1912-02-22

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

Mr. LAVALLEE:: 1.	Has the Transcontinental Railway Commission in its possession, signed by Robert Martin and Louis Hurtubise, a plan of the line of the Transcontinental railway in residence 12, division 3, district B?

2.	If so, does the said plan mention any important changes from the first plan in the localization of the station near the highway leading to St. Damien?
3.	Has the commission any letters or letter from the engineer of district B to Lt.-Colonel Talhot, of St. Michel, county of Bellechasse, on this subject? If so, what are the contents of said letters or letter?
4.	Did the chairman or commission address any letters or letter to said Colonel Talbot on the subject referred to?
5.	If so, has the commission any copy or record of such letters or letter?
6.	If so, will the Government furnish the House with a copy of such correspondence?
7.	Did the said engineer referred to in question 3 above, address any letter or letters to the said chairman of the commission on the above subject?
8.	If so, what are the contents of said letter or letters and the date or dates of the same?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The following information is supplied by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission:
1.	Yes.
2.	The plan does note changes.
3.	Yes. It is not advisable to summarize contents of letters'. They can be produced on order of the House.
4.	No record of any on file.
5 and 6. Answered by Number 4.
7 and 8. Answered by Number 3.


AMERICAN FIRMS SHIPPING TO CANADA.
Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	What are the names of the American companies shipping goods into Canada?
2.	What is the value of the goods shipped by each company?


Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1 and 2. It is1 not considered advisable to disclose the individual transactions of exporters shipping goods to Canada. The information asked for is not compiled in the Department of Customs.


TUBERCULOSIS IN ST. JOHN AND IBERVILLE.
Mr. DEMERS:: Is the government in possession of information enabling it to give the proportion of deaths caused by tuberculosis in the county of St. Jean and Iberville compared with other causes of death in the county? If so, what is the proportion?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	The following are the latest mortality returns for the counties of St. Jean and Iberville, being for the year 1907, and are taken from the report of the recorder of vital statistics of the province of Quebec:
Total deaths From _ Counties From all causes. Tuberculosis.
St. Jean	
137	10Iberville	
83	9220	19
Total of 220 fro.m all causes-19 from tuberculosis, which represents one death from tuberculosis in every 8 63 from all causes.


FRASERVILLE WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. GAUVREAU:
1.	Is there in the Railway Department any letters, communications, reports or other documents by which it is sought to show that if the Department of Public Works, is constructing a new wharf in deep water at Fraserville, River du Loup, P.Q.. or if an extension be made to the present wharf, there would be savted, It is said, an expense of (Several thousand dollars to the Intercolonial railway, in discharging at River du Loup, Fraserville, all the coal which the Intercolonial railway requires for the eastern division, and which is now discharged at the wharfs at Levis?
2.	If so, does the Railway Department intend to bring pressure on the hon. Minister of Public Works, with the view to proceed as soon as possible with the construction of this wharf or the extension of the one now existing at Fraserville, River du Loup, P.Q., in order to save thousands of dollars, as alleged, uselessly spent each year in continuing the present system of discharging coal at Ldvis?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	There are letters, and other papers in the Department of Railways, showing that lumber and coal might be delivered to the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup if improvements were made at the wharf there.
2.	An item of $70,000 has been placed in the estimates for 1912-13 by the Minister of Public Works in connection with the improvements referred to.


CEMENT IMPORTATIONS.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What is the quantity and value of cement imported into Canada during the years 1910 and 1911?
2.	What quantity of such imports were entered by or imported for account of the Canada Cement Company?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	The quantity and value of Portland cement imported into Canada during the fiscal years ended March 31st, 1910 and 1911, respectively, was as follows:
Cwt.	Value.
1910	
490,809	$158,4871911	
1,283,121	494,0812.	Individual imports are not separately tabulated in the customs returns.


EXPORTS OR CREAM.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What quantity of cream was exported from Canada to the United States during the six months ending January 1, 1912?
2.	What was the value of said cream?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	The quantity of cream exported from Canada to the United States during the six months ending January 31, 1912, amounted to 459,219 gallons.
2.	The value of said cream was $412,161.



SOREL WHARF-TIMBER SUPPLY.

["The franking privilege may properly be extended in respect of letters which are sent by the commissioners from Ottawa; and don't you think that those who have business with the commission, who want to make complaints, should be allowed to write to them free of postage, as is done in every other public department?\n\nMr. WHITE (Leeds) It is extraordinary how few people avail themselves of the franking privilege. I think a very large percentage of those who write to the departments, put a stamp on their letters for fear they will miscarry. The amount being so small, there is no hardship upon the people who desire to make communications to the commission, in asking them to pay the postage.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. MONK:: 1 and 2. In 1909, Mr. Lariviere wrote that he had a claim of $4,066.42, but nothing has been heard for nearly three years from Mr. Lariviere the department is not aware whether the contractor has paid the amount or not. Mr. Lavallee, M.P., was informed on the 12th inst., that an amount of $5,220.20 was still due the contractor. It is suggested, if Mr. Lariviere still has a claim that he submit same at once.



Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Is J. E. Laforee, farmer, of the county of Rimouski, employed in the House of Commons or in the Senate?
2.	If so, since what date and at what salary ?


Rt. Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :: 1 2
1.	There is no person named J. E. La-force employed either in the service of the House of Commons or of the Senate.
2.	Answered by number one.


WELLAND CANAL-AMERICAN FREIGHT.
*Mr. WHITE (Renfrew):: What quantities of American ore, coal and wheat passed through the St. Lawrence canals last season, whether in British or American bottoms ?
Mr. REID (Grenville!.


Francis Cochrane: Articles.	Canals.	Canadian or British Bottoms.	United States Bottoms.


Ore ...: 
ALDERSHOT CARETAKER.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is there a caretaker^ in charge of the militia camp, including rifle ranges, grounds and buildings, at Aldershot, near Kentville, Nova Scotia?
2.	If not, how long have the premises been without a caretaker?
3.	In the absence of a caretaker, what precautions are taken to preserve the caretaker's house, and any other buildings on the grounds, as well as other valuable properties, including rifle ranges, targets, pine, and other timber?


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria):: 1. Mr. Howard Robinson, of Lakeville, Nova Scotia, is appointed caretaker.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


TWINE MATERIALS, IMPORTATIONS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What quantity of unbarked marlin was imported during the last fiscal year, and how much duty was collected on same?
2.	What quantity of cotton seine twine was imported during the last fiscal year ?


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Unbarked marlin is not separately tabulated in the Customs Statistical Returns, being subject to duty the same as cordage.
2.	Cotton seine twine for the fisheries is not separately tabulated in the Customs Statistical Returns, being included in the item of twine, lines, rope and nets for the fisheries, the value of which admitted free for the year ended 31st March, 1911, was $1,099,481.


SOULANGES CANAL PATRONAGE.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals established a line of demarcation for the distribution of patronage between the counties of Soulanges and Vaudreuil, on the Soulanges canal?
2.	Has the government exclusively referred to Dr. Lortie, ex-member for the first of these counties, the using of patronage without distinction on the canal?


Francis Cochrane: 


DESIRE LAUZON.
[Stage Direction]
1.	No.
2.	No.

Air. BOYER:: 1.	Is it true that the dismissal of Mr. .T. B. Adolphe Valois, postmaster at Vaudreuil station, has been determined on?
2.	If so, for what reasons, and by whose re-qnest P
3.	Will this postmaster have the benefit of an inquiry?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No decision has been given in this case.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.


VAL DES EBOULIS POSTMASTER.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	For what reason has William Robert, postmaster at Val des Eboulis, been dismissed?
2.	Who requested this change, and will an inquiry be held in his case?


Air. PELLETIER:: 1.	Air. Wm. Robert was appointed postmaster by the late Postmaster General on the 4th October last, removing Pierre Quesnel, the former postmaster, from office. Mr. Robert's appointment has, therefore, been cancelled, and Eugene Quesnel, son of the late postmaster, appointed to the office.
2.	(a) The change was recommended by Air. DeLery MacDonald, (b) Further inquiry is not necessary. The facts are known to the department.


STANISLAS HOULE.
Air. ETHIER :: 1.	Has a person named Stanislas Houle been employed in any way on the Soulanges canal?
2.	If so, does the government know that this man is said to have been dismissed from service for insubordination and other causes?
3.	Will the government, being informed of these alleged facts, continue keeping him in the position to which he has just been appointed?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes, as painter.
2.	Yes; he was dismissed by the late overseer on a charge of insubordination, which he denied, and the charges were not proven.
3.	He is now at work employed from month to month temporarily, when there is work for him to do.


Air. ETHIER:: 1.	Does the government require references as to the financial position and habits of those whom it employs?
2.	Did the government require such references as to Di'sire Lauzon, who has just been appointed coal heaver on the Soulanges canal in place of Jean Baptiste Denis?
3.	If so, what are the references, and who furnished them?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The Department of Railways and Canals endeavours to insure that its appointees are men of good character and habits, particularly in cases of those on whom financial responsibility devolves.
2.	Yes; Desire Lauzon was not employed as coal heaver, he was appointed as lamp cleaner on the Soulanges canal.
3.	That lie was a man of good character and habits; references were furnished by the parish priest of St. Justin, who highly recommended him.


A1ANITOBA BOUNDARY EXTENSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN moved that the House do to-morrow go into a Committee of the A hole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient, (a) to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba northward to the sixtieth parallel of latitude and northeastward to the shores of Hudson Bay, upon such terms and conditions 2? ma/ „"e agreed to by the legislative assembly of Manitoba and by parliament;
(b)	to authorize the Governor in Council, inasmuch as the province was not in debt at the time of its establishment, to pay to the said province an annual sum of $381,584 19 being the equivalent of interest at five per cent on $7,631,683.85, the difference between a principal sum of $8,107,500 and $475,816.15 heretofore advanced by the government to the province for provincial purposes; such annual sum to be paid as and from the first day of July, 1908, but subject, however, as to payments due upon the coming into force of any Act founded upon these resolutions, to the deduction of certain sums received by the said province by way of interest on capital allowance in lieu of debt;
(c)	to authorize the Governor in Council to to the said province, in lieu of ownership
of public lands, aij annual sum based upon the population of the said province as ascertained by each quinquennial census thereof, such annual sum to commence with $562,500 (less certain deductions in respect of what are known as swamp lands and university lands) and not to exceed the annual sum of $1,125,000 (less equivalent deductions); the same to be paid as from the first day of July, 1908, but subject, however, as to payments due at the time of the passing of any Act founded upon these resolutions, to a deduction of the aggregate of certain sums received by the pro-
[Stage Direction]


viuco on and after July 1, 1908, on account of indemnity in lieu of public lands;
(d) to authorize the Governor in Council to pay the said province one-half on July 1, 1912, and one-half on July 1, 1913, the sum [DOT]pf $201,723.57 towards the construction of public buildings.
He said:	His Royal Highness, having
been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would observe to my right lion, friend that it will be impossible to take up the discussion of this resolution, without having- information of the negotiations which have taken place with the government of Manitoba up to the present time. The motion was made some time ago, I think in the month of December, asking for all correspondence in connection with this matter. That correspondence has not been brought down, and my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) will agree with me that we should have an opportunity of reading it before the debate is proceeded with.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the return is ready, and will be brought down to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by providing for the employment in the office of the Auditor General, for a period not exceeding two years, of such temporary clerks as may he necessary in connection with the audit and payment of fees and expenses under the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg to state for the information of the House, that in deference to the wishes expressed by members, we have had a long distance telephone station for their convenience installed at the end of the corridor near this chamber.


THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 104) to amend the Civil Service Act-Mr. Borden.
Bill (No. 76) to amend The National Transcontinental Railway Act-Mr. Cochrane.
Bill (No. 103) to amend the Government Works Tolls Act-Mr. Monk.
Robert Laird Borden: 


CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 60) to amend the Civil Service Act-Mr. Borden.
Robert Laird Borden: I suggested the other day that the Bill should remain in committee, but I have no further observations to make regarding it, and if there is no further discussion the measure can be reported.
Bill reported.


APPOINTMENT OF A TARIFF COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 88) to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission.
On section 5, subsection 7-inquiries to be in Ottawa, but power to hold them elsewhere.
Mr. KYTE.: I desire to_ point out what I conceive to be a defect in the machinery provided: for the purpose of obtaining information of parties who may be prepared to give testimony before the commission.
I pointed out before that this clause provides for the examination of such persons only, who have been summoned for the purpose of giving evidence. I think this clause should go further and provide for the examination of any person who is willing to go before the commission -to represent any interest in Canada, whether he has been summoned or not. With that view, I propose that section 5, subsection 1, he amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:-
And they shall hear the evidence of persons who appear before them for the purpose of making a voluntary statement and who have not been so summoned.


