolation of the government in this respect, its undivided responsibility, is well illustrated by the fact that when the Finance Minister brings down a tariff Bill the moment he submits to parliament the first item of that tariff, the whole Bill goes into effect from coast to coast. Therefore, the responsible minister in these matters-the Finance Minister -should not ask for the passage of a
statute that will create a body to deal with the tariff and thus divide his responsibility. When he does so, he is violating the constitutional practice of this country. Again a Tariff Commission is entitled to no more consideration than parliament or any one member of parliament, yet should this Bill go into effect and this Tariff Commission be created, the members of that commission will, in the making of tariffs, have more to say than any member of parliament. In case it be argued that the distinction I make between assistance given to the Finance Minister by a Tariff Commission and that given to him by a staff in the civil service, is a very fine distinction, let me point out that to any one who keep in view the constitutional principle, and the constitutional practice of this country, the distinction will be obvious. In this connection it may not perhaps be amiss for me to give the view to be found in Bourinot's ' Parliamentary Procedure ' regarding the imposition of taxation. These will be found on page 594:
It is now a fixed principle of constitutional government that all propositions for the imposition of taxes should emanate from the minister. In the session of 1871 Mr. Speaker Coekburn recommended to the House the adoption of the British practice in this particular, and the Commons have ever since acquiesced in its wisdom. As a consequence no private member is now permitted to propose a Dominion tax upon the people; it must proceed from a minister of the Crown, or be in some other form declared to he necessary for the public service. A motion or a Bill of such a character should properly be introduced by a minister of the Crown.
Now, the Minister of Finance in proposing the appointment of a Tariff Commission, is dividing the responsibility which constitutional parliamentary practice has thrown on him in this respect.
Therefore, I venture to postulate the statement that no member of parliament originates a tariff or taxation Bill. He has the power to recommend changes, but, before it can become effective, it must be recognized by the ministry of the day, and, in the last analysis, by the Minister of Finance. The Tariff Commission to be appointed under this Bill will be given power to investigate facts and report. It is to be appointed, apparently, upon the assumption that taxation by tariffs with the feature of protection, is constitutional in this country. If the Bill means anything, it means that the principle of protection-and I am not arguing against it now-is constitutional in this country, or we seek to make it so by placing that principle in a statute. It is placed in such a position that if any of the members of the commission have views upon the tariff, they can practically compel recognition of them by parliament. And

this is only natural because the Bill by which it is proposed to appoint this commission practically places the members ot the commission on a parity or at least in partnership with the Minister of Finance. And I say the commission in this respect is given a prominence which the constitution of this country never contemplated, and our parliamentary practice does not warrant. The members of the commission are given a rank above the members of parliament.
It has been urged, and it will be urged again, that because there was created in the United States a so called tariff board, that conditions are analogous in both countries, and hon. gentlemen opposite will urge, as I think the Minister of Finance did, that because the United States appointed a tariff board or commission, therefore, this parliament should appoint one. Let us review what has been done in the United States in this respect, and let us see if the methods of tariff making in Canada and the United States are analogous; let us inquire if, even though there were, in the United States a Tariff Commission or a tariff board, we should be warranted in appointing one in Canada. In the United States there is no such thing as a Tariff Commission, and there may never be *-likely there never will be. Strictly speaking, there i3 no tariff board. In the United States tariff of 1909 there appeared for the first time the principle of a maximum and a minimum tariff, and section 2 of that Tariff Act places upon the President the authority to determine against which countries, if any, the maximum and the minimum tariffs should apply, and when the maximum tariff, if applied, shall be withdrawn. The same Tariff Bill provided by a money vote the means by which the President could secure such information as would be necessary to determine when he should apply the maximum tariff against any country, and when he should withdraw it. Now that is all there is in the nature of tariff board or tariff commission legislation in the United States; and, strictly speaking I say there is not even a tariff board in that country. There is only given the power under the annual Appropriation Act, to the president to employ the services of any persons whom he may select to assist him in determining when and against which countries he shall apply the maximum or the minimum tariff.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: If that be so, how is it that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) accused the Minister of Finance of following ' cheap Yankee methods '?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can see a very clear and obvious distinction. I can also quite understand and justify the statement that the hon. member for South Wel-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Mr. NICKLE.: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to reading the next paragraph of Mr. Emery's address?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Mr. MEIGHEN.: Emery does not say that; finish the quotation.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) reading:
Such officials would already be sufficiently familiar in a personal and practical way with the facts regarding costs and competition in the different industries to be able tr report or advise.
Why should not the- civil service in Canada do that? In the United States there is no such thing as a civil service so far as tariff making is concerned, and even the President of the United States, while having [lower to recommend changes in the tariff, is absolutely powerless to initiate any such change.
No such body exists in the United States, and the effort promptly to put the question of revision on a sound basis, therefore, involves a much more extensive labour of investigation than would otherwise be necessary.
Now, you have only to look at the tariff of the United States to see its obvious defects as to classification and rates. The Canadian tariff, as far as classification is concerned, is fairly suitable, although open to improvement, and while the protective principle obtains in this country, it can be safely said that neither party has gone protection mad, as in the case of the United States, and, therefore, in tariff revision, and tariff making, we are not in the same position as they are. 1 suggest to the Finance Minister, as I suggested three years ago to Mr. Fielding, when Minister of Finance, that there should be a branch of the civil service to assist the Minis-of Finance in tariff making. I say that would be better than the appointment of a Tariff Commission. The Departments of Finance, of Trade and Commerce, and of Customs, are closely connected w'ith the matter of tariff making, and I would suggest, as an alternative to this Tariff Commission, the selection of