William Thomas White: I think it should be borne in mind that this commission _ is to be used for the purpose of obtaining information, and to be used intelligently, under the direction of the government. The amendment would very seriously interfere with the action of the commission in that respect. Under section 4 it is provided that the commission is to act under the direction of the Minister of Finance; and it has been .previously pointed out that it will be asked to r.eport upon certain matters in the order oif their urgency as it appears to the government. In order to take up its work'intelligently, the commission must be at liberty to direct its own operations, to summon witneses if they wish, or to allow parties to be heard. I think that if my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) will look at the provision of the Act creating the Railway Commission, he will find that no one has the right to come and ask that the commission take up a. certain matter. That.

is for the commission to decide. Otherwise the commission, instead of working intelligently, would he art the heck and call of every one who wished to have his particular matter taken up, even though entirely out of its order; and the result would be that instead of intelligent action on the part of the commission, more or less confusion would ensue. I think it may be safely left to the commission appointed1 by the government, the commissioners, we may assume, will be men of intelligence- to adopt their own methods of obtaining evidence, either by summoning witnesses, or by affording opportunity for parties who wish to be heard to come forward and testify. The last clause of the last subsection of section 5, appears to cover the point raised by my hon. friend.
The commissioners shall hold their sessions and conduct their proceedings in suoh manner as may seem to them most convenient for the speedy and efficient discharge of their duties.
In pursuing a certain inquiry it is open to the commission to say that all parties who desire to do so may appear, or they may subpoena witnesses on their own initiative. I have no reason to doubt that they will hear interested panties' who desire to be heard on any particular inquiry, but the initiative should be with them, in order, that, as I have said, they may conduct their work with the greatest efficiency and intelligence. But to adopt the amendment of my hon. friend would mean that the work of the commission might be very greatly embarrassed, and we should not be able to accomplish through the commission what we hope to accomplish, namely to obtain information -connected with tariff matters required from time to time by the government.
If I may hark back to the discussion of last evening, I would like to add that the time when we shall need the reports of the commission most will- be between sessions. It is almost impossible for a government or a minister to consider such important matters as the tariff, and especially tariff changes, during a busy session. The time when such matters should be most particularly considered is between sessions. That is a little apart from the amendment, but I thought it desirable to point it out as it was overlooked by me in dealing with the matter before.
I have no reason to doubt that in practice what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) desired will be carried out, but carried out in such order as the commission may deem proper, for the best accomplishment of their work.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It does not seem to me that the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) is at all objectionable from the standpoint taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. 112}
White, Leeds). The hon. minister said that the effect might be to interfere with the orderly conduct of the affairs of the commission. But as I read it, it would not compel them to hear evidence at any particular time, but they might appoint such time as would be convenient for them to hear witnesses who might desire to give their testimony. It seems to me the Minister of Finance forgets one very important object of the commission. He deals with the subject as if their whole duty would: be to carry on investigations into specific applications for tariff changes. But, as he knows, the most important work this commission would have to do, would be to consider tariff matters, the cost of raw material, the cost o'! goods imported into Canada, the cost of manufacture in Canada, and so on, with a view to making general tariff revisions from time to time. Surely that is a matter in respect of which anybody in this country who wishes to be heard ought to have a right to go before the commission and give his testimony with facts in support of the views he may have upon tariff matters. Surely, this board ought not to be allowed to say whom they will -call and what opinions they will give and make a report based upon those opinions only. This commission is to have very general powers, and its report must necessarily have great effect upon public opinion and upon parliament. If ever there was a commission in regard to Which the public ought to have the right, by rep_re-senitatfives_ or otherwise, to express their views, this is that commission. The hon. minister refers to the railway commission and says that people cannot go before that commission of their own motion. I have not the law before me, -but I happen to know that the Board of Railway Commissioners have regarded it as a part of their duty to allow every man to come before them who desires to be heard, whether that particular person may have been summoned or not. They do not require a person to be teubpcenaed, but allow people to go voluntarily and state tbei-r grievances and tbeygive what relief thev find possible.
This commission is of enormous importance as regards- tariff matters, it is a matter of great public interest; and it seems to me its duties can only be satisfactorily discharged if people should have an opportunity of coming voluntarily before it, and giving it such facts as thev are able to supply.


Mr. BLAIN.: In my opinion, if the committee were to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), it would be almost impossible for the commission to conduct any inquiry in, this country without persons coming before the commission, and interfering with the examination of witnesses, and asking the commission to hear any person who
354.3

might offer himself. It might be very well if, after the commission has been at work for some time, there comes a complaint from any portion of the country that the commission had refused, on application, to hear the views of certain persons; then I think perhaps this amendment would be in order, and might be adopted by both sides of the House. This commission is experimental; this is the first time in the history of Canada that we have [DOT] had a commission of this kind, and I think it would be in the public interest that hon. gentlemen opposite should give it a fair trial. Surely the Finance Minister sand the government w<ll make every effort to investigate every tariff question thoroughly; the government will be more anxious than any one else that such should be done. Any person who has a statement to make to the government can come before the government at any time, and make an appointment with the Minister of Finance with respect to tariff matters, and it will be the duty of the minister to hear that complaint, no matter from what part of Canada it may come. I cannot see that this amendment would be good. I think the commission would be quite willing to hear any person, and the government would naturally be anxious that every person should be heard who desired to be heard, no matter from what part of the country he may come. Suppose a day was fixed by the commission for sitting in Toronto to hear a certain matter; under the Bill as it now stands, certain persons would be summoned, and men will understand that they are to come and give evidence. If this amendment were adopted, any persons would have a right to come in and demand that the commission should hear them. If next week, or ten days after, the commission should have an appointment at Hamilton on their route, it would be absolutely impossible for them, under the operation of this amendment, to meet their appointment, or to carry out any general investigation of tariff matters, beginning at one city and going on to another, because the public would crowd in and interfere with their arrangements. It would be the next thing to impossible to give everybody who wished an opportunity of being heard before the commission on any fixed date. Surely this is asking the government to throw the door open too wide. 1 repeat that if, in the future, it is found that tne commissioners are unwilling to hear complaints, and if a complaint is made to the House, I am sure that the government will be quite ready to amend the Act, or make some regulation by which everybody may have an opportunity to state his grievance. For my part I think the amendment is out of Mr. BLAIN.
order, and I would like to ask the chairman whether it is or not.


William Pugsley: In the case of members of the government who have been acting as commissioners with respect to tariff matters, and who, when they come to any city, have invited all persons who desire to appear before them and give evidence, has the hon. gentleman ever heard of any inconvenience arising by reason of the public crowding in?


Richard Blain: I cannot say offhand. I do know, however, that the other day we heard a gentleman, who was a member of a former government and a member of this government, saying that he had been one of a committee that had traversed the country to hear complaints, and that when he came back he did not know any more about the matter than before he went away.


William Pugsley: Probably lie had not studied the evidence.


Richard Blain: I think my hon. friend will agree that he was a gentleman who would have studied the evidence pretty carefully. I do not think that the mover of this amendment should introduce it at this stage, at the very inception of the Tariff Commission. I think it would be in the interest of the public if he would give the commission opportunity of getting into operation; and then, if he finds them failing in the discharge of their duty, an amendment of this kind might be proper.


George William Kyte: Notwithstanding the appeal of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain),
I am still of the opinion that the amendment which I have proposed is an eminently proper one. My hon. friend states two objections. One is that it might lead to parties coming in and interfering with the commission, interfering with the line of conduct which they have laid down to guide them in particular instances. I understand that this commission will be in the nature of a court, it will have power to regulate the attendance of witnesses and the hearing of testimony, and like any other court, it would have a right to restrict the number of witnesses who might appear for the _ purpose of giving testimony upon a particular point.


Richard Blain: Not according to my hon. friend's amendment.


George William Kyte: I think so. I think the commissioners, being gentlemen of common sense and familiar with the manner in which inquiries of this kind are carried on, would see to it that no undue advantage was taken of the commission by any persons, and that no waste of time

should occur by going over the same class of evidence the second time.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: How could they so regulate proceedings if the amendment were adopted?


George William Kyte: If my amendment is not carried, people may not appear, as a right, before the commission at all. So far there are two evils, I think the amendment is in the direction of the lesser evil.


Richard Blain: Has my hon. friend in his mind that the commission will be unwilling to hear complaints?


George William Kyte: I would be sorry to come to that conclusion; but I must confess, in view of certain statemieaitis made by hon. gentlemen opposite, that I am afraid there will not be too great an eagerness on the part of the commission to hear certain representations that might be offered. My hon. friend also objected to my amendment because it would be throwing the door open too wide. That is exactly the difficulty hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have; they don't want to open the door wide enough to allow all persons in this community to represent their views on tariff questions.


Richard Blain: What class of persons has my hon. friend in mind that the commission would be unwilling to hear?


George William Kyte: My amendment covers all classes in the community, and in that ' respect it is not too wide. I can imagine circumstances under which the commissioners might go to certain places for the purpose of taking testimony, and when they might or might not desire to hear certain persons who wished to be heard. I suppose that the commission, before leaving Ottawa, will map out a certain itinerary, will select certain places where they will go to hear testimony. They will go down to Halifax, for instance, and certain persons there will be notified of their coming, and may be summoned to appear before the commission. Certain other persons who would like to put their views before the commission on tariff matters might not be able to appear'before the commission.
It will be impossible that -the commission should have in mind every interest in a large community that might desire to go before the commission and present their views. _ No harm can possibly come to the operation of this Act if the amendment is accepted. It will relieve the commission of the charge that might hereafter be made against them of having purposely omitted to notify certain persons or certain interests in the community that they are visiting for the purpose of taking testimony. The regulation of the conduct of the commission will be entirely in their own hands and, as I stated in the beginning, no disorder would be felt from this because the commission will have absolute power to make regulations for their conduct and for carrying out the course which they have laid down for themselves. Therefore, the objection of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), I think, should not prevail because this commission will have power to prevent any unnecessary interference with the business that would properly come before them.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) intend to put it beyond the control of the commission entirely as to the number of persons who shall give evidence or the kind of evidence that shall be given to the commission, because that is the effect of his amendment. There might be a hundred persons who were determined that they should be heard by this commission; the amendment says that they shall be heard and the commission have no power to say that they shall not, or to judge of the kind of evidence that shall be given, but these people simply come there, a hundred in number, and say: We must be heard, irrespective of whether the evidence shall be advisable or pertinent to the question at issue. Does the hon. gentleman want to put the commission in the position that these people shall have the absolute right to come before them and sly: We are going to give this evidence; we do not care what anybody does or whether it is relevant to the question or not. That is the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman. The commission have absolute authority to receive the evidence of anybody who has been subpoenaed both under section 5 and subsection 8 of section 5. If that authority is given to the commission surely they would not prevent evidence being given which was pertinent or proper. If they would I would say that, the commission would be no use whatever and would not be doing their duty. I cannot believe that my hon. friend would be willing to force the commission into the position which I have described.


Mr. NESBITT.: I am very much surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) even suggesting that the amendment of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) should be refused. There has been a suspicion throughout the discussion of this Bill that the commission was appointed for a purpose. If there is anything in the world that would make the public believe that it was appointed for the purpose of serving the high tariff party, the action of the Minister of Finance would confirm them in that belief. The hon. gentleman who just sat down (Mr. Middlebro) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) talked about people going
354"

and crowding tlie court room and demanding to be heard. I would like to know what *country we are living in. Is this a free *country? Are we going to appoint an autocratic commission in a democratic country or are the people of this country going to say that they have the right to be heard on a matter of public interest? Does the minister refuse to accept the amendment of my hon. friend which proposes that anybody in this country who desires to go before the Tariff Commission shall be heard? The Minister of Finance said that it was not so with reference to the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission pride themselves on the fact that anybody in this *country, from end to end of it can be heard.


William Thomas White: This amendment *says that they 1 shall ' hear evidence. Are the Railway Commission really compelled to hear evidence as this amendment proposes?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They do hear it anyway.


William Thomas White: Are they compelled to do it?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This commission should be compelled to do it. Who are they anyway? Do they own the country, or do the people of the country own the commission? Why should wre not say that they ahall, I would like to know ? If there is anything in the world that would cause the people to be dissatisfied with this commission and with its star chamber proceedings, it is the stand which the Minister of Finance takes this afternoon. Why should anybody in this country be refused the right to he heard by this commission? They talk about court rooms being crowded. That is all nonsense. Everybody knows that the commission will be tiie judge as to the method and as to the time at which they shall be heard. My hon. friend talks about fair play for the -commission ; there is no man who is going to be so unreasonable that he will not be willing to wait until the time comes for him to be heard, but he wants to be heard and he will see that he does get the Tight to be heard whether it is now or hereafter. Why should he not? Every man in this *country is interested in this Tariff Commission, everybody who buys anything is interested in the tariff, and everybody has the right to he heard. I think the Minister of Finance is standing in his own light in refusing this amendment. I see no Teason why he should not do so, and I hope that he will reconsider his decision. What are the people of this country, that they should be dictated to by a Tariff Commission, as to whether they shall be heard or shall not be heard, on a question that so vitally affects them as the tariff? Why, the thing is ridiculous.
Mr. NESBITT


Arthur Meighen: One of the reasons, it seems to me, why power should still _ reside in the commission to hear or reject evidence, is just because it frequently happens before commissions, in courts of law, and in parliament also, that much that is offered to be said is irrelevant to the question at issue. If the amendment proposed by the hon. memlber for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), should carry, the commission would be robbed of every power which every commission in existence now has, and which the courts of law have as wrelt. The very power which, the hon. gentleman says, resides in the commission is to be taken away by the amendment. Any man, any crank, any enthusiast, any set of people, individually or collectively, could go before the commission and 'be heard for as long, or as short a time as, in their own individual notions they desired. It would really appear to me that the purpose of the hon. gentleman, in wishing to proceed with the amendment, is to defeat the objects of the commission. If the amendment'read with the word ' may ' instead of the word ' shall' then the commission would still have power to regulate their own proceedings, but if the amendment read 1 may ' I do not see *that the Bill, as it now stands, would be affected in any way, because under two clauses of the Bill, the commissioners have power to hear any one. So, it is evident that the word ' shall ' in the amendment alters the effect of the Bill and it would have the effect of destroying the usefulness of the measure altogether. I know of no , way, if the amendment were to carry. in which the commission would have power to reject irrelevant testimony or to determine the time or place at which they would sit.
It would have the effect of .striking out every other clause in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. member for Richmond, on reconsideration, will see that the purpose which he wishes to be served will be destroyed by the introduction of this amendment. The hon. member for Oxford, (Mr. Nesbitt) it seems to me, inadvertently, stumbled on an objection to the amendment. The Railway Commission of Canada to-day is popular because it has adopted the policy of hearing testimony relative to any issue that is within its jurisdiction. Rut. the Railway Act, which constitutes the Railway Commission, will be searched in vain for a clause which compels the Railway Commission to hear anybody and everybody who presents himself nr any subject that he might choose to talk about.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: It does not give a procedure to enable anybody to get before that commission.