proper officials from these three departments, organizing them if you will, under the name of a tariff bureau, and adding to their duties, if you feel so disposed, the obtaining of trade statistics which is very much needed in this country. The advantage of this would be that the members of this staff or bureau would be members of the civil service; they would be permanently in office, they would be unknown to the public other than civil servants, and according to the true constitutional practice, the minister alone would be responsible to parliament. I suppose it is fair to assume that directly or indirectly protection obtains in the tariffs of this country. It has been said by some, and indeed by no less a person that the Prime Minister himself, that a tariff can be scientifically framed by a Tariff Commission, and that this Tariff Commission would take the tariff out of politics. But, I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance say to-day that there was no such thing as taking the tariff out of polities, and that it was impossible to give a scientific tariff. It is beyond human ingenuity for a Tariff Commission, or for any other body, to draft a Tariff Bill covering whole ranges of industry, which will be free of all inequalities and anomalies. Such a thing as scientific tariff making, where the protective principle is present, is an absolute absurdity. I am surprised that any hon. member of this House, especially the right hon. the Prime Minister, should believe that such a thing as scientific tariff making is possible.
To determine with scientific accuracy what is raw product, is an impossibility in a tariff in which the protective feature obtains. In Canadian trade the manufactured product of one industry is the raw material of another. The man who weaves the yarn does not spin it; the tailor begins with cloth, but does not make it, the shoemaker begins with manufactured leather, but rarely, if ever, makes it; the foun-dryman who uses pig-iron does not make pig-iron; the automobile manufacturer uses a great variety of materials, but manufactures practically nothing among all the articles which when -assembled constitute an automobile. When hon. gentlemen talk about a scientific tariff, they are attaching to the word ' scientific ' an improper meaning, because science loves truth, and the word ' scientific ' in this -case is not a token of that which is true. In the last analysis protective tariffs are not determined with scientific accuracy; it is impossible that they can be. The question of tariffs, protective tariffs, is largely a ' case of might. Local considerations, and the weight of influence brought by -sections of the country and by various classes of pro-Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
ducers are always more apparent in tariffmaking than the influence of scientific or economic truths. At the best tariff-making is but rough approximations. From the protective standpoint the test is. the force of foreign competition in the domestic market; and when you once ascertain the selling price of a foreign article in the coan-try of production and the price of the same article in the Canadian market, that is, cost, insurance and freight, you have substantially the crux of the wliole question. . These facts are obtainable without difficulty and without an expensive instrument like a formal commission. They can be obtained as readily by the Minister of Finance with an efficient civil service staff as by any tariff board. Again, everybody knows that there are so many conflicting and fluctuating conditions in trade that it is impossible to draw any conclusion from the facts obtained one year which would be helpful to a minister framing a tariff containing the principle of protection, the following year. In framing a. revenue tariff you need no experts and no tariff commission. In one country in certain trades the hours of labour are longer than in others. In our country you will find one manufacturer so efficient that he can get along without a tariff, while perhaps right alongside of him is another producer so inefficient in his methods that no amount of protection could make an intelligent or profitable producer of him. Then you have changing transportation rates, changing transportation routes, wars and rumours of wars, monetary and business crises, changes of foreign tariffs, changes in rates of interest, the effect of climatic changes, all to consider; and all these conditions would in a short time render futile any investigation of facts produced at the cost of a great expenditure of time, of work and of money by any commission. After all, the reports of such a commission cannot be more than rough approximations, which could be obtained just as well by other methods. I have already said that the appointment of a tariff commission by parliament is a statutory and legal recognition of the protective theory, and whether we are free traders, revenue tariff men or protectionists, we should not enact any statute implying that that principle should obtain in our tariff; but that is the effect of the appointment of a tariff commission by statute. During the discussion of the Tariff Board Bill in the United States Congress, one member of the House of Representatives said that he supported the Bill because it contained the principles of the bulwark of protection, and I am sure that a great -many of the hon. gentlemen opposite are going to support this Bill because they feel that the Tariff Commission will be the bulwark of protection in this
2G37

country. Another gentleman in the United States House of Representatives said that if he believed in only a revenue tariff he would not support the Tariff Board Bill. The present Prime Minister, during the last election campaign, strongly declared himself on several occasions in favour of protection, and followed with the statement that the late government had revised the tariff without ascertaining all the conditions surrounding the tariff, and that when his party came into power he would appoint a commission to revise the tariff along business lines. Now, I submit that these several statements of the Prime Minister taken together can only mean that the right hon. gentleman believed that the commission to be created would assist in giving the protective feature to the tariff of this country. They could mean nothing else. I do not imagine that he would complain that the late government had increased the tariff in any respect. I assume that if he was complaining of anything, it was of reductions in the tariff which he said were made without proper ascertainment of the facts. Now, I do not say that I object to a tariff, even a protective tariff. I am not arguing one way or the other; but I do say that if we are going to have a tariff with the protective feature in this country, let parliament say so.
Every member of parliament should at least have as much to say regarding that as the members of a Tariff Commission. The Minister of Finance this afternoon sought to buttress his argument in favour of the commission by saying that we received $74,000,000 of our revenue from customs. No doubt he wanted us to draw the conclusion that a Tariff Commis-mission was justifiable because so much of our revenue came from the tariff. Much of our customs revenue comes from imported articles, the duties on which are intended to protect, but protected items give the minimum of revenue, otherwise the duties would not be protective. Therefore, the commission will- not have much to do with items bearing only revenue rates, and from the standpoint of revenue they will not have much to do with protected items, because these items are not great revenue producers. It is not intended that they should have much to do with the matter of revenue, but that their work would be devoted mainly to the making of tariffs containing the principle of protection. Protection would, therefore, be the main reason for the existence of this commission. I do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. In all matters respecting tariff taxation, divergent views obtain, and if we are going to apply the protective theory, it ought to be applied solely on the responsibility of the government and the minister in charge of the
Finance Department. If protection be then applied, we can take it as the expression of the wishes of the people through their responsible ministers. That tariff may have inaccuracies and inequalities, but these would be the fault of the system, and for them the government wou'ld be responsible. That method would be true to constitutional practice.
Again it may be urged that the appointment of a Tariff Commission cannot be distinguished from commissions already appointed. That was argued by the right hon. the First Minister this afternoon. In fact that was the only answer he gave to the speech of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). In, the first place let me say that this parliament has never delegated to any commission the power of directing taxation. I know of no instance in the history of the country when that was done. We have appointed commissions to execute the will of parliament expressed regarding any undertaking, such as the National Transcontinental railway. Before the Transcontinental Commission was appointed, parliament had expressed its policy, and the commission was only appointed to carry out that policy. Reference was made this afternoon to the Railway Commission, but that is not analogous to the Tariff Commission. The Railway Commission is a court, appointed under the Railway Act. Parliament defined the jurisdiction and powers of that commission, and settled its duties and powers before making the appointment. We have appointed commissions in the past and no doubt will appoint others in the future, but it is not the practice in any British country to appoint a commission for the purpose of determining a policy or a principle. In that irespect the Tariff Commission differs from any other we have ever had. I would refer hon. gentlemen to Todd, the well known authority on parliamentary procedure. On page 432 of Todds ' Parliamentary Procedure,' I find the following:
Preliminary inquiries- by a royal commission are of inestimable service to the working of parliamentary government. Besides peculiar facilities for ascertaining facts, they
oquently bring to light a mass of information upon the subject in hand which could be obtained in no other way, and the report of an able and impartial commission is often of the highest value in the instruction and enlightenment of the public mind. The questions of pauperism and poor law administration, of crime and penal administration, of pestilence and sanitary legislation, and of the evils attendant on excessive manufacturing labour, are conspicuous instances of the effects of commissions of inquiry in reversing every main principle, and almost every assumed chief elementary fact, on which the general public, parliamentary . committees,

and leading statesmen, were prepared to legislate.
Again on page 434 Todd says:
Since the establishment of ministerial responsibility, commissions have become a recognized part of our governmental machinery, and it is now freely admitted that when confined to matters of legitimate inquiry they serve a most useful and beneficial purpose.
To all of which I agree. Every one will agree with this. It is proven by the fact that in the past parliament has unanimously concurred in the appointment of commissions for several purposes. But there is a qualification. On pages 434, and 435, Todd says:
But it would be unconstitutional to refer to a royal commisson ' subjects which are connected with the elementary duties of the executive government and with its relations to parliament '; or, to investigate a grievance which arises out of a particular decision of parliament, on a given question; or, to appoint a commission with a view to evade the responsibility of ministers in any matter; or, to do the wort of existing departments of state, which possess all needful facilities for obtaining information upon questions of detail, and which are directly responsible to parliament.
Then on page 435 I find the following:
A commission of inquiry should be limited in its operations to obtaining information, and suggesting the points to which it might be expedient that legislative or executive action should be directed. No commission should be invited to ' enter upon any question of policy/ lest it should trench upon the proper limits of ministerial responsibility, and upon ground which belongs to parliament.
I say it is a weakness of the Tariff Bill now before the House that it trenches upon the proper limit of ministerial responsibility and upon gounds which belong entirely to parliament.
There are one or two instances in the parliamentary experience of England to which I wish to refer very briefly. In 1865 Mr. Roebuck, a member of the British House of Commons, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was the intention of the government to institute an inquiry into the English railway system with a view to future legislation should such legislation appear practicable and advantageous. I cannot give to the House in full the statement made by the Chancellor, but I will endeavour to give a few quotations in order to fortify the position I have taken:
It is not their intention to take any step which could under any circumstances at all compromise or commit either ourselves or parliament with reference to any legislation upon a matter of this vast importance. . . .
Therefore, I beg that it may be understood that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
government to adivise the appointment of any commission that shall enter upon any nuestion of policy. We are of opinion that if we were to doso we should be, if not prejudging the opinion of parliament, in some degree by extraneous instruments trespassing upon ground which belongs to parliament. . . We, of course, have taken into our consideration the question whether it would be desirable that this inquiry should be conducted by a Royal Commission or by a committee of this House. If we were going to inquire into any matter of policy it would, undoubtedly, be far more useful to institute that inquiry by means of a committee of this House than by means of a commission.
Again, it was once moved in the English House of Commons that an address be presented to Her Majesty that she would be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission directing investigation of the causes which led to the late severe and protracted pressure in the money market. Speaking to that motion Sir Stafford Northcote expressed the principle in opposition to the appointment of a commission which I have urged in connection with the tariff commission. He. said in referring to the member who had moved the resolution:
I am bound to ask the bou. member for Stockport what exactly are the functions which he thinks this Royal Commission of inquiry should undertake. Is it to he a commission which is to inquire into facts, or is it to be a commission which is to inquire into principles? I think he will see that there is very great difference between file two. If we are to investigate a number of facts, requiring a great amount of time to ascertain and bring together, undoubtedly a Royal Commission may be, and very often is, a very convenient instrument for the purpose; but if we are to discuss principles, and if we are to investigate the principles upon which our legislation is founded, I do not myself think that a Royal Commission ought to be considered a proper substitute either for the action of the government or for that of parliament. If you were to appoint a Royal Commission in this case, for the purpose of investigating all the principles of legislation which affect our currency and banking, the first question that would arise would be, bow is that commission to be constituted? We know perfectly well that different opinions prevail, and are ably maintained by the different schools of opinion, on all the questions that bear upon this subject; and if a Royal Commission were to be appointed it would be necessary to place upon that commission men in whose skill and intelligence, and in whose experience also, the country would have confidence . . . We also know that when it should become our duty to make a selection of the gentlemen-few in number as they necessarily would be-to be placed in that important position, we could not select gentlemen who a cre merely known to be gentlemen of intelligence and experience, but we should have to select gentlemen whose views upon these questions were perfectly well known and

familiar to fclie world, and probably it would not be very difficult, as soon as tbey were named, and the object of the commission made public, to foresee what the general verdict of the commission would be upon some of the main principles which would have to be brought before it. _ If that were the case, at once the authority of a commission, and therefore the use of a commission as far as the investigation of principles is concerned, would be at an end. Those who were satisfied with the opinions of the gentlemen who might be the majority in the commission would, of course, anticipate the proceedings, and foresee that their opinions would be well brought forward, well argued, and very ably, no doubt, elaborated; while on the other hand, the minority, who would not be satisfied would say, ' Because you have constituted the commission on this or the other basis, you have failed to obtain a fair verdict. We dispute, and have always disputed, the doctrines of those gentlemen forming the majority of the commission, and we also dispute the conclusion at which they have arrived.' This being the case we should not be much forwarder when we got the report of the Royal Commission than we are at the present time. . . .
And again:
It is obvious, however, that when you come to investigate causes it is not sufficient merely to collect facts, but to collect them with a view to certain conclusions, and select them upon some kind of principles. When you investigate facts, the question of causes necessarily arises.
Now, I submit that the purpose and object of a Tariff Commission finds no analogy in our political history. We have never, so far as I can ascertain, appointed a commission to determine principles of trade, tariff and taxation, upon which, in all countries of the world and in all ages divergent views do and will obtain. Let us adhere to constitutional practice. It is no answer to say that the commission is granted no legislative power; it will unconsciously and indirectly legislate. I say that in one form or another the commission will legislate or cause parliament to legislate in the direction of the conclusions and upon the facts which they present to the ministers. They are given power to supply facts, to report conclusions upon the propriety and extent of a tariff which contains the protective features. I cannot see how hon. gentlemen opposite can deny that this is the object of the Tariff Commission. If this be not the object, I say the Tariff Commission has no duty to perform. They would not be asked to investigate facts ands report upon them if free trade obtained in this country or if our tariff were based upon revenue needs. I say. this is a question of policy, and, therefore, let the people,, through a lvspmtsabV minister make the .tariff; do not let a	commission
appointed	by parliament	make it.
The manufacturers of pig iron, according to the press, are to receive a bounty pending a report from the Tariff Commission. I do not know whether that is true or not, nor am I saying whether I am for or against a bounty on pig iron, but even before the creation of the commission, according to this report we find the government absolving itself of its functions -and delegating them to >a commission yet to be appointed. That is clear and forcible evidence of the influence which the commission will exercise, and it is that influence to which I object. To-day, we find that the government cannot wait for the Tariff Commission; they are going to forestall the commission.
They are going to give advantage to a certain industry, which may be right or may be wrong, without waiting for this great power which we are seeking to create to-night. I suppose that to-morrow, or in the near future, we will hear the government saying to other interests Which will appear before them asking for higher tariffs, that they cannot 'act until they hear from the Tariff Commission; and soon it will come that you cannot tell who in this country will be making tariffs, the government or the commission, it will be absolutely impossible to tell. They will be on a parity, or they will be in partnership. I am sure that this country would prefer that we remain true to the consti-utional practice and parliamentary procedure of the past, and have no special body who will stand between the government and parliament in the making of tariffs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Bill because the creation of a Tariff Commission with power to investigate and report, must ultimately mean the assumption, partially or wholly, of the power of tariff making by such a commission, or at least we will find a division of responsibility between the commission and the government. I object to this Bill because it is a subversion of the well established principle of ministerial responsibility so long obtaining in this country, particularly in reference to the question of taxation and of revenue. I object to this Bill because it purports to lend and does lend parliamentary sanction to the economic doctrine of protection. I object to it because the proposed eommipsion cannot accomplish what is expected of it in the direction of scientific tariff making. I object to it because the tariff commission cannot take the tariff out of politics, it will put it further into politics. I object to it because any merits which the Tariff Commis-, sion Bill possesses, and upon its face it does possess starve, are obtainable by the ordinary methods ji<>w, employed in the administration of the public service by



the civil service under ministerial responsibility. We may have protection in the tariff of this country to-day, we may have it in the future. I am not now arguing for or against the protective feature in our tariff; but I do say that if it is to be found in our tariff, it is better that a responsible minister and a responsible ministry place it there, and that subsequently, if the people of this country wish it to become law, it be affirmed by the parliament of this country.