William Thomas White: Certainly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This Bill does not.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anybody getting before it; the commission is there to hear evidence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there anything in the Bill now before the committee to provide a method by which a person may appear before the Tariff Commission if he wants to ? I do not think there is a clause in the Bill to give any person the right of appearing before the commission.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there is any clause in the Railway Act giving any person the right to appear before the Railway Commission in so many words, there is no such procedure for getting before the Railway Commission.


Mr. GERMAN.: The procedure for getting before the Railway Commission is well defined.


Arthur Meighen: I have often had appearances made and all I had to do was to write to the secretary of the Railway Commission and ask to be heard, and the secretary replied appointing a day and a place. That oan be done under this Act in just the same way.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Referring to the illustration of my hon. friend I have never heard of any restriction in the number of witnesses that might be summoned in a case in -a court of law. If they have relevant testimony to give, the court must hear them. The illustration of my hon. friend fails altogether and rather goes to prove the other side of the case, when be brings in a court of law. When the Tariff Commission of the late government visited my town in 1896, they put a notice in the newspapers that they were to hold a. meeting in a certain place at a certain hour, and invited people to go and give their views on all questions under investigation. There was no trouble, the manufacturers and the consumers, any one who had anything to say, went before the commission and had a right to be heard. If, as has been intimated, the commissioners are to be in sympathy with the views of the government, and if the views of the government are in favour of a high tariff, then, if the commissioners wished simply to procure evidence to support the views of one side, they may invite to any sitting as witnesses only those whose views they knew to he in sympathy with What they desired.


William Thomas White: I have not any doubt that the commission will be glad to hear the views of all classes of the community. I agree with my hon. friend that the effect of this amendment would be really to change the purpose that we have in view. It says that they ' shall ' hear the *evidence of persons who appear before
them. That is to say, the control of the proceedings before the commission is taken away from the commissioners themselves, [DOT]and any one who desires may appear before them and keep appearing as long as he chooses, with the result that it would be possible to block the operations of the commission and destroy their usefulness.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister think that the ordinary public would insist on continuing to appear before the commission in any numbers?


William Thomas White: No, but we are making a law now, and it is not advisable to insert a clause which is mandatory and which may destroy the purpose we have in view and take the control of the procedure before the commission out of the hands of the commissioners.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why refuse the people's right there?


William Thomas White: There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent the commissioners from taking evidence either on oath or in any other way. That is provided under section 5.


William Pugsley: How would it do to say:
The commissioners shall also give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been so summoned to appear before them, and give evidence on any matter referring to an inquiry then being made by the commissioners.


William Thomas White: I will consider that, if this section is allowed to stand.


William Pugsley: That is free from the objections which have been heard, it only imposes on the commissioners the duty of giving a reasonable opportunity.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Who will define what ' reasonable ' means?


William Pugsley: That is in the judgment of the commissioners.


William Cameron Edwards: Then why not leave it all to the commissioners ?


William Thomas White: That is what we have done.


William Pugsley: As the law now stands it would be an impertinence for any one to come before the commissioners without having been summoned. It would be regarded as impertinent and people would not go. The result would be that when the commission would go into a town, they would issue subpoenas to people to come before them; that nobody who had not beeu summoned would think of going before them.


William Thomas White: It would be necessary to change the preceding section if we adopt the amendment suggested by the

lion, member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I do not see any objection to this amendment because the intention of the Bill is that the commissioners shall, in the exercise of their discretion, obtain all evidence pertinent or relevant to the inquiry they are conducting in order that their findings may be as accurate as possible. If the section is allowed to stand I shall consider the amendment.
Mr. MeKENZIE. In subsection 1 of section 5, there is an ambiguity, I am afraid, in the last line and a half. The section reads:
The commissioners shall have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite.
That section would serve its purpose better if it stopped with the word ' re-, quisite,' But it goes on:
Requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.
That might refer to their original appointment as a commission or to their appointment to inquire into some specific matters.


William Thomas White: I think that probably the point is well taken, and that the last part of the section would be implied.


William Sora Middlebro: The amendment probably enlarges the powers of the commission.


William Pugsley: Would it not be clearer if it were worded:
As the [DOT] commissioners deem requisite for the full investigation of the matters then under inquiry.


Mr. MACDONALD.: ' Matters into which they are appointed to examine,' is not good drafting at all.


William Thomas White: I think it will be better to pnt a full stop after 1 requisite ' as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). I am inclined to think as it stands it is not at all objectionable.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did the minister hear the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley).


William Thomas White: I did. That was practically my own suggestion.


William Pugsley: It is just changing the wording, that is all.


William Thomas White: 


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I want to point out that the last words of this section as it is drafted, relate to the production of documents merely, and not the giving of evidence. The commissioners have the power to cause the production of such documents and things as they deem requisite. It is documents that are requisite and not the evidence.


William Thomas White: There seems no reason why the scope of the section should be narrowed, and if we stop at the word ' requisite ' and strike out ' to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.' I think the subsection then will meet the case. Anything more after that would be by way of limitation. I think, therefore, the suggestion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is a good one, and I therefore move that all the words after ' requisite ' be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Pugsley: Then the subsection stands for further consideration?


William Thomas White: Yes.
On subsection 3-powers of commissioners,
Mr. MeKENZIE. I wish to express most strongly my objection to this subsection which breaks up this court of inquiry. We have heard from the Minister of Finance, and from other hon. gentlemen on that side, a great deal about the necessity of getting accurate information upon which a scientific tariff was to be based. 1 must say to the Minister of Finance that it would be impossible for him to get that scientific inquiry, or that scientific result from the court of inquiry proposed to be established under subsections 3 and 4. Section 4 of the Act enumerates a great many things into which the court may inquire, and then under subsections 3 and 4 the commission can be split up into a number of subdivisions-not more than three because I understand there are to be that number of commissioners-any one of which may hear evidence apart from the others, and then they are to get together and they are to evolve a scientific result from the evidence obtained in that way. Now I submit to Die minister in all honesty that the kind of court which he proposes to _ establish under this Act is a gypsy institution which will not give the good results which he anticipates. In the judicial courts of the land three judges must sit, and when they hear evidence they are to notice the demeanour of witnesses. But the commissioners in this matter will have to deal with a greater matter than most of our judges have before them. They will have to deal with the whole tariff of Canada involving millions upon millions of money

to the people, and, therefore, this court of inquiry is as important, if not more important than any court we have to-day. If it would not be tolerated for one moment that a court consisting of three judges could be split up for the purpose of hearing evidence here and there, and then coming together to agree upon a result, why should such a procedure be adopted in this case? I submit to the minister that notwithstanding any further expense that might be involved to the people, and the difficulty or inconvenience which might be caused to the commission, he should as far as possible insist upon these three commissioners sitting together and hearing evidence, and that they be not split up every which way and proceed according to what seems to me to be a rule of thumb method. We heard from the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day that after travelling over this country, that after a great deal of toil and labour, he had at last to sit down in his office and give this country a tariff by rule of thumb. Now, I submit that what is proposed here is the worst possible rule of thumb procedure, and I again urge upon the Minister of Finance not to divide the commission in the way proposed.


William Thomas White: I think the hon. member for Cape Breton is to be congratulated on coming so rapidly towards an appreciation of the necessity of this commission.


Mr. McKENZIE.: My remarks do not warrant that interpretation.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman argues that not only are the duties of the commission to be important, and not only is it vital that they hear witnesses and get evidence from all the sources they can, but he says it is even necessary that each of the commissioners be present in order that they may properly value the personal element in the evidence. So that those factors being also essential in the mind of the hon. gentleman, I am sure he sees that the objects to be served by the commission more than warrant its appointment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I said was that if we are to have this commission at all, if it is to be forced upon us, let us have the best possible commission. I am not saying that I want it.


William Thomas White: I am sure that any one who reads the hon. gentleman's remarks in ' Hansard ' will see that I quoted the hon. gentleman accurately and have made my point.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about yourself?


William Thomas White: We want a commission and we -want a good commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The evidence to be brought forward is to be well weighed, and were it practicable within reason to have all the commissioners present at each hearing, I should deem it in a large degree important that they should be. But with the work to be done by the commission, and the limited number of commissioners, it would seem to me impossible that they can cover that work if the principle urged by the hon. member for Cape Breton were to prevail. There are thousands of items in the tariff, there are thousands of square miles of territory to be covered, there are scores of sources from which evidence can be obtained, and consequently there must be the utmost facility for division of the work consistent with doing it well. Now the Railway Commission is a body enjoying a judicial character, which this commission does not enjoy.
But even in the Railway Commission, one commissioner has certain powers, and two commissioners have very wide powers, given them, no doubt, for the very purpose under which powers are given to one and to two of the Tariff Commission under this Bill. Section 13 of the Railway Act is the section that gives individual powers to one and to two commissioners. In the case of the Tariff Commission, if all the commissioners ar.e to be present, even when a sitting is held at the furthest end of Canada, it is going to be a decided inconvenience to the public that may, for some urgent reason, desire a hearing before the commission at the other end of Canada. So, the proposal may have disadvantages even greater than its advantages. But the insuperable objection, to my mind, is, that it would render the work altogether out of proportion to the number of commissioners appointed. And no matter how many were appointed, the same objection would hold. I think the Minister of Finance has struck the happy medium.
Mr.- McKENZIE. So far, we have got along, perhaps not scientifically, but still we have got along, with ministerial tariff inquiries. And those bodies were not split up, but went as a body.


Arthur Meighen: That is, two members of the Cabinet went, and tliey did the work for fifteen. Then I cannot see why at least part of the work could not be done by one Tariff Commissioner for the three. The bon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) seems to be still labouring under the apprehension that this commission is to have executive and administrative powers. On the contrary, this commission is for the purpose

3555
of investigating and reporting, and that alone; and, (that toeing the case, the hon. gentleman wilil see that two commissioners, or even one, in the majority of cases, is quite competent to make the investigation. It might, perhaps, toe better that the three should hear the witnesses, observe the demeanour of those witnesses, and so on, tout the' object to he gained, is not worth the objections that there would toe to it.
On section 5, subsection 4:-
IWo commissioners shall have power to conduct any inquiry under subsections 3 and 4 of the next proceeding sections, and may, for the purposes of such inquiry, exercise the power conferred upon the commissioners by subsections 1 and 2 of this section.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the Minister of Finance please explain just the effect of that?


William Thomas White: In cases of inquiry to ascertain whether there has been a combine to unduly enhance prices, it wias thought desirable that there should be at least two commissioners. My hon. friend pointed out the importance of an inquiry of that kind, and we thought that it should be safeguarded, toy having at least two commissioners. I think that under the 'Bailway Act, two commissioners form a quorum, and can hear causes. It seems to me that in this case, there should toe two, instead of one. Subsection 4, to which reference is here made, covers inquiry into matters referred to the commission by the Governor in Council. This is made wide in its terms-purposely wide, and may embrace very important objects', for instance transportation toy railway or by a navigation line, marine insurance, the question whether a monoply may exist in any part of the country, and so on. It .seems to us that this should be safeguarded toy a provision that at least two should he in an inquiry of that kind.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I correctly apprehend the Bill as to the matter which I shall now explain? The commission is to be composed of three commissioners, and under section 4' the commission is to inquire into the matters assigned to them by the Bill. By subsection 3 of section 5, one commissioner may exercise all the powers vested in the three commissioners with respect to certain matters, including the price and cost of raw materials in Canada and elsewhere, the cost of transportation, the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, the cost, efficiency and condition of labour in Canada and elsewhere, prices received by producers, all conditions which enter into the cost of production and the price to consumers, and generally all conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost, and freight, as compared with other coun-Mr. MEIGHEN.
tries. Under section 4 these are powers given to the commission as a whole. But by subsection 3 of section 5, one commissioner alone is given power to investigate these matters. Then, under subsection 4 of section 5, you say that with regard to combines, to go no further, two commissioners, and not one, must investigate. I thought that at first the intention of the Bill was that in these matters one commissioner or two commissioners, as the case might be, should investigate, and then that the facts should be digested by the three commissioners and a report made to the Minister of Finance by the commission as a whole. But as I understand the Bill as explained by the Minister of Finance now, one commissioner or two commissioners may report to the minister on the subject which they have been empowered to investigate, and therefore, you will not have the benefit of the three commissioners in such cases. I do not think the Bill can be read otherwise.