Mr. H. B. AMES (St. Antoine, Montreal).: We have listened, Mr. Speaker, for upwards of two hours to one of the best exemplifications I think I have ever seen since I entered this House, of the good old fable of the wolf and the lamb. After endeavouring to criticise everything that was not in the Bill, the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has finally ended by saying that if all these things that he criticises were not there, he could still read into the Bill sinister intentions, and that these sinister intentions alone were reason enough why the Bill should be rejected. Now, I propose to take half an hour in dealing with what is in the Bill. In the first place, let me say that I think if there is anything that has been demonstrated beyond per-adventure in the recent general elections, it- is that the majority of the people of Canada to-day are still believers in the National Policy that has been in force for many years. The majority of the people to-day, within reasonable limits, are willing that there should be built up and established throughout Canada diversified industries that will give employment to our people; and they .are willing, even at the risk of a slight increase of price to the consumer in some instances, that there should be a moderate protective tariff. Now, the tariff we have to-day is partially- protective and partially non-pro tective. Hitherto we have made our tariffs in a rough and ready sort of way, by rule of thumb, so to speak, and if one looks down the category of the various items he will see that it is very much like a wavy line. I wras pleased to hear the admission from the junior member for Halifax, of the fact that his experience for the last few years has gone to prove that it was ' might ' that made the tariff. That that admission should be made by one who was so close to the late government, certainly shows what has been their experience in connection therewith. I think if there is anything that this Bill proposes to do, it is to reduce at least to a minimum, the influence of 'might' in the making of tariffs1. Now, if one glances at the tariff of to-day he will find it is like a wavy line swerving first to one side and then to the other. It shows all through the Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
evidence of pressure on the part, let us say, of certain favoured producers, and then it shows the evidence of pressure in another direction on the part of certain clamorous consumers, who have made themselves felt out of proportion to their numbers. So as you look through the tariff you- will find that it lacks uniformity, it is full of inconsistencies and excrescences, and what this Bili proposes is to reduce it to scientific basis.
Now, in Canada I think we have outgrown the stage of this rough method of making tariffs. We have to take this legacy that has come down to us, and we will not perhaps treat that legacy with the respect which the junior member for Halifax might wish that we should use. We intend to take that legacy and to apply new methods, new rules, in order to make the tariff apply with equal benefit to all the people of Canada. Now that Canada has reached her present size we must admit that she has outgrown the old rough-and-ready method of making tariffs, and I think we must be prepared to adopt a (scientific process with our tariff, we in parliament must be prepared to apply all along the line, consistently and fearlessly, some definite policy that the majority of this House can stand for. What we ask by this commission is that they will collect for us the facts, not opinions, not theories, but facts, and on those facts we, in the exercise of our reason and judgment, will be able to base a tariff measure which we will not be unprepared to submit to the whole people of Canada.
Now I regard this Bill as a long step in advance. I consider that the government have acted fearlessly and courageously, they have shown initiative in bringing down this measure that the House is called upon to deal with. Furthermore, this Bill fulfils a repeated promise on the part of our chief, and a promise that many of us have made on the platforms of the country from one end to the other. I do not wonder that the hon. 'member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was somewhat surprised that this new government, within four or five months of its creation, should actually set to work to implement the promises that were given to the electorate. That is not the experience of the .other side, I admit, but that is what this government is intending to do, and here is the first instalment of the fulfilment of those deliberate promises.


Mr. BUREAU.: There are a few more to fulfil, however.


Herbert Brown Ames: They will be fulfilled more rapidly than promises have been in the past 15 years. What is proposed by this legislation is primarily to create an impartial non-partisan commission, and that com-

mission should busy itself in a scientific manner in getting at established facts, then those facts will be submitted to parliament, and upon these facts legislation will be based.
To say that this measure violates constitutional practice is to indulge in one of those sophistries in which these hon. gentlemen often indulge when addressing this House. There is not one privilege'that this House at the present time enjoys, not one privilege that the opposition has hitherto enjoyed, that would be infringed upon in the slightest degree by this measure. Do you suppose that we are going to ask the Tariff Commission to prepare our next tariff Bill? Not at all. We do not even intend to ask them to make any recommendation. They are to give us the exact facts with regard to existing conditions, and the ministry will take upon themselves the full responsibility, and the members of this House will take upon themselves the full responsibility which they have to take in the application and use that they make of these facts. This is nothing unusual. We have it in everyday life. A judge sits upon the bench, he wants to know about some technical matter, about a building, perhaps, that has collapsed, what does he do? He names some man who is an expert in building, this man examines the building, and in this way he establishes the facts. Does that in any way impinge upon the dignity of the bench or interfere with the status of the court? By no means, but the judge has the facts placed before him, and upon those facts he gives his judgment.
I am of the opinion that when this measure comes to be understood it will receive the well deserved commendation of all classes throughout Canada. It will, I think, receive the commendation of the producer, of the man who will come to this parliament and ask that he be given a certain degree of protection in the shape of a duty upon that which he has to sell. If he can prove that he is entitled to that protection he will receive it, but if he cannot prove that he is entitled to it he will probably find that the protection which he presently enjoys will be diminished. The only way in which that can be accomplished is by having before us the necessary statement of facts. I want to point out that when we speak of the producer in this country we include the farmer just as much as the man who runs.the factory. Almost everybody in this country is a producer, and each man who is a producer will naturally enjoy the benefits that must accrue from this Act. Read the definition at the beginning of the Act. Goods are treated of throughout the whole Act, and what do goods include? They include pro-844	*	'	-	|
ducts of the farm, horses, cattle and other animals, and everything mat the farmer
produces is just as likely to be sub' jected to the inquiry of this commission in the interest of the farmer as are the goods which the manufacturers themselves produce. Now, take the consumer. I mean the class of consumers who are broad enough and big enough Canadians to live and let live. I do not mean the class of consumer wno insists upon having everything he produces protected, and everything he consumes free. I do not mean that class, they are not in the majority in Canada to-day, and I hope they never will be. But I refer to the consumer who is a big enough and broad enough Canadian to say: I am willing that what I consume shall be, to a slight extent, increased in price in order that there may be built up throughout the length and breadth of Canada diversified industry, and in order that the Canadian people may not be reduced to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is very much to the advantage of the consumer that he should' know whether he is being overcharged in the price he has to pay, and I believe that when the consumer realizes that there is an impartial commission created to investigate such matters on his behalf, and ascertain whether he is overcharged for what he purchases he will say: That is what I want.
It seems to me that this Bill commends itself to the industrial worker as: well. He is both producer and consumer. He probably pays a little more for what he consumes, but he is protected hr what he produces in the industrial, establishments' of this country, and as he reads this Bill he will see that it provides a means by which an investigation can he made as to whether he is securing a just and fair proportion of the selling price of that product to which his labour has contributed. That is what he wants to know. He wants to know whether he is getting an adequate proportion of the return which comes from the work of his hands, and he will have an opportunity to ascertain the facts when the provisions of this Bill go into operation. Therefore, he will say: I welcome this measure.
. The man who wishes to invest his capital in the industries of Canada, will he not find in the impartial report which this commission will present means of ascertaining whether our Canadian industrial enterprises are upon a sound and permanent basis? If, after he examines the reports, he is convinced, as I am sure he will be convinced, that they are worthy of his confidence, he will invest his money and we will, as a result of the publication oi such reports, bring into our country the money which we are so anxious to see invested in our industrial enterprises.