William Thomas White: If my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will look at section 4, he will see that it provides, ' in respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the commission shall, under the direction of the minister make inquiry,' and so on. Under the interpretation clause, ' commission ' means the Tariff Commission provided for by this Act. This commission is to make inquiry and report. Now, under subsection 3 of section 5, one commissioner shall have power to make inquiry into matters covered by subsections 1 and 2 of section 4, and, for this purpose may exercise the powers conferred upon the commissioners * by subsections 1 and 2 of this section '- section 5. Now, subsection 1 of section 5, gives the commissioners power to summon witnesses to testify and produce documents, and under subsection 2 of section 5, they are given the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases. As I read the Bill, the Tariff Commission shall make a report. But we go on the analogy and in accordance with the practice of the Railway Commission, one commissioner being appointed to take evidence. Let me point out how that works out practically. There are several thousand commodities embraced under the tariff. Unless we make a provision of this kind it would be impossible to make any headway with a revision of the tariff. An inquiry may be going on in British Columbia or Alberta while another is going on in Nova Scotia.
It seems to me it is a common sense provision. It simply means that the commission must go to all (these places and give a hearing, or obtain evidence in

some other way. What we propose to do is to multiply the commission, and I think my hon. friend will see that, as I have pointed out, the matter is well safeguarded. The report of the sub-commission will be made to the commission, and while we are giving one commissioner power to take evidence, his evidence will have to be submitted to the board to be passed upon.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He reports the evidence back to the commission.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).: 1 desire to ask the Minister of Finance if this Bill provides for an investigation into Ithe capitalization of bonds, into the value of the common stock, into the valuation of the physical assets of any ' company ?' According to my reading the Bill does not go that far, it does not contain provisions sufficiently wide to enable the commission to investigate those matters. I think the Bill should provide for that, because there are certain interests that are, perhaps, seeking favours from the government, for instance, the Steel Company, and other corporations, and I think it would be well to have these matters thoroughly investi-' gated so that all the facts may be laid before the commission and before parliament.


William Thomas White: The primary purpose of this Act in appointing the Tariff Commission is not to investigate the matters referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe); but so far as those matters have any bearing at all upon the cost of production-and they have a very important bearing upon the cost of production -then, of course, they would come within the scope of the commission, under section 4.


William Pugsley: In what way would they have a bearing upon the cost of production?


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend can scarcely be serious in suggesting that they might not have a bearing upon the cost of production. Take, for example, the cost of the production of steel; if it was important that we should know the cost of the raw material and of transportation, that is to say, the cost of raw material laid down, is it not important that we should know what capital is invested in a particular business, in order to ascertain what the real cost of production is ? Does my hon. friend mean to suggest that the cost of production does not depend to some extent upon the amount of bond issue upon fixed capital ? Is it not ia factor in connection with ascertaining the cost
of production? In order to ascertain the cost of production of steel to-day, not only what I have said with regard to raw material should be considered, but we should also know, in the case of a particular company, what is its bond issue, how much did its bonds sell for, what aTe its fixed chargee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In that event, then, the capitalization, the bond issue and everything belonging to a company in that line, would enter into the investigation?


William Thomas White: No question about it at all-that is, your fixed charges, that is, your bond issue, what interest is paid. Then in addition, you have your cost of labour and cost of management; and then the question arises how much capital is invested, to what extent is the stock watered, or if it is watered at all.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then it might take cognizance of an over bond-issue.


William Thomas White: The commission has power to go into that to ascertain the cost of production-as I have said, to ascertain what is your fixed charges, how much is your bond-issue, how much have your bonds sold for, what is your interest charges in the course of a year. Then you have the expense of management and the overhead charges as they are called, insurance, &c. Then the question arises how much capital was put in, in the case of an ordinary individual putting in a certain sum of money.


William Pugsley: Take an analogous case, that of a railway company; does the bond-issue or the stock-issue enter at all into the computation of operating expenses?


William Thomas White: If you were pursuing an inquiry as to whether the freight rates, for example, were reasonable or unreasonable, does my hon. friend mean to suggest that we should not take into consideration the bonds, the interest on which must be paid first?


William Pugsley: But your Bill does not provide for that.


William Thomas White: It provides for it in the widest possible manner. My hon. friend will see that section 4 covers all that, as I explained when section 4 was under consideration, * the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere.' All these are pertinent facts. And as I say, in the case of an individual who is producing a commodity of a certain kind, you will show in addition to his own services, and in addition to the cost of labour, and to any fixed charges, how much capital he has in this

business, and what would be a proper or normal profit on that capital.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then the cost of production would vary according to the bond-issue in two analogous companies?


William Thomas White: Not necessarily, because one might have a much larger output than the other. All these are questions of fact that the commissioners, in pursuing an inquiry as to the cost of production of a particular commodity, would have to inquire into, and obtain all the information available, in order to make a finding to show what is the cost of production of any commodity in Canada. All these factors will undoubtedly have to be considered in the inquiry.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me my hon. friend has not answered the point of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). The cost of production cannot be extended to all the points he has just stated. It is obvious that the cost of production depends upon general conditions which affect all parties who are producing in a certain line. The fact that one man has put more water in his stock than another, or the fact that one has been imprudent in his bond-issue and another has been prudent, does not at all affect the cost of production. But the cost of production is regulated by general rules.


William Cameron Edwards: Might it not affect the price to the consumer ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think it can. It can affect the profits of the man who has put his money into the business. But the cost of production is regulated by general rules, which will have to be regulated here. The cost of labour, for instance, is general, so is the price paid in interest on the money markets of the world.
I think it would be proper that these matters should be considered whenever they do affect the cost of production. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for North Ontario should be included in the Bill as matters for the Tariff Commission to investigate. But I do not see how the imprudence of one man, because he does not administer his business properly, can be allowed to affect the cost of production, whenever he comes before the commission and asks for an increase in the tariff on his commodity.


William Thomas White: I do not think my right hon. friend and myself are in disagreement at all. All the factors that have been mentioned undoubtedly enter into the cost of production. But if you have an inquiry into the cost of production, it is obvious that you must consider, among other things, the particular things mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Sharpe). 1 Mr. WHITE (Leeds).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose under the Bill, if it goes into effect, the commissioners were to undertake an inquiry into the watered stock, or otherwise, of any concern, and the manager or the president of the company refuses to disclose the facts, and says, it is none of your business; I would suggest to the minister that in a case of contempt of court the minister should have more extended powers to enable him to go into that inquiry. It is extremely questionable if there is anything in the Act that would enable him to ascertain the conditions of the company. But if the minister is so clear in his mind that he has that power, why not put it in the Bill ?


William Thomas White: You cannot put anything of that kind in specifically without limiting it. As clause 4 is drawn there are the widest possible powers given, and if you attempt in any way to limit it you fetter the commission. Clause 4 as drafted enables the commission to inquire into every factor that enters into the cost of production and, without question, the matters mentioned by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Launer) and the matters mentioned by my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe! are factors entering into the cost of production. I surely do not understand my light hon. friend to suggest that fixed charges are not a factor in the cost of production. Supposing an inquiry is to be made we will say, into the cost of steel, that investigation must take in all the companies which are manufacturing steel. It is true, as the right hon. gentleman has stated, that one might have sold their bonds more prudently than another, that one might have a larger bond issue than another, that one company might have no watered stock, that another company might have watered stock and that a company might have watered stock to a certain amount and stock not watered to a certain amount. These are facts that must be considered by the commission and they must apply their best judgment to the facts in order to form a conclusion as to what should be a reasonable figure at which to place the cost of production of steel in Canada. I pointed out at the time I introduced this Bill that the determination of the cost of production has not been reduced to a science. You may have in one country a cost of production different, from the cost of production in another country, and you will have in the same country a difference in cost at different places and different times in the year. These are all factors entering into the situation, and they will all have to be considered. The fact that there are so many of them should not preclude the commission, or a commissioner, from investigating them. They have to consider all these matters and they have to consider them in order that they may make their finding as best they may

The argument, I have always understood, is, that watered stock, the selling of stock at a discount, and the selling of bonds at a discount, are undesirable, because they do in the end affect the cost to the consumer. If they do not have that result, they are of no importance. Therefore, if you have not only the cost of production, but the .price to the consumer to be inquired into, it is perfectly obvious that the considerations which have been mentioned by my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and hon. gentlemen on the other side, are within the scope of the inquiry which these commissioners may make.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to suggest that the hon. memiber for North Ontario draft an amendment and submit it to the committee. I think it is a matter that is hardly covered by section 4. It is possible that a general inquiry into the capitalization of a company might not come within section 4 and, at the same time, as the Minister of Finance states, it is quite possible that the commissioners could conduct an inquiry to a certain extent into the matter of capitalization. There are two schools of thought upon whether capitalization has riefeirenoe to the cost of production. Some siay that it is not an element in the cost oif production, but that it is an element when you commence to consider what profits isball be added to the cost when once determined. However,	I just rose to	call the
minister's attention again to subsection 3, of section 5. It is suggested bv my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, that it is hardly clear whether the commissioner would report to the minister, or whether the commission itself should report, after having the findings of the commissioner. I was going to suggest to the minister this amendment, although I am not quite satisfied with it myself:	After
the word ' power ' in the first line, you might add the words ' on behalf of the commission.' It would then read:
One commissioner shall have power on be-hr.lf of the commission, &e.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will look at section 4, I am sure that he will agree that it covers the point. It says that the commissioners shall report to the minister. In other words, when the report is made, it is the report of the Tariff Commission. Let me say to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in answer to his argument, that 1 would agree with him, that if stock is watered that should not he a consideration in determining the cost of production. But this commission, being a commission for the purpose of obtaining information, would endeavour to find out how much stock was actually cash. In other words, the commission, in ascertain-Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
ing the cost of production, would say to the man referred to by my right hon. friend: You claim that you should make 5 per cent or 6 per cent, or 8 per cent or 10 per cent, us the case may be, upon your capital stock issued, so we desire to find out how much of your capital is actually bona fide capital, and how much is water. I think my hon. friend may be satisfied that the matters he has referred to, will he matters to be investigated by the commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Who would report under subsection 3, one commissioner or the commission?


William Thomas White: My intention is that it should be the commission.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know that is your intention, but does it say so ?


William Thomas White: For the purpose of getting the best results I believe it is necessary to divide up the work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I approve of the division of the commission.
On section 5,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that whatever evidence would be obtained would be fully reported to the House although the Minister of Finance was not so explicit in his statement in reference to that, but sections 5 and 6 are closely interwoven and they provide for the taking of evidence which may not be submitted to the House. I do not think it proper that this commission should take secret evidence, I believe that this commission should give publicity to every kind of evidence that is submitted to them, and that nothing should enter into their consideration which would not be open to the public and open to parliament. I do not think this proviso for secret evidence is in the best interest of the country or in the best interest of the Department of Finance itself. During the fifteen years that Mr. Fielding was at the head of that department he refused to have anything to do with secrecy of any kind, everybody had to lay his story before him open and above board, and I think that practice should be followed. I move, seconded by Mr. Charlton, in amendment:
That it shall be lawful for the commissioners to hear any application secretly or to receive in writing any representation that is not to be made a publio document.
In my opinion, there should be no objection to publicity being given to everything in the shape of evidence that is submitted to this commission. If the word * unlawful ' sounds harsh, the minister can substitute another word which will carry out my meaning, which Is, that everything pre-

sented to the commission in the shape of evidence should be made public.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would think that probably under subsectioin 4 they could obtain evidence in any way they pleased and that section 5 is not necessary.


William Thomas White: One section provides that they are to make inquiry, and the other provides for the procedure. It appears to me that all sources of information should be open to the commissiqp.


Robert Laird Borden: One section refers to the subject matter of the inquiry and the other provides the method.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The purpose of this section is to relieve the commissioners from the necessity of taking evidence under oath.