So, it seems to me that it is a good thing for the producer, the consumer, the industrial worker and the investor, and, that being the case, I can defend, and will be glad of the opportunity of defending on any platform in this country, the introduction and passage of the Bill that we now have before us. What we members of this House called upon to pass legislation, -want, is to know the real facts and the exact conditions as they exist in Canada before undertaking to deal with the tariff.
If I may be permitted to give advice to the government, I would suggest that, although the Bill does not designate what the qualifications of the commissioners are to be, there are some things that might be avoided in making their appointment. I think it would be a mistake to endeavour to outline in the Bill what class of men should be appointed as commissioners. You would probably limit the choice and I can assure you that to Secure men of the calibre that are required, you should limit the choice as little as possible. The whole Dominion of Canada is not too big a place in which to search for the very best men. I would not think it would be advisable that these three commissioners should be representatives of particular interests. Some one may say:	We should put a manufacturer
on; we should put a farmer on; wre should put a transportation man on, but these three, each representing a different interest, would tight their fellows for their own particular industry, or, to avoid a disagreement, would make a compromise whicii would be satisfactory to none. That is not what we want. We do not want the members of the commission to feel that they are there to represent a particular interest; we want them to feel that they are there to represent the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Nor, do we want technical experts. Sometimes we are told that this must be a board of technical experts. If you commence to name technical experts, you will soon find that you require a very large number of them. If a man is a technical expert in the matter of iron, for instance, he knows very little about woollen or cotton. He way be perfectly familiar with one article and know very little about other commodities. I do not think we want technical experts, men who have spent their whole lives dealing with a particular classification, because we have a great many different classifications and because, as a rule, men who are familiar with some particular article, are not able to take the broad view that is necessary of other businesses besides their own. If I may be permitted to offer advice to the ministers, I would say that they should not necessarily confine their choice to men Mr. AMES.
who have fought and bled for the Conservative party. I think that if there is any man in Canada who is eminently fitted for this position, he should not be rejected by reason of his previous political record. We want the biggest men we can get, but we *want men who are not out of sympathy with the policy that the party on this side of the House avowedly stands for. We want men who are not out of sympathy with the idea that protection, reasonably applied, is what Canada needs for her development. Let us have three big, broadminded Canadians, every one a man of administrative ability, who can organize and arrange the work and prepare the lines of investigation.
We want men of judicial capacity who can hold at arms-length the evidence that is placed before them and can correlate the various facts and part Them in their proper place. We -want men who earn determine and weight The value of evidence and who can eventually make reports to this House in which the statements made are properly and proportionately set out. Now', salaries such as are mentioned are not much for men of that size and character. You must admit that the salaries of the Cabinet ministers are too small, but the ministers have other honours that come to them, and I would hate to believe that it is the salaries that keep the ministers in their places. But, even the salaries that are mentioned in this Bill are none too large for men of the kind we want. If the government secures the sort of men we want I venture to say that there will not be one of them who will not be called upon to make a financial sacrifice when he enters the service upon these terms. If broadminded, fair-viewed men are chosen, and if they are given an- opportunity to make of this Tariff Commissi an what it can be made, I am sure they will win the confidence of the country, they will hold the confidence of the country, and they will be only too gladly continued in office by the present opposition, when, in the fair distant future, they have an opportunity of doing so.
This Tariff Commission is put under the direction cf the Minister of Finance, and that has been in some quarters criticised as inadvisable. Well, it seems to me the most natural and proper provision that could be made. Who else is there that is competent to generally direct the work that may be done by this commission? It will be impossible for them to take up 'all the schedules of the tariff at once; some one must tell them what work to begin upon; some one must guide them in the direction they are to follow, and it is natural and right they should be under the direction of that man in 'the

Cabinet who is charged by his fellows to look after the revenues of the country and who will have to introduce and defend any tariff legislation that will be submitted to this House. I sincerely hope that this Tariff Commission may be prompted to take up and continue this work in a systematic and useful manner. I hope the people do not imagine that the moment this board is created they can start an heterogeneous series of representations to the commission. The commission will probably take up the tariff schedule by schedule, and will study them systematically and will send for witnesses when they want them, and when a man is asked to come and give his testimony it will be after the commission have prepared themselves by advance knowledge to receive and properly value what may be told them. And after the tariff has once been carefully gone over and we have a library that will result from it, then that commission will continue to be a permanent commission because rectifications will always be necessary. Conditions are changing ini 'Canada from year to year, and it will be necessary to have a board that will understand the tariff thoroughly and which can receive applications and hear complaints and pass on recommendations, if they seem to be desirable.
Coming now to the duties of the commissioners-and I do not propose to take the Bill clause by clause, but simply to make a .sort of general sketch of the duties of the commissioners as I see them-it means that the commission is directly charged to make inquiries. To make inquiries into what? to make inquiries as to the facts and conditions as they exist in Canada and elsewhere. Now, from the point of view cf the Canadian producer, the Tariff Commission will inquire, first, as to the cost of raw material at the various points where the raw material is turned into manufactured products. The cost of raw material naturally indludes the cost of transportation to the place where it is used. Then they will study the cost of creating the raw material into the finished and marketable product. That will naturally include wages, superintendence, overhead charges, the cost of seilling, and some times the cost of carrying to the consumer, and it will include a legitimate interest on the money borrowed and a legitimate dividend on the actual money invested. These factors and many others all go into the cost, and it requires a scientific body to ascertain what the costs actually are. Next to that it will be necessary to ascertain what it costs to transport the product from the place where it is manufactured to tt ? place where it is consumed, an
expense which usually falls upon the consumer and an expense which it is necessary to know or otherwise we would not be able to ascertain whether the ultimate selling price was just and proper. Finally, as respects the producer, we have the right to know, and we intend to find out, just wihat the labour conditions are throughout Canada. I think we desire here in Canada to maintain a standard of living for our industrial workers that is in keeping with our Canadian civilization. The nations which compete with us so frequently for our home markets do not have the same standard of living as we do, and we do not wish to see our workingmen reduced to the condition of the workingmen in these countries. We therefore wish to know what it costs the workingman in Canada to live as he ought to live, what wages he is making in Canada and whether he is getting a fair share in the selling price of the manufactured article. Those things we ought to and shall know if this commission fulfils its purpose.
So much then from the point of view of the purchaser. The tariff commissioners will ascertain the cist ci the raw material and the assembling thereof; the cost of manufacture; the cost of transportation, and they will study the conditions of the industrial workers who are engaged in these productions. They go further, because in order that we may know how to equalize the cost of production as in foreign lands with our own, it will be necessary for them to prosecute their studies in the countries which compete for our home markets, and there also they will fully ascertain the cost of the raw material, the cost of manufacture, the cost of transportation and the labour conditions as they there exist. Then, when we have these facts for comparative purposes, we shall be able to judge what it will be necessary to put upon these commodities produced in Canada, Py way of a customs duty, in order to protect our home market, as against the producer elsewhere.
Now, taking up the Bill from the consumer's standpoint, this Tariff Commission purposes to carry on an investigation which certainly is in his interest and for his benefit. It purposes to ascertain what is ihe. selling price of the manufacturer, of ihe wholesaler or middleman, of the retail .merchant, in order to see whether in these successive stages the commodity is so enhanced in price that it reaches the ultimate consumer at a cost that is higher than is fair to him. Every circumstance and every condition that affects the ultimate selling price will be germane to the inquiry of this commission. If it should be alleged and shown that there be any [DOT]ombiue in restraint of trade which unduly enhances the price of the article*

to the consumer; if it should be shown that there are secret agreements between the various producers which advance the price beyond what was legitimate; if it should be shown that industries were endeavouring, on watered stock which represented no real assets, to pay dividends, and on account of this state of affairs trying to get an enhanced price from the consumer, that would be known. If there were excessive charges beyond such as were reasonable and right, saddled upon the product, and attempted to be taken <ut of the consumer in the ultimate purchase price that would be germane to this inquiry. If there was discrimination, if there were rebates in railway rates; ia fact if there was any circumstance or condition which might unduly or unfairly enhance the price of the article, eventually to the consumer, every one of these circumstances might be legitimately studied and reported upon by this commission.
If the price is found to be artificially enhanced, the claim for protection would to that extent be vitiated, and the facts brought before this House would enable this House to put the penalty where it belonged. If I were a member of the opposition, it seems to me that I would not ask for the creation of any better instrument than this to enable me to get at the actual facts of the case from the consumer's point of view. When you get the reports of these commissioners, as you will from time to time, and have a chance to read them, you can determine the lines of action; and, with everything uncovered, I cannot see where it will be possible for any injustice to remain in our tariff.
This commission has also the right to deal with other matters that may be referred to it from time to time by the government. Any other matter relating to trade ot commerce will be proper work for the commission. There is a special clause to enable the board to meet emergencies that may from time to time arise. I suppose it will apply to trade treaties Last session when we were called on to discuss the all-important question of reciprocity with the United States, the members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had in their hands voluminous reports containing a complete study of the conditions prevailing on both sides of the line with the relative cost of production in Canada and the United States. They went into the discussion prepared at every point. But what had we? What did the civil service officials spoken of by the hon. member for Halifax give us? Did they give us any carefully prepared statistics? They gave us absolutely nothing that we could not have picked out of the blue-books for Mr. AMES.
ourselves. We went into that discussion dependent on United States Senate and House of Representatives for information and if we had not been able to see ourselves as others see us, we would never have succeeded in convincing the people of Canada that the bargain was for us an unwise one.
We were discussing the other day trade relations with Australia. When the government may have a measure on that subject ready to submit to this House, what more profitable than that they should ask the Tariff Commission to ascertain what would be the probable effect upon Canada of an arrangement such as proposed. That I take it is the class of special subjects which will be from time to time referred to the Tariff Commission.
Now, some objections have been raised to this measure. I do not attach much importance to the constitutional objection. We have heard a great deal about Royal commissions. This is not a Royal commission in the ordinary sense. "A Royal commission is a temporary body appointed to investigate some specific subject, and as soon as it makes its report and findings, it is dismissed, because its work is done. This commission is not of that character. It is a permanent body which we hope will be continued from year to year, and it will not make findings in the way Royal commissions usually do.
It has been objected in some quarters that we propose to endow this commission with inquisitorial power. That in a sense is true. The commissions will have power to summon witnesses, to order them to bring their books and papers, to examine them under oath, even to inquire into a man's private business. It will have power to compel witnesses to attend, though I do not suppose it will ever have to resort to that. It has not been so in the United States. The Tariff Board there has never had any difficulty in getting the producers to come and give it all the information it desired. It is proposed to put the burden of proof on the man who asks for protection. He will have to prove that he is entitled to have his request complied with, otherwise lie will not get it. On that point let me quote from the address of Professor H. C. Emery, the Chairman of the Tariff Board of the United1 States:
If, however, the principle should be firmly established that -a protective tariff, however necessary or desirable, is none the less a favour, and that the burden of proof rests upon the producer to show cause why such protection should be granted, the matter of power (to examine books, &c.) becomes relatively unimportant.
You have only to say to the producer, 'if you are not prepared to give us the evidence to show why we should give you pro-