William Thomas White: Yes, and to obtain a great deal more information than could be obtained otherwise. This commission will have to accumulate a great deal of information, and they can collect that information from trade reports and all available resources. Then again, they might have to get information in a foreign country and we could not authorize them to compel the attendance of witnesses in such a case.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the idea is to apply this section only to foreign countries, I would have no objection, but in that case you have put this power in the wrong section.
Mr. WHITE, (Leeds). For instance this commission might have an accountant go into the affairs of a company and make a report, and the figures would be submitted' and it surely ought to be open to the commission to act upon that information. Now, if you had a bureau, as has been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of this board, your bureau would have to obtain information * otherwise than by oath and affirmation, and they would act upon it. If a bureau would mean anything in connection with the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance might act on the information obtained by that bureau no matter what source it came from, if the bureau deemed it authentic. There is, in this respect, no difference at all in principle between the two, except that this commission has very much wider powers. This being the case, I cannot >866 what possible objection there can be to subsection 5. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), is looking at it entirely from a judicial standpoint; he seems to have the impression that this commission should not take evidence in any other way than under oath, but my idea is that it should very sparingly resort Mr. McKENZIE.
If you attempt to restrict it you limit the powers of clause 4 which covers everything in respect to the factors relevant to price, cost, conditions of labour and all the conditions affecting manufacture or production in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is perfectly right in what he states as to the object of the commission being to investigate all things that tend to disclose the cost of production. No one doubts that, but the point raised by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) is as to whether the powers conferred by the commission would authorize the commission to investigate the facts stated by him. For instance, a company may come asking for an increase in the tariff. They insist that the cost of production is much more than it is supposed to be by the commission and, desiring to give their reasons for that stand, the commissioners may say:	Very well,
let us look into the cost of production. We find you have put no capital into this enterprise, that it is all watered stock; you have given to the public a large amount of stock in which there is not a dollar but which is all water, and the company might very properly say: This has nothing to do with the cost of production.


William Thomas White: It has a good deal to do with it.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it has nothing to do with the cost of production at all. Now, the company might have a million dollars of that stock. That does not affect the cost of production one iota, and it is quite evident that the object set forth by the hon. member for North Ontario is not served by this Bill. I do not think it is quite clear that the Bill would provide for such a condition. I speak all the more advisedly upon that because the other day upon a Bill which came before this House- I do not want to refer to a past debate, but merely to mention it-we saw how particular we must be when it comes to the interpretation of a statute.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under subsection 2 the minister clothes his commission with the procedure of a court, but under the section we are discussing he deprives them of that procedure.


William Thomas White: It merely provides that it is permissive to the commission to take evidence under oath if they so desire, or to act upon evidence not taken under oath if they deem it advisable.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think under subsection 4 they could obtain evidence in any way they pleased.


William Thomas White: If that is so, what harm is there in defining what they may do, so as to make that point clear should any question arise. In reply to what was said by my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), that my predecessor in office would not hear any confidential information, I may tell him that there is no office in all the departments of the government in which there has been more confidential informa-ion confided to the minister, and properly so, than in the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance is the repository of the business secrets of a great many people. The Minister of Finance meets with all kinds of business people continually, and communications of the most confidential nature are necessarily and properly made to him. My predecessor, and his predecessor before him, were placed in that position time and again. There are hundreds of confidential communications on the files of my office. Now, suppose we had a bureau instead of a commission, and suppose that bureau obtained information as to the financial standing of a company or a firm, or the trade secret of a firm, or the names of customers of a firm, or the trade connections of a firm, does the hon. member suggest "that such information should be made public? I do not believe that public opinion in this
country would for a moment approve of a commission that would pry into business secrets, and make them public.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should we want information of that kind?


William Thomas White: Because we need all the information we can get, and if we have not a provision of this kind in the law we will deprive ourselves of information which we would otherwise get. It is quite possible that the financial standing of a firm might be in a precarious condition at the time the inquiry was being made, and would any one assert that that foot should be made known to the public ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might not this commission consider and act upon certain information, given to it as confidential, without it being so stated in the Bill. What authority is there to compel this commission to disclose confidential information, either to parliament or to any one else. Of course, I agree with the general argument of the minister.


William Thomas White: I believe it valuable to have such a provision in the law, because I believe it will encourage people to give information which they would not give unless they knew they were protected under the statute. It seems to me that the more it is looked into the more the value of that particular subsection will appear. Prima facie, it would seem to be open to objection, but the fact is that confidential information, of the nature referred to here, has been continually placed before the Minister of Finance, whoever he may have been, and has been continually acted upon. This report of the Tariff Commission should be sent on to the office of the minister, with all the information, and if there is any statement which is in its nature confidential, that would injure a firm either in its credit or give its competitors an unheard advantage, then I think, following the usual practice and the precedents which they have held in the past, that that information should not be made up in such a manner as to injure that firm.


William Pugsley: I think on looking at the section itself the minister will agree with me that the discretion is not with the Finance Minister, but with the commission.


William Thomas White: No.


William Pugsley: The subsection does not say that the Finance Minister shall make the information confidential. Is not (this the great objection to the clause: That the commission may be basing their report and taking such action nnder subsection 5, and yet not one particle of that information be

given to the Finance Minister under this Bill ?


William Thomas White: No. we think not.


William Pugsley: Yes. Under this subsection they may get such information >and use it and act upon it, and yet there may not be a particle of that in the records submitted to parliament, and parliament would have no knowledge of , the information upon which these 'commissioners have acted. Now it does seem to me that the evil of leaving these commissioners to act upon information of a private character, which is not to be communicated to parliament, is very much greater than eliminating the clause altogether and simply providing that if there is information of a confidential character the commissioners shall not take it at all. Any evidence that the commissioners may take, either under oath or otherwise, should form a part of the public records of the country, so that parliament -and the country generally can judge of the wisdom, or unwisdom, of the conclusion which they have reached from the information submitted to them.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) will look at section 4 he will observe that the commission has to make inquiry and report to the minister. Not only .must it report to the minister, but if he will look at subsection 5 he will see that
Inquiries under this section shall he conducted in a summary manner and the respective reports to he made pursuant to its provisions, accompanied by a copy of the evidence, if any, taken in connection with the inquiry shall succinctly state the result thereof.


William Pugsley: They can hold back all confidential information.


William Thomas White: No, it does not say so.


William Manley German: Could they not hold back anything which they have taken orally ?


William Thomas White: They must give the results of their inquiries. In other words you must trust the commission with a certain amount of discretion. They could not pass on all the oral evidence they heard. We must look at this matter from a practical standpoint. They could pass on any evidence which they heard, but I imagine they will hear information on a great many things which it will not be possible for them to pass om. However, all this information will come to the minister. In other words, what I would like the House to understand in regard to this Bill, at least as to our conception of it, is this: that the situation is not changed radically at all. I have pointed out to the House that the Finance Minister to-day 'acts on Mr. PUGSLEY.
information which he has on file in the department obtained from a man or two that he has there, and he acts upon information obtained from deputations that interview him from time to time, and he has in addition to that a very great deal of confidential communications in his office which unquestionably influence his mind in connection with tariff matters. I think I can Tecall one budget speech of my predecessor relative to the Tariff Commission going out to take 'evidence, in which he says a great deal of the evidence is given ex parte, that a good deal of it is tinged, so to speak, and evidence that he would not altogether care to rely on; but, at the same time, a very great deal of evidence of a confidential nature did come to him, as it comes to every Minister of Finance, 'and influenced him unquestionably in coming to a conclusion on tariff matters.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If subsection 5 were struck out altogether would it make any difference to the Bill? Would not the commissioners have the same power?


William Thomas White: Except this: while to my hon. friend's intelligence, clause 4 may seem wide enough, he is a lawyer-


An hon. MEMBER.: No he is not a lawyer.


William Thomas White: Well if he is not a lawyer he ought to be one.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Just simply a common farmer.


William Thomas White: If there is any doubt whatever-and there may be a doubt -then they have this specially mentioned power of summoning witnesses and any other mode which might be employed. Therefore I see no harm in having section 5 in for the reason it is to supplement the other provisions. In addition to obtaining evidence under oath they may obtain it in a mode they deem proper so long as they believe the' evidence is authentic. Now with regard to confidential information. As I have said, the Ministers of Finance in the past have acted on all classes of information, and when they have come down to parliament with a tariff they have had to prove their case as best they could, 'they would give, I have no doubt, certain facts of which they were sure, which they had obtained in such a manner as they might be able to, in order to substantiate whatever tariff changes they proposed, but confidential communications in their office were never brought down, and the practice under this would be in no way different. All this information will come into the Minister of Finance's office and will be departmental papers precisely as it would be departmental information in the case of the suggested bureau. Now upon a return be-
35(i9

ing called for by this House the information would be brought down in precisely the same way as it would be brought down in the case of a bureau. If any confidential information was obtained by the bureau or by the minister that information would not be brought down, has not been brought down, and should not be brought down.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Why have the clause in, you are only making trouble for yourself.


William Thomas White: My answer to my hon. friend is this: it is desirable to encourage people to give information' helpful to the commission. Now if this provision is not in the Act the fact will be known and, therefore, men will not be as certain of their ground as they would be if the requirement were there. Now my hon. friend approves of the principle and I understood him to say he did not see any harm in putting something in the Act to show the business men clearly that they will be protected, under the provisions of this Bill, if they give information which in its nature is confidential, the publication of which might injure them in some way. It seems to me there can be no possible objection to that.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Will the minister tell me what this section means when it provides that the information shall not be made public by the commission in such a manner as to be available for use by any business competitor or rival? Does the minister say that information shall not be brought down to parliament? Is that what he intends by that provision? He has told us about the different Finance Ministers and the information which they received. Everybody knows that Ministers of Finance receive information in regard to matters of public welfare and this is made a matter of record; and it appears on file in the department, and I have never yet heard any Finance Minister in my short parliamentry experience refuse to bring down any papers relating to the public business of the country.


Mr. CURRIE.: Mr. Fielding refused to bring down letters on the subject of reciprocity.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: They were private communications, not dealing with matters which come within the purview of what we are discussing here. Suppose that any public body interested in the tariff sent a delegation here to wait upon the Finance Minister, and they put their statement in writing and it became a matter of record. That would be all right, but can it be argued that parliament should abandon its right to have before it the information upon which the government acted, unless 113
it was of such a confidential character as comes within the well defined rules of parliamentary practice?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is in the practice not only of the Department of Finance, but in other departments of the government not to bring down certain information.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That is well understood.


Robert Laird Borden: On confidential matters.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Within the well understood parliamentary practice.


Robert Laird Borden: And in respect to matters with which parliament has to deal.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That is well defined by all the books on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: For example-one of hundreds of illustrations that might be given some portions of the correspondence relating to the construction of the National Transcontinental were not brought down to parliament in the first instance, though the information was moved for. I am not criticising the action of the government of that day in that regard, but simply giving this as an illustration. The correspondence was brought down subsequently.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: If we have a well defined railway rule to which we can resort to understand parliamentary practice in this matter and know what is confidential in its nature, and if it is proposed by this section to extend that in any way-the Minister of Finance says that it is not. Then, why put it in?


William Thomas White: The object is that business people and others giving information may feel certain that they will be protected. As between government and parliament there is no change under the Bill. But, if there were no such rule as this, based upon common sense and experience, that confidential communications should not be brought down, the effect would be that there would be no confidential communications and the Minister of Finance and the government would be denied information that might be of the greatest possible value. Take the. case which has been instanced of a deputation coming, presenting their views and handing in a memorandum. That memorandum becomes public property and would be brought down to the House. But suppose the minister says to one company that has been a party to it: I would like to know your financial position. Or suppose that in supplementing the memorandum a company should write giving its balance sheet and saying: You see we are in a precarious condition. But if they indicated by marking the letter ' private ' or * not official ' that they did not

desire these the facts made public, then, under the unvarying rule, such a communication would not be brought down. This Bill does not effect any change in that respect. This commission is merely ancillary to government for the purpose of obtaining information such as up to this time we have obtained in another way, and, therefore, we make it subject to the same rule that has always prevailed with regard to confidential communications.


William Pugsley: Does not this subsection 6 provide that the commissioners themselves may suppress sworn testimony-


Arthur Meighen: It says they shall not make it public.


William Pugsley: Is not that the same thing? What, then, does it mean? It means that they shall not transmit it with their official report.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does not section 4 control that, in. its provision that the commission shall report to the minister?


William Pugsley: But this subsection 6 of section 5 qualifies that when it says that certain evidence or information ' shall not be made public by the commission,' as by sending in their report they would make it public.


Arthur Meighen: Section 4 provides that all evidence shall be reported; and it does not confine it to evidence upon oath, or even to verbal evidence.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: But, on that point, this subsection 6 of section 5 refers to ' evidence or information.' That distinguishes between evidence sworn and information given otherwise.


Arthur Meighen: If it is information that cannot be called evidence of any character, then, it does not come under the provision regarding the reporting of evidence under subsection 5 of section 4. But all information or evidence must be reported by the commission. Unless that is qualified, of course, it carries its weight throughout the Bill. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) argues that subsection 6 of section 5 qualifies that and authorizes the commission to subtract from the report to the minister such information as may be confidential. But the Bill does not say that. It says the commission shall not make public that part of the inquiry that is confidential. That does not say that it shall not be reported to the minister. But the commission, in the very hearing of the testimony might make it public, and might be compelled to make it public unless released from that obligation by subsection 6 of section 5. That subsection authorises them to refrain from making public ; Mr WHITE (Leeds'
evidence of that character, but does not release them from the obligation of reporting it to the minister. The minister must get it. Then, when it has reached the minister, it is in exactly the same position as other communications that come to him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) say that the report of this commission is in the same position as a private letter received by the minister?


Arthur Meighen: In this respect, it is. The situation as between minister and parliament is altogether unchanged.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that the minister having received a report based upon sworn testimony, can refuse to bring that down to parliament, because he thinks it confidential.


Arthur Meighen: I have not said that. But I say that if the minister could have refused before, he can refuse now. As between the minister and parliament matters are in the same position as if there were no Bill. And it has been the practice that the minister receiving communications and reports is the judge of what is confidential and what is not, and what he deems confidential, does not come down to parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman does not forget


Arthur Meighen: I do not forget the speech of the Minister of Finance on this point


Wilfrid Laurier: But he forgets that when we were on section 4, an hon. member moved that the commission, instead of reporting to the minister, should report to parliament, and then it was stated that what came before the commission would toe brought down to parliament.
Mr. MEIGH0N. Subject to this limitation.


William Thomas White: I mentioned that specifically.


Wilfrid Laurier: One can well understand that if one communicates with a minister he has the right to set the seal of secrecy upon his communication. That is obvious. But the Minister of Finance has referred several times to the fact that we on this side were satisfied with a bureau of statistics. So we were. But he was not; he wanted to have a commission; and, as I understood it, this commission is intended to be a court for collecting evidence.
Then if the court is to receive evidence, and if any man comes before the court to give evidence, he should be told: What you say here shall not be treated as eon-

fidential; if you don't want to have it published to the world, then don't give it at all. This commission, if it is to serve any good purpose, is to collect information, not for the minister alone, but for parliament also. You are arguing now that the commission may collect information which the minister may keep to himself, and not disclose to parliament. I do not think that is the way the commission should proceed. Anything that is given to the commission ought to be given to parliament.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the point raised by the right hon. gentleman is the same as that raised by the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), w'hich I have answered, namely, that there is no restriction whatever which would relieve the commission of their obligations to report to the minister. As to the point raised by the right hon. gentleman, he says that inasmuch as parliament sees fit to appoint a commission instead of a statistical bureau, and the commission is in the nature of a court of inquiry, that necessarily evidence given before it to be transmitted to the minister is to be laid before parliament. Now there is nothing that should be public property that will not be public property after this Bill goes through. Every such piece of information presented to the minister before without the medium of a commission that was public property, and that was presented to parliament, will still be public property. Then the question arises: Is it advisable to give the commission power to go beyond that, is it advisable not to restrict the commission from investigating the private affairs of a company, and reporting that to the minister because the commission is a commission. Now that is the only question before us. If the right hon. gentleman takes the responsibility of saying that it is better to have all that shut out, that it is better for the minister to keep his eyes closed to all those facts simply because this is a court of inquiry instead of a statistical bureau, he takes the responsibility of fettering the commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not object to the minister's eyes being opened, but I object to his eyes being closed.


Arthur Meighen: As the minister has pointed out, the course suggested by the right hon. gentleman will have the effect of closing the eyes of the minister and the eyes of every one else, because the evidence will never be given under these circumstances. There is nothing which was made public before that will not be made public now. No evidence of the character that before was necessarily 113i
public and came before the minister, will now be confidential. But it is in the public interest that the commission be not fettered from making such inquiries and such reports to the minister as are in their nature confidential, because we believe it is in the public interest to do so. I do not apprehend that there will be much evidence of this character. But it might on certain points be vital, and it is in the public interest that the minister should have it.


William Pugsley: I object to this Tariff Commission, which is to all intents and purposes to be a court, being allowed to act upon, and to report upon, and form their judgment upon information which is not to be submitted to parliament, and of which parliament or the public is not to have the benefit. We are taking a new departure now, the majority of the House has decided that these inquiries in future are not to be made by a branch of the government, but they are to be made by an independent tribunal, whose judgment it is supposed will be the justification of- action to be taken by parliament in regard to tariff matters.


Arthur Meighen: Why should that new departure affect any confidential communications?


William Pugsley: I will tell the hon. gentleman why _ it should affect proceedings bo far as evidence is concerned. At present, if the minister makes a change in the tariff, although there may be private communications upon which he has acted, he can be questioned with regard to the information upon which he has acted, he can be questioned with regard to the exercise of his judgment, and will be obliged to give to parliament a substantial reason for making an alteration in the tariff. But in the case of an independent board, if this Bill passes, even the minister might not know the information upon which his board is acting.


Richard Blain: The board does not act.


William Pugsley: It does. Under subsection 5 of section 5, the board may obtain information, upon which they may act, and yet not submit it to the minister. Let me read subsection 5:
For the purposes of any inquiry under this Act, the commissioners may obtain information which in their judgment is authentio, otherwise than under the sanction of an oath or affirmation, and use and act upon such information.


Richard Blain: According to the statement of my hon. friend, the Tariff Commission would have power to make changes in the tariff. As I understand it, they only re-

port to the minister, and it is the government that makes the changes in the tariff.


William Pugsley: The commission would have power to report in favour of such and such action being taken, and they need not submit to the minister the information upon which they base that report.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman liim

self has been a minister of the Crown, and so has the right hon. leaner ot the opposition. This Bill deals with the revenues of the Crown. Both hon. gentlemen know that the Customs Department can proceed and take evidence under oath. Information may be given relative to somebody smuggling goods into the country,' and the department may take evidence under oath with reference to that. They may fine a man, and he has no recourse, and the department need not disclose that evidence nor even the names of the witness. Even this House has no power to compel the evidence or the names to be made public. Now, this Bill is exactly on a par. It deals with the revenues of the country. It is desirable that information should be got from all sources. It assumes an old prerogative of the Crown, that the commission will have a right- to obtain that evidence; to say that that evidence must be made public, I think is going far beyond what any minister of the Crown or parliament have gone heretofore.


Wilfrid Laurier: The two cases are not parallel at all. My hon. friend cites the case of a man who has been fined by the Department of Customs for infringing the Customs Act. That is an individual case, a direct case. Then, according to the law, the minister deals with that case, and he deals with it secretly; you cannot call for the papers under those circumstances. But here is a law which is passed, not to carry out an existing law, but to obtain information upon which to frame a tariff, the most important of all laws, because it relates to the collection of the revenue. This law is to supply general information upon which we can form our judgment as to what we should do in any individual case, what duties we should impose upon -such and such an article. That is the object of the commission, to collect evidence to enable us to form our judgment-. It is an open court to select evidence which can be digested. The two things are not at all on a par.


John Allister Currie: I think the two things are on a par. In the one case, the right hon. gentleman says we deal with the -administration of the law. Nowr complaint has been made; and no doubt the right Mr. BLAIN.
hon. gentleman knows himself how difficult it was during the last parliament to get any information with reference to tariff matters, or to the operations of the industries of the country. One of the great outstanding facts brought out last session was that the government had no information of any kind with regard to proposed tariff changes.
One of the great difficulties in connection with getting information is that, if yon establish a tribunal that has power to compel witnesses to give information, you must necessarily dig into private affairs just as much as you dig into people's private affairs when a man from the Customs Department goes into a warehouse and says to the owner:	You have goods here
that you have smuggled and we are going to fine you $10,000. He pays the money and that is the end of it. This Tariff Commission is to be empowered to go into any factory or among any class of the community for the purpose of obtaining information. For instance, it could compel the Grange to appear and it_ could question its members privately with regard to some matter concerning the farming industry. It will do exactly what the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs have always done in the past. It is simply an extension of the old prerogative on the same lines and it is a very wise proceeding. It would be very unjust and unfair to compel people to come before this commission and to give evidence relating to their private business and have their affairs published to the world.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: My right hon. friend does not agree with me.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is altogether wrong. I would not compel any man to give evidence that ought not to be made public, and I would not give authority to these commissioners to take evidence which might not be made public.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is not the cost of production a confidential matter? Surely you would not want the cost of production to be made known to competitors in some line of business? You nullify the whole effect of the Act unless you empower the commission to investigate into the cost of production.


Air. OLIVER.: Surely the citizens who have to pay the taxes that are going to be based upon tlje information collected have just as much right to and interest in a full knowledge of the information as the commission or as the government. They claim that right.


Mr CURRIE.: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says

that he would not compel a man to give evidence that ought not to be made public. This commission compels him to give evidence. We will say that a consumer complains to the commission that there is a certain article that is being sold at a very high price and that there is a combine existing; or a purchaser might say that this combine is selling goods cheaper to his next door neighbour than it is to himself. This commission can compel everybody to appear before it and give evidence. But, if you eliminate the possibility of compelling people to give evidence, you only have oral statements and hearsay. The right hon. gentleman has been so accustomed to going by oral statements and hearsay evidence that he cannot understand how it is possible to get down to facts.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is mistaken. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us that the Budget was made by rule of thumb whereas Mr. Fielding never did anything of that kind. But my hon. friend will compel a man to give evidence about his business, compel him to disclose it altogether, for the benefit of the Minister of Finance who will put it in his bosom, who will not give it to me or to any of my hon. friends but who will prepare his tariff with it. We will ask him for it and he will say: I cannot give you the information. That is surely not the purpose of this commission. This commission, if it means anything, has for its object the collection of evidence which will be available to every member of parliament, nay, to every voter in this country. Unless that is the object, the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. The object we have in view is to disseminate knowledge. I state again, as has been said by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that the man who pays the taxes will be interested to know upon what information the law is made that compels him to pay his taxes. The commission say to a man who wants a change in tariff that he must disclose everything in connection with his business, but that the information thus secured shall not be brought before the public. On the other hand I would say to him: You are not compelled to give any evidence in this court, but any evidence which you do give shall be made public.


William Thomas White: That would simply mean that a very large and important body of information would not be available to the minister at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


William Thomas White: Is that a desirable situation or not? Is it going to do any harm if the minister or the government is in possession of information which would otherwise not be open to them, even
if the commission should resort to coercion by reason of their power of summoning witnesses and compelling evidence? My hon. friend seems to go a certain distance and then he says:	Now, stop; you must
not obtain any other information. I think he is overlogical in regard to this. How does it work out? The tariff may not be brought down to an absolute nicety. Both my predecessor and his predecessor had to content themselves with information obtained from committees, deputations and interviews. They had a great deal of confidential information, and if my hon. friend will read the speeches of my predecessor he will find that he said something like this: It has been made apparent to us, or from information we are satisfied that such and such is so. We have not had any sinister or untoward results flow from information of that kind. All we are doing is obtaining more information than possibly could be obtained under the old system by a tariff commission, and if we are also obtaining some information which is guarded by the seal of confidence we are not in any way changing the situation. The situation is precisely the same as it has been.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will tell my hon. friend what my conception of this law is. As was stated by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, this is a new departure. We used to obtain information in the way which has been stated by the Minister of Finance. The minister got it, some of it was confidential and some of it was not. But, we have now a new departure and my conception of this Bill is that it ought fo be to get information for the benefit not only of the Minister of Finance: but for every member of this parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: The information obtained under the old system was not solely forth e benefit of the Minister of Finance; it was for the benefit of the government and of parliament. The information would be used in the preparation of the budget, and it would be disclosed in so far as it was not confidential. It is proposed now to gather this information in a more systematic and thorough way. Ought there to be a change in so far ad confidential' information is concerned? I cannot see any reason for any change in that regard Further than that, the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) has spoken of the possibility of sworn information not being disclosed to parliament. What is the difference in principle as to whether you obtain that information not under the sanction of an oath or under the sanction of an oath?
It might be desirable for the considerations mentioned in this section and for other considerations not to bring it down in parliament.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose evidence i,s taken in connection with the woollen schedule, and some of it is regarded as confidential and some not, then if a member moves that all the evidence taken in regard to the woollen schedule should be laid on the table, would this section restrict the right of the member to so move?


Robert Laird Borden: In any case, the government must take the responsibility for producing or not producing any * evidence. If parliament does not consider that the government has given good reason for withholding any information, parliament is perfectly at liberty to pass a resolution accordingly. My right hon. friend would not say that because this information is to be gathered in a more systematic way by a commission than by a bureau, that the considerations which would govern the information obtained by the bureau should not be applied to the information obtained by the commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: But there we are establishing a board to obtain information, and if that be so the information it obtains should be public.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: Is it intended that the evidence taken before these commissioners shall be open to the public or will it be a private investigation, a star-chamber proceeding? I would think it should certainly be open to the public.


William Thomas White: I am very much surprised that my hon. friend should even suggest such a thing as a star-chamber in a country like Canada. I do not know whether he does so on account of any past experience. The hearings before the commission, I assume, will be open.


William Pugsley: Then how can section 6 be made applicable? If the evidence is to be taken in public how could it be confidential?


William Thomas White: Subject to the *exception in the statute.


William Pugsley: Then the commissioners would have to know in advance that certain information of a confidential nature was about to be produced and would have to exclude the public at that point. The matters covered by section 4, the prices of raw materials, the cost of production, the cost of construction in Canada, the cost and conditions of labour, the prices receiv-


Robert Laird Borden: ed by producers involve inquiries into the books of individuals, firms and companies.


William Thomas White: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that it should be a star-chamber?


William Pugsley: No.


William Thomas White: That is what your argument amounts to.


William Pugsley: No, but the moment you give the commissioners power to exclude the public while certain evidence is given under oath you make it a star-chamber inquiry.


William Thomas White: I presume that when the inquiry approaches a point where information confidential in its nature is about to be elicited, the witness could claim privilege or the court say that the information should not be made public. The alternative would be simply a star-chamber throughout. The public would not sustain a commission which would divulge information that would injure business houses. Even in an ordinary court it- is common for a judge to receive information that is confidential.


William Pugsley: Never.


William Thomas White: A name for instance.


William Pugsley: Any judge who would decide a case through information obtained otherwise than by evidence given in open court would not be discharging his duty properly.