tection, do not wonder if we do not give you what you ask lor.' Under these conditions people will be only too glad to give us the fullest possible information. It is possible that the Tariff Commission may from time to time find it necessary to secure confidential information which they mav not see fit to put verbatim into the evidence, because it must be remembered that in that way they will have greater freedom and get nearly at ithe facts-inasmuch as men will speak freely when they feel that they are not going to give their competitors in the same line of business al the inside information in regard to their own particular enterprise. That is only legitimate and right.
The Bill provides thai the commissioners shall report through the Finance Minister to the Governor in Council. That again seems to me right and proper. It must be remembered that the government, on the findings of fact from this commission, wilr be called upon to frame their Tariff Bill. There is absolutely no attempt to evade any ministerial responsibility by this arrangement. I do not anticipate that any Tariff Board will ever prepare a Bill, or recommend that the duty be 25 or 30 or 40 per cent on specific articles. They are required onlj to inquire into questions of fact as to the real conditions-existing here and elsewhere. When their evidence and findings ha/ve 'been placed in the hands of the government, the cabinet, more especially the Finance Minister, will determine what form the Tariff Bill will take; and after it has been submitted by the Finance Minister to his colleagues and been approved by them, the Bill, together with the evidence on which it is based, will be brought by the government to the House and will become the property of the House. Every member of the opposition will then have an opportunity to go over the evidence and judge for himself whether 20 or 25 or 30 per cent is the proper rate of duty based upon the facts disclosed. If I were a member of the opposition I would ask nothing better than that I might have the facts before me, admitted by both sides, and then I could hold the government to follow lines that are reasonable and right. _ One more feature strikes one in connection with this commission which is to be commended, that is, the endeavour to make the body as far as possible a permanent one. It is appointed for five years, and the hope is implied if not expressed that the members who are appointed in the first instance will, if they make good, go on for a further term of five years. They are made eligible for re-appointment, which implies that it is -hoped that they will accept reappointment. Men should go into this work expecting to make it their life-work, and I hope they will continue in it
for many years, even though administrations may come and go.
There are some things which cannot be put into the Bill which it seems to me will fall naturally within the -scope of this Tariff Commission. One thing, I think, would be to make a glossary or dictionary of the tariff, so that we would have it in plain language and would know what the items meant, and the customs officials along the border would -all interpret a definition in -the same way.
Another thing which the commission -might do would be -to establish a customs museum in which we would have samples of the various articles mentioned in the schedules, so that they could be seen and handled by our customs officials who would thus learn how to distinguish and classify them. It might even be possible for this Tariff Commission to assume eventually more or les-s civil service qualifications and exercise educational functions. To whom could we better give the duty of determining what candidates were best qualified to enter the customs service, and the best means of preparing and training, men to enter the higher grades of that service? Iiua great man yways this -commission could render extremely useful service outside the ordinary lines of this Bill.
The conditions in Canada in 1912 are vastly different from those in 1896. Our revenue has grown until it is three times as great and -our -customs receipts a,re four times -as large as they were 15 years -ago. The unscientific methods whi-ch were good enough for Canada in her (boyhood and eaady manhood are not good enough from 1912 onwards. We want something better, -and we think we have found the way -to get it. Tllie experience -of busy ministers in the past has been spoken of to-night. Well, we had Mr. Fielding, Mr. Paterson and Mr. Brodeur, ministers in the late government, making peripatetic voyages throughout Canada, stopping at different places and taking evidence. Every theorist, every crank, every inveterate free trader of the English school, every man who had something to say appeared before them and gave his evidence. There was the most heterogeneous conglomeration -of evidence collected that one could possibly imagine. It was all typewritten and filled s-everal Saratoga trunks, and I venture to say that no-t one of the -ministers -ever read i-t through. We have ample evidence of	that in the fact that
Mr. Fielding, after he brought in his Tariff Bill to the House, made upwards of one hundred changes in it, showing that he had not very thoroughly digested the matter submitted to him. Should we call on our ministers to make such an experiment again? It is evidently impossible

for ministers, if they are to properly manage their departments, to have sufficient time at their disposal to travel through the country taking evidence or to sit down and discuss tariff matters with every one who has theories on the subject. We ought not to ask our ministers to do that, and we are seeking to appoint a commission who will collate the facts and submit them to the ministers who in their turn will lay them before the House. What we want is the truth and nothing else. Those who are accused of advocating high protection want nothing but what they are entitled to. The fullest possible light that can be thrown on the business of those who claim protection will be furnished, and if it be found that, under that scrutiny, their pretensions do not hojd good, this House will know it, and will withdraw any excessive benefits in the way of protection to which these people are not entitled.
In closing let me emphasize this fact. This commission, which is to be appointed, will be charged to investigate facts and conditions. They will not take on themselves the duties of ministers or of members of parliament. They are not going to prepare any Tariff Act. They will not make any recommendation such as that Isuoh an article shall be protected to the extent of 25 or 30 per cent. That will not be their duty. Every prerogative enjoyed by the ministers and members of this House will remain absolutely unimpaired when this Act passes. We shall be called on to exercise our judgment and best faculties in determining what shall be the tariff duty just as before. The only difference will be that we shall no longer be groping our way in the dark.


George William Kyte: It must be perfectly manifest that we are on the eve of another great struggle between the two classes-'the high protectionists and the moderate protectionists. My hon. friend from St. Antoine Mr. Ames), was not speaking ten minutes before hie repeated the statement three times that the consumer may suffer an increase in the price of the goods he consumes by reason of the appointment of this commission. He further made the statement that the tariff at present shows the pressure ot the clamour of consumers who make much more noise than their numbers justify. I must congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) on the frankness with which he discussed this- question. Knowing, as we do, the interests which he controls in this country, we would be very much surprised if he took a different stand. This government is doing very well in the way of appointing commissions to relieve themselves of responsibility. They -are not very Mr. AMES.
long in power, but during the few months they have been in office they have appointed commissions by the dozen. The principle of adequate protection, as it was defined by the right hon. the First Minister (Mr. Borden), seems to have had its reincarnation about the year 1907. I would ask permission to quote from the ' Canadian Manufacturer ' of May 17, 1907, an article which is interesting in view of the present conditions:
, Mr. R. L. Borden, leader of the Conservative opposition, in the Dominion House of Commons, will, it is stated, in a few days, tour Ontario and other provinces and address publio gatherings on the important issues of the day; and it is expected that some of the Conservative members of Ontario will accompany him for speech making purposes.
_ Whatever the other important political issues may be which Mr. Borden and his friends may discuss before the electorate, it is to be most ardently hoped that the question of tariff protection will not he neglected hut kept well to the front, and we also hope that from this time on not only the Conservative speakers, but the Liberal orators also, will not fail to inform the people on that subject.
Mr. Borden entered parliament in 1896, just after the defeat of the late Conservative government, which, because of their having attached greater importance to other issues than tariff protection, forfeited the prestige of their party and went into opposition. Perhaps they thought that other issues were of more importance to their party and to the country than that which had placed them in power. Those issues might have been considered of greater importance, but while attention was given to these, that of protection should not have been neglected as it was, with the result that such protection as we have since had, as exemplified in the tariff, is administered from a hostile standpoint. It may be that Mr. Borden and his friends are staunch protectionists; it is to be hoped that they are, but during the entire session of the Dominion parliament so recently ended, we do not remember any occasion of pronounced and vigorous speeches having been in favour of the policy of tariff protection, either by Mr. Borden or any of his lieutenants. On some occasions something may have been said, hut they were of a perfunctory character, in which no particular ardour was shown. Many grand opportunities have occurred during the discussion having reference to the adoption of the proposition of the Finance Minister, hut ' Hansard ' fails to record any elaborate and telling arguments in favour of protection by Mr. Borden or liis friends, such as thrilled the members and the country under the regime of Sir John.
This remarkable lack of sympathy and enthusiasm was a result, without doubt, of the peculiar stand taken by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at their Halifax convention in 1802, and before and since that occasion, when the association and the country were assured that the tariff had been taken out of politics

that if any difference of opinion existed, they were regarding the administration of the tariff, all being agreed that
2658