William Thomas White: There is a great deal of discretion reposed in a judge. Either this information will not be obtained and consequently will not be available, or some such clause as this will have to be in the Bill. I do not see anything gained by leaving it out.


William Manley German: The Finance Minister stated this afternoon that the files of his department are loaded with private information which he would not divulge. There is nothing statutory to prevent him from giving out that private information and what is to prevent such private information coming to the Finance Minister in the future as in the past? My own opinion is that this commission, appointed and paid by this parliament, should report to this parliament and that all their evidence should be submitted to us. The best Tariff Commission this country has ever seen was the Tariff Commission, self-appointed in 1896.


William Thomas White: That is up to date.


William Manley German: The best up to date and better than this one will be in my opinion. That commission went throughout Canada

and made full inquiry into the whole business situation of the country. They did not make a decision by rule of thumb. The late Finance Minister submitted a tariff which met with the approval of the people of the whole country and for fifteen years with the approval of the present Finance Minister, the best tariff I believe that Canada ever had. I doubt very much if we can improve on it. I think it is quite proper to have inquiries made. I am not in favour of a permanent Tariff Commission.
I think it is quite well to have a Tariff Commission with ample authority to make all inquiries in regard to the trade situations of this country, but I think, Sir, that the evidence taken by that ' commission should be reported to parliament together with the commission's views on that evidence, and I think that should be made plain. I do not think that the commission should he allowed to hear evidence under oath, ox any private conversation, that is not reported to parliament. Let those gentlemen who want to make their private suggestions to the Finance Minister make them, and let the Minister of Finance keep that information secret, as has been done in the past without any statutory provision to compel it to he done. But that this parliament should authorize a commission of gentlemen to inquire into the trade conditions of the country and to take evidence and report on that evidence to the Minister of Finance without making that evidence public, I think it wrong in principle, ia<nd will be detrimental to the interests of the country.


William Thomas White: My bon. friend (Mr. German) has gone hack to section 4, which was debated at length the other day. Now, I think it has been stated from this side a score of times that the information that will come to the Minister of F'mance will be brought down to this House the same as any other information on record in the Department of Finance or in any other department. If there is any doubt about that I want to clear it up now. That information will be brought down. There has been absolutely no departure from the principle which has obtained in this House. If the information is in the departments here it is subject to the demand of parliament, there is no question about that. My hon. friend said why not report to parliament. Let me tell him one reason why that course should not he adopted. In the first place-as I pointed out this afternoon, and it seems to me a reason of the greatest weight-the time when the government has ito consider the question of the tariff is between sessions. There is no time in the life of busy ministers, as any hon. gentleman opposite knows who has been in the ministry, to consider such an important matter as the tariff. Now if the suggestion
of my hon. friend that the commission should report only to parliament, when would the scores of reports they should be studying and considering between sessions be available for 'the minister ? My hon. friend fails to perceive that we are working -under a system of responsible government. The government is responsible to this House and the country, and we want to -ask this Tariff Board to pursue these investigations and report to us. When tbej are made to the Minister of Finance they are made to the government. The government will have them just as it has the reports which are on file in the Department of Finance and in the other departments to-day. There is absolutely no departure in principle. There will be confidential information given. My hon. friend (Mr. German) fails to perceive it is not possible to hold 'an investigation, such as is contemplated under section 4 of this Act, into the affairs of an industrial concern, into the affairs of the commercial concern, without happening across information which in its very nature is private, which in its very nature if it were published might do considerable damage to the firm by giving a trade rival am insight into the methods of that firm which would be 'extremely detrimental to it. If my hon. friend will realize that there is -absolutely no difference in principle between the system which will obtain under this Aot and the system ini vogue 'at the present time, he will have gone far to understand this Bill and clear up his doubts in the matter. Hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon, suggested a bureau. Well, that bureau would have power to investigate an industrial plant, or a steel company, or any industry. They put accountants in, and those accountants would obtain a great deal of information. Some of that information is confidential. It is impossible to conduct an investigation by a commission without happening upon information that is confidential in its nature. It is precisely that kind of information that must be protected. It would be unreasonable to allow an investigation into the affairs of a firm if it is to be published to the world in all its particulars. If that were proposed to be done, public opinion would not justify the creation of a Tariff Commission; I think that must appeal to common sense. If my hon. friend will simply bear in mind that this is necessary to the government for the purpose of obtaining information, that nearly all the information they obtain, will be valuable, but in order to protect confidential information from publication which would do damage to those giving it, the difficulties which he seems to be afraid of would disappear, because most of them, I submit, are fanciful. The reason this provision is put in, as I have already explained, is this; it is

an additional assurance to men who have come forward and given their evidence, and who then would be quite willing that evidence should be obtained. Mr. Emery of the Tariff Board of the United States, says that men have been very willing there to give information, and that such a clause as we have in our Act is necessary, in order to protect witnesses. When a business man produces his books, his list of customers, his trade secrets and his business processes for the inspection of the commission, does any one seriously contend that all that information should be divulged to the public? I think, upon reflection, my hon. friend will see that is not a reasonable position.


William Pugsley: Why would the commissioners want evidence under oath as to secret trade processes, and that sort of thing? Why should they take any evidence, except that which has a direct bearing upon the matters which they are there to investigate? Furthermore, why should they draw conclusions and report their opinions without the facts upon which they make the report being available for the information of parliament?


William Thomas White: I am glad my hon. friend drew my attention to the point, because I failed to answer the argument that he advanced before. He is of the opinion that the only way that information will be obtained, will be by judicial proceedings. The commission may obtain information in a hundred different ways, and put their expert accountants into the offices of a firm to investigate. For example, one man may be making a saving in the cost of production, due to some business process, or some better method that he has over a rival, and then with regard to an industry at a critical time in the history of that industry, they would find any number of firms that were really in a precarious condition. That investigation would disclose they were nof making money, but were running behind so much every year. Now, that is information of a very confidential character. My hon. friend surely does not mean to say that the commission should publish the fact that A, B and C were in a certain line of business, were losing money, and that their business was in a precarious condition? It is surely to safeguard things of this kind that this clause is inserted, and it must be inserted, because, as I have said, the public would not permit a commission unless it were safeguarded; and in the second place, it is advisable that it should be inserted to give an assurance to business men who, knowing the subsection is there, will give information which otherwise they would not give at all. In other words, this subsection is absolutely in aid. not in obstruction, of the commission ob-Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
taining information which they would never otherwise obtain at all. I think that upon full consideration of these arguments, hon. gentlemen opposite will say that it is a necessary clause, otherwise you are forced back to this alternative: You are going to be denied a class of information that would be very useful. But you are not any further on even if you strike out this subsection. I mean to say, that, with this in the Bill, you do get the further information, but without * it you do not get that information.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), knows very well that no coercion will enable you to extort from men information, the publication of which will mean injury to their business. You might succeed in extorting some information, but you cannot get all the information you need. And you should not extort such information in any ease. It is not right. The public will stand behind this section, because it is plain business sense. There is not a man in this House who, being in business, would submit to have his whole business made known to his rivals-his better methods would perhaps have been devised by himself or have cost him money


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is there any necessity for that?


William Thomas White: There might be. If there is not, the clause will not be operative. It is only to provide for a case that may arise.


William Manley German: The minister is assuming that some business men are going to give evidence to this commission, and through them to the Minister of Finance, which might be a detriment to their business. No man in business is going to give any information, private or public, that would be detrimental to his personal interest. The evidence he is going to give, and the only evidence he will give, will be evidence to show that he needs higher tariff protection.


William Thomas White: Perhaps the hon. member (Mr. German), will allow me to ask him a question. Assuming _ what he says to be true, what is the objection to the clause? If no such information is given, the clause will not be operative.


William Manley German: The objection to my mind is just this, and the fear is just this -that this commission is to be appointed with a view to increasing the protective tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: That may or may not
be true, but it certainly has a strong hold

on the minds of the people of the country that that is the object of the commission.


John Allister Currie: Is the hon. gentleman a low tariff man or a free trader?


William Manley German: I am in favour of fair, moderate protection to the industries of this country. But I think that the fairest protection that the industries of this country can have is 'the protection they have had for 15 years. As I was saying, there is this underlying fear that the commission may be composed of high tariff men-I am not saying that it will be; I heard the other day in Toronto who was to be the chairman, and if the information is correct, that end of the commission will certainly be on the high protection side.


William Thomas White: If he is a good man I will be delighted to tell the House, because, I am looking for a good churman.


William Manley German: For a good many years he was a Liberal. He is a good man, but a high protectionist. If the commissioners are all of the same kind, is it not possible for them to get private, oral evidence to make their reports to the minister on lines that will go to justify high protection? And if that is done, the ministers can shield themselves behind the report of their commission who, they can plead, have gone throughout the country and made a full investigation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: Well, I am afraid that that is what they will do; and there is a very strong feeling in the country that that is what they will do. The ministers will shield themselves behind the report, and it will be a report based on evidence that is not absolutely true to the facts, because it will be coloured by personal feeling or personal interest. There is the difficulty I see in regard to this Tariff Commission.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman bases his case on a series of ' ifs,' none of which will eventuate.


William Manley German: 'If 5 it does not happen all right.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman's mind is full of suspicion. I suppose he thinks it impossible to create a fairmind-ed tribunal. I do not know his experience, but I would hate to think it impossible to pick out three disinterested, fairminded men


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Who are they to be?


William Thomas White: I should be glad of suggestions. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald,- Pictou) is
available. He is certainly a fair-minded
man, outside of politics, but when it comes to politics, he is not so fair-minded.


William Pugsley: The newspapers say that the hon. member for York is to be one of the commissioners.


William Thomas White: The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean)?


William Pugsley: The hon. member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket).


William Thomas White: I have heard that newspapers have reported a number of gentlemen as about to be appointed on that commission. 1 have had a great number of applications. If there is any man in Canada who does not think he is fitted to sit on that commission I would like to know. I think it is possible to choose men who are not going to look at this matter from a standpoint of high tariff or low tariff, men who have a talent for economic investigation and who will regard the subject fairly. And I believe that those who want information with regard to the tariff, with regard to the dark places in the tariff, are the farmers and consumers; and I say that this Tariff Commission is more in the interests of the consumers and the farmers than it is in the interest of the manufacturers. I think it is in the interest of all. What is the purpose of the Tariff Commission?


Frank Oliver: To raise the tariff, of course.


William Thomas White: The purpose of the Tariff Commission is to secure information. Now, there cannot be any harm in obtaining information; you can not know too much about the facts. Our methods with relation to the tariff in the past have been hugger-mugger methods, go-as-you-please methods, rule-of-thumb methods, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. But this government comes in with a proposal for a commission to investigate this matter and obtain information, and hon. gentlemen opposite, who can find no fault with the Bill itself-for they cannot find in it, high tariff or low tariff-declare that they are fearful and suspicious, and to justify this declaration they conjure up spectres of various kinds. They say they fear that we will appoint a high tariff commission. We have responsible government in this country, and this government is responsible to the House and to the people, and must do right or the people will hold them to account. The government will be held responsible for the appointments they make, and in the last analysis, for the work of the commission. My hon. friends opposite are a little inconsistent,^ for, 1 believe, most of them believe in this measure. And I am the first to say that

the measure should be debated because it is a departure from old methods. But now they suggest a statistical bureau. For what reason? To get information? They never made any such, suggestion until this Bill was brought down. If such a bureau was a good thing, why did not they create it five years ago or earlier? Was it because they did not feel the want of information? or because they preferred to act without information? This Tariff Commission is simply a bureau clothed with powers that could not be given to a bureau. The men appointed will be the kind of men, we hope, who will make an impartial investigation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which indicates that the gentlemen who are to be appointed will be high tariff men, or moderate tariff men, or low tariff men, or free traders; and anything said as to the kind of men that will be appointed is entirely without foundation, because, as a matter of fact, not one of the men has yet been selected.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Section 5 gives the commission the right to obtain information without taking it under oath, and section 6 says that any information they take should not be given by one firm to another, they need not make it public. Now, I agree that there may be a good deal of information that probably should not be made public, that is, if the commission goes into the inquiry as far as it is sug-' gested. For instance, information as to the process of manufacture should not be made public. I can imagine that there are many things people would object to say if they thought it was going to be made public. But after all, this Tariff Commission is appointed by the government, and have we a right to say that any evidence given before that commission should not be at the disposal of this parliament? I doubt it. I appreciate that there are many private communications given to the minister which he is at liberty to keep to himself; but the Tariff Commission, I think, is in a different position. But supposing these two sections 4 and 5 were stricken out entirely, would not the commission have the right to take evidence otherwise than under oath?


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend must have been out this afternoon, because I have explained that many times over. Number 4 shows the scope of the Tariff Commission; it shall make inquiry as to certain specified things already mentioned. Number 5 deals entirely with procedure in obtaining information. Now, if we struck that out I have no doubt the commission might, in the exercise of its discretion, obtain the information which is mentioned in Number 4, and also keep Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
it as confidential. But I have explained why that is put in. In the first place, it is to remove a doubt, and there can never be objection to putting in a clause to remove a doubt; it is to show that they may act upon information not obtained under the sanction of an oath. Further, it is an advantage that a clause safeguarding confidential information should be in the Bill, for the reason that parties outside may be willing to give confidential information of this nature if they know that their communications will be protected by a subsection in this Act; I think these clauses should remain in the Bill.