protection in some sliape or other had come to stay. Canadian manufacturers and the believers in protection throughout the country, a great and powerful element that had been able to make the National Policy an unbounded success, found themselves, Sampson like, the victims of a deceitful Delilah.
Are Canadian manufacturers-are the people of Canada who are believers in protection, to have this valuable belonging restored to them? Who is to restore it? When is it to be done? How is it to be done? Will the Conservative party under the leadership of Mr. Borden or of any other man undertake the job? Talk is cheap. What is wanted is men of action who will be up and doing. Who are they to be?
From the Bill which Las been submitted this afternoon and the stand taken by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), there is no longer any doubt in the public mind as to who the people axe, who will give high protection to Canadian manufactures so long as they remain in power. The Prime Minister made the statement that the government had not received any request from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for the adoption of this measure. It is perfectly manifest to the hon. gentleman as it must be to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was not likely to go to the government to extract any promise as to their policy with respect to protection; they would rather come to them to require the fulfillment of promises made before the elections, made by the party led by the Prime Minister before the government was formed; made, I have no doubt, before the Minister of Finance was so unexpectedly called to the high position in the government that he occupies at the present time. There was no political communion; no sympathic affiliation between the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister except on the question of the interests, and I think I am not doing the Minister of Finance any injustice, when I say that it was well understood throughout Canada that he was to represent the interests in the government of the present day. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association met in Montreal some weeks after the elections, and if I am not mistaken, among the resolutions they passed on that occasion, was one in favour ot a Tariff Commission,-presumably for the purpose of ' taking the tariff out of polities.' I was somewhat at a loss to understand how, under our principles of constitutional government, a Tariff Commission could take the tariff out of politics.
' But the Minister of Finance has dispelled any doubt existing in my mind as to that point, because he has frankly stated that the tariff will not be taken out of politics by this measure. We on this side are thankful for his frank statement. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) pointed out how impossible it is for the
government to relieve itself in respect to its responsibility for the Tariff. What is the object and purpose of the Bill? They appoint a Commission to inquire as to conditions in respect to tariff matters for the purpose M reaching a conclusion as to whether or not protection should be increased in this, that, or the other direction. _ When the government brings down its tariff measure in the future, and they are charged with giving a certain industry too much protection, the answer probably will be: We have done- this on the report of the Tariff Commission which was appointed for the purpose of instructing and advising us as to the amount of protection these interests need.


Mr. BURNHAM.: If the hon. member (Mr. Kyte) will allow a question, I would like to ask what difference there would be between that and the recommendation of experts?


George William Kyte: That was well explained by my hon. friend from Halifax; and I think if the hon. member for Peterboro (Mr. Burnham) will take the time to read the speech of my hon. friend, he will see his question answered. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) intimated that the Tariff Commission should not be made up of men out of sympathy with the principles for which the government stand. That is another intimation that the tariff commission will be selected from the ranks of the high protectionists. I am sure it is not necessary for us to have that statement from the hon. gentleman in order to reach a conclusion on that point. Up to the present time, the government has been called upon to appoint many persons to office. Some positions have been opened, some have been created; and the government, during the last three months have busied themselves with the work of making appointments. In no case have they gone outside the ranks of their own party to fill a position. Even in the case of a postoffice with a salary of $35 a year, they do not go outside of the ranks of their party to fill the place. If they, in the case of a post office with ia salary of $35 a year are so mindful of their party interests that they will not allow even a small position to escape them, we can easily understand what will happen in the case of appointing men to positions at $7,000 a year. I am also reminded that, in cases where they are called upon to fill positions, they are not even limited in their choice to the electors of Canada, but go outside these ranks and appoint females to offices, as was done recently in the county of Ri-mouski.
The Bill provides that the Tariff Commission shall summon before them such people as they desire to give evidence, but it contains no provision under which

a person can go before the com-imittee voluntarily to (present his views. Taking the authority of	the	hon.
member for St. Antoine, we know that the commission will consist of high protectionists. We know that they are perfectly aware of the sympathies and sentiments of 'the government that appoints them, and they will naturally go for their advice to those who are in sympathy with those interests and conditions. But should a representative of the consuming classes desire to give evidence, there is no provision by which he can go before the commission voluntarily for that purpose. There are in this country two classes-the consumers and the manufacturers; and this country has been divided for many years between these two classes and will continue to be so divided. I aver that it is absolutely unfair to the consumers to give such large and important powers to one class of the community to the exclusion of the other class. We have in this country the division between capital and labour. ' When questions arise involving the interests of these parties, boards of conciliation are asked for to adjust these differences. Would it not be preposterous to imagine that in selecting such a board of conciliation, only the representatives of capital should be appointed on the board? If such a thing were attempted by the government, there would be such a cry all over this country against the manifest injustice of it, that the government would not dare to renew the attempt. But we know that differences will arise between the consumers and the^manufacturers; and the government, by their Bill, and by the policy which they have announced and defended in the past, will have only representatives of the manufacturers upon this Tariff Board, so that only that side of the question will be enquired into.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) tell me in what section of the Bill he finds that provision?


George William Kyte: the present time a proposition to extend our trade with Australia and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) I understand, will go to that far off colony in the near future, for the purpose of interviewing the government with a view to increasing our trade with them. The mission of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is analogous to that of the commission that w'as to be appointed by the Imperial Conference, but it has no analogy whatever with the commission that is now under consideration. The question of tariff and the question of extending trade are entirely different things, so much so, that they are almost contradictory. For instance, when we are seeking to enlarge our trade with 'another country, we do not start by increasing our tariff against the products of that country. We had an opportunity of extending our trade in the direction of the United States a year ago, when the people of the United States showed a desire to increase their trade with us. What'did they do? Did they increase their tariff against our goods? No, they took the duties off our goods, to enable them to get into their market free of duty. Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this question of a commission for the purpose of enlarging our trade between different parts of the empire is an entirely different proposition from the one before the House at the present time.
I have listened up to the present time with the greatest interest to the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support of the Bill. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) made a fair and frank statement, one which is perfectly intelligible to any person who desires to get the same grasp of the principles of the Bill which he himself possessed. The right hon. the Prime Minister did not go into the principle of the Bill any further than to make a defence for the government in attempting to delegate the powers that they really should exercise to the commission proposed. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), has gone further and he has stated the case for the protectionists of this country. Up to the present time we have not had any speeches from hon. gentlemen representing the farming communities in the west. I sincerely hope that before this debate is closed we will hear the views of hon. members on the government side representing Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in respect to this Bill. I may not be correctly informed as to the sentiments of the people in that part of Canada but my judgment is that they are hostile to any proposal on the part of the government looking to a further increase in the tariff duties. I will await with interest the view taken by hon. gentlemen representing these provinces on the government side of the House, but whether or not the gentle-
Mr. KYTE
men from these provinces are in favour of or against the Bill, I speak for those consumers in the eastern part of Canada whose interests will be injured and whose prosperity in the future will be greatly hampered if the policy of protection, enunciated by the hon. member- for Montreal, St. Antoine, is carried into effect. As far as they are concerned, there is no doubt as to where they stand on this important question, and, feeling as I do, I have no hesitation in recording my vote m what I believe to be their interests.


William Sora Middlebro: Mr. Speaker, as the hour is somewhat late, as it has been intimated that there are five members on this side of the House as well as five on the other who are yet to speak, and as we were here until after twelve o'clock last night, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Thomas White: We will continue the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 8, 1912.