William Pugsley: For one, I am not yet convinced, notwithstanding that we are' feeling so good on this side of the House, that I would be willing to do almost anything to cause even a momentary pleasure to my hon. friend; but in the public interest, I do not think we should do so. I move that section 5 be amended by striking out subsection 6. I do not think it is necessary. How would it do to dispose of the amendment already moved to subsection 6?


William Thomas White: When we resumed the sitting I had an amendment which we had considered. I think its substance is the same as suggested by my hon. friend. This amendment, I think, will add nothing to the Bill, except to make a little more clear what the hon. gentleman had in his mind. My own idea is mat the commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, and in the conduct of their proceedings, would be very glad to give a reasonable opportunity to all who might desire to be heard, that is, to take evidence on a particular inquiry, and if any one desires to be heard, I assume they would give reasonable opportunity to parties to be heard. I think that is what the commission would do, but there is no reason why it should not be made clear if there is any doubt. Therefore, I suggest the following as subsection 2, to section 6:
The commissioners shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been so summoned to appeaT before them and give evidence upon oath or solemn affirmation as aforesaid, orally or in writing, upon any matter relating to the inquiry which is being held by the commission.
It is practically the same. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), got very excited when he was dealing with an amendment which gave absolute right to any number of persons to come in and pile up evidence on any subject, no matter whether the commissioners were dealing with that subject or not. I do not think the hon. gentleman quite understood the situation. ' Shall take evidence of person or persons.' That simply means that the

commission would carry on its proceedings in the most desultory fashion imaginable.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), said he would accept the amendment which I sent to my hon. friend. We have gained two things in Canada to-day.


William Thomas White: You have one or two things to your credit for Canada, I know, but they are set off against a great many other things. However, I am very glad to see my hon. friend in such good humour. He is usually in good humour, but I have not seen hon. gentleman opposite very happy for a long time:	They
looked gloomy the other day when we brought in the ' implementing ' Bill.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: How is the Minister of Finance himself feeling to-night?


William Thomas White: He is feeling fairly well, thank you.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: You are not looking very well.


William Thomas White: I feel reasonably well.


William Pugsley: I wonder how the Minister of Trade and Commerce now feels about that poison which he said would be injected into the veins of the government if the election went against them.


William Thomas White: I think you will find that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite able to answer for himself and if my hon. friend will renew the question when he returns from Toronto, where, I believe he, is today, I think he will get an answer which will be in keeping with the ability of my hon. colleague to take care of himself. The only reason I am explaining this at some length is because the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) stampeded a little this afternoon. There can be no difference between us when I make the explanation that there is no objection whatever to a reasonable opportunity being given to persons to state their views in any particular inquiry.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is all I want.


William Thomas White: What I had in my mind to-day was one or ten or twenty persons coming in, offering such evidence as they might feel disposed to offer and having a perfect right to insist upon being heard. You will not find a clause like that in any statute, the railway Act or any ether. This subsection, I think will make a little clearer the intention of the Bill with respect to this matter:
Tlhe commissioners shall give reasonable opportunity to persons who may not have been so summoned to appear before them and give
evidence upon oath or solemn affirmation aforesaid, orally or in writing, upon any matter relating to the inquiry then being held by the commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Orally or in writing?


Robert Laird Borden: It follows the previous clause.


William Thomas White: We will put that in subsection 2.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to say that I am very much satisfied with the clause as the minister has moved it. I am very glad that he is giving the people an opportunity to be heard. That is all I want.


William Thomas White: We always intended to give them an opportunity.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In the practical working out of this matter I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how notice of the sittings or examinations or investigations into particular schedules will be given to the public? Is it the intention to publish the dates of the sittings and what will there be considered, or how will the various interests be notified? For instance, if they are going to discuss the cement schedule or the steel schedule or any such schedule will the interests be given public notice of it or in what way will the various parties receive notice?


William Thomas White: Having put this clause in I feel that very great discretion must necessarily be reposed in the _ commission. I assume that the commission will, of course, carry out their duties in such a way as is best calculated to effectuate the intention of the Bill, namely, to obtain information, and I have no doubt they will give notice of their sittings. I think that if these matters were too closely prescribed we might fetter the commission in carrying out the work entrusted to them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If I remember correctly the last part of the amendment that the minister read stated that persons would have an opportunity ' to give evidence upon the subject under investigation '?


William Thomas White: Upon the subject of inquiry.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I want to know to what extent that goes. Supposing, as an illustration, that they were investigating the question of the yarn duties and they were in a town away from Ottawa, we will say, in the western part of Ontario. If they were investigating that question on a particular day would it be possible for those who wanted to be heard on other questions, that they knew the commission were going to investigate later and which did not have reference to the particular line of business that they were then taking up, to be heard, because, otherwise, it would be a great

hardship. Suppose they were in Windsor, or London, and somebody wanted to be heard upon some other question; would it
be possible for them to be heard?


William Thomas White: That is in the discretion of the commission.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think we could go into details of that kind in the statute. The language which has been used in that regard is the language that has been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite-relative to the matter then under inquiry, or in relation to the matter then under inquiry. You leave it to the judgment of any tribunal as to what evidence would be relevant.


William Pugsley: The chairman has called my attention to the fact that the record is a little bit mixed by his receiving the amendment of my hon. friend from Richmond, then my suggested amendment and then the amendment of tne hon. Minister of Finance, which is Teally the same as the one I suggested with the addition of a few words. How would it be if the amendment of my hon. friend from Richmond were withdrawn, if mine were withdrawn and the amendment of the Minister of Finance were adopted? That would keep the record right.


William Thomas White: I think that is the correct procedure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not understand what is meant by evidence ' orally or in writing.'


John Allister Currie: Perhaps it means testimony as differing from evidence. People give testimony and the evidence is the truthful part of it.


William Thomas White: I think that my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) will understand that evidence, of course, may be oral. But evidence by way of affidavit is written evidence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is never spoken of as evidence in writing.


William Thomas White: Evidence in writing would be this:	There is power taken
in the Act for the employment of experts, accountants, and so on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You are apt to have lawyers before this commission and they will never agree that evidence in writing means an affidavit.


William Thomas White: The commission is authorized to accept any evidence that they deem to be proper. Take the books of a firm


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is never evidence.


William Thomas White: But it is made evidence by this Act and they may accept it Mr. NESBITT
if they see fit. Then, there are the reports of various departments of government, not only of this government but other governments, such as trade reports and everything of that kind. These do not ordinarily constitute evidence given under the sanction of oath, but, by virtue of this section it is competent to them to obtain information of that kind. What my hon. friend says is not evidence ordinarily in the courts of justice is made evidence under this Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If that explanation is to be accepted it is all right. I simplyr want to know if, when a man comes and places a set of- books before the commission and says that is evidence, it is to be accepted as evidence. Ordinarily it is not evidence, but if that is what the minister means it is all right.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


John Allister Currie: I wish to speak on the amendment of the hon. member. Under the present law respecting the customs, evidence can be taken on oath, and it is provided that that evidence may not be made public.	Not only is that the ease,
but the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. when Prime Minister, and his Finance Minister, Mr. Fielding, introduced what is known as the dumping clause legislation, and under that law, a number of permanent officers were appointed by the government in Chicago, Pittsburg, Antwerp, London, New York, and other large manufacturing centres in Europe and America. If it is thought that there is any dumping of manufactured articles in Canada at less than the price at which these articles are sold in other countries these officers are empowered to go into the head offices of these manufacturing concerns interested, and to compel them to show their books and to give their cost and selling prices at home and in other countries. Now, under the legislation proposed by the late government, that information is considered to be confidential and no member of this House has the right to move for a return showing what that- information is. Anyhow, it is to some extent one of the ancient prerogatives of the Crown, that secret information may be obtained for the purposes of protecting the revenue and the Liberal party, when in power, acted on that rule for a number of years. I consider it would be a very unfortunate thing if information given by manufacturers or traders in this way, was disclosed to the public and to the competitors of these manufacturers and traders. It would be absurd to appoint a commission such as this, and to provide that all information submitted to it must be made public. Then, if the rule were enforced, that whatever evidence was submitted to this commission, should be made public, occasion might be taken to abuse that privi-
.3593

lege and some crank might take it into his head to read before the commission, the writings of Karl Marx, the great socialist, and tender it as evidence, and the writings of Karl Marx would have to he published and circulated throughout the country. In the same way, a member of Congress once wanted to get Henry George's work on ' Progress and Poverty,' circulated at the expense of the nation, and he read it in Congress and had it printed in the Congressional Record, and circulated throughout the country. When the Tariff Commission of the late government travelled around the country, they were met at every place by a delegation of Socialists, who preached the doctrine of single tax or low tariff or free trade, and these gentlemen quoted the most alarming statistics I have ever seen. I think the Grangers of Ontario followed that commission around the whole province, and presented their ideas where-ever they went, but I did not notice that the ministers followed to any extent, the advice they got from the Grangers. What has surprised me most of all in this discussion, is the attitude taken by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). I hope the manufacturers of Welland; I hope the people whom the city of Welland is inviting to come over and establish factories there, will pay attention to what the hon. gentleman has said to-night, because he has shown his absolute hostility to manufacturers and manufacturing in this country. He prides himself as being the one man on the Liberal benches who was against reciprocity, and who fought it strenuously, and he was returned by acclamation on that issue, but to-night we have him proclaiming himself along the same lines as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). The hon. gentleman, {Mr. German) says he is in favour of a lower tariff.


William Manley German: I will have to correct the hon. gentleman, because nothing I said could by any possible stretch of the imagination lead him to believe any such thing.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman for Welland can say whatever he likes, but if I understood him properly he said he was a lower tariff man.


Air. CLARK (Red Deer).: I am not a low tariff man; I am a no tariff man.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for Welland is a low tariff man and he told us that the only people in Canada who wanted assistance from this commission were the manufacturers, and if the manufacturers of his riding give any evidence before that commission about the state of their industry; if the rope industry, if the iron and steel industry, and if the
paper industry, come before the commission and state private matters concerning their business, the hon. gentleman (Air. German) wants that information disclosed to the public. I challenge him to deny that that is what he said.


William Manley German: I am quite content with the opinion the manufacturers of my county have of me, and I am not concerned about what opinion the hon. member (Air. Currie) has of me.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is trying to quibble on this question.


William Manley German: The manufacturers in my riding do not think so.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is trying to take two sides on this question.
Mr. PUGSLEY The hon. member is not dealing with the question before the House; he is obstructing the Bill in the most unwarrantable manner, and I ask that he be called to order.


John Allister Currie: The only trouble with the hon. member for St. John (Air. Pugs-ley) is that he is not going to be a member of this commission.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order.


John Allister Currie: I hope the citizens of Welland will take cognizance of what their member has said to-night ?


William Manley German: They certainly will.


John Allister Currie: The clause is carried.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The purpose of my amendment is that nothing should be put in evidence that was not intended afterwards to be made public property.


John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order. As the House is in committee the rule permitting the mover of a. substantive motion to reply does not apply, any member may speak as often as be chooses in committee. The chairman has declared the resolution lost and I do not see why it should be reopened.


Air. LENNOX.: As a matter of fair play, I saw the hon. member for Cape Breton standing waiting for an opportunity to speak, but the chairman did not happen to see him.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I was just asking the committee if the amendment ought to 'be adopted. The hon. member is at liberty to proceed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There seems to be a conflict of opinion in the government on this question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Air. Foster) at pages 1322 and 1323 of ' Hansard,' gave his idea of the in-

tention of this Bill after it had been discussed in Council. He said:
You say sometimes that this is to relieve the government. It is a very poor idea of it, that, you say it is to relieve members of parliament, it is a very poor idea, that. The business of making tariffs will he just the hardest, the most delicate, and responsible business, when you have a basis of facts that a good commission has gathered, that it has ever been in the country. No minister or ministry will ever be able to shield themselves behind generalities. Parliament itself will be put in possession of every fact that the ministers possess;-
There is 'the point of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. 'Subsection 6 of section 5 says that there shall be facts obtained by the commission and reported to. the minister which newer can become the property of partliament. If fhe Minister of Trade and Commerce is right the Minister* of Finance and those supporting him do not understand the full force and effect of this Bill.
Mr. CUBiRIE. What the hon. gentleman, wants is the evidence and testimony taken by this commission. That is altogether different from a summary of the facts. '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not what the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant. Whatever form the evidence may take it will surely all be facts. He continued:
-will be an efficient check upon the material quota'that are laying before them what they propose to do in the matter of the tariff, and in the matter of chargee. They will he able to judge. Heretofore a minister has been able to escape behind generalities, he has been able to shield himself behind the ignorance of parliament with reference to the real conditions of every item upon which it was desired to act. After this, if this commission is rightly appointed, and if it rightly doe3 its duty, not only the members will be judging the ministers, not only will the ministers he put on their mettle, because they have got to come to the touchstone of facts, hut the intelligent country outside will have a chance of judging of a tariff such as it never had before.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Is it my hon. friend's idea that these reports will he brought down to parliament ?


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I never had the least idea that they would not.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any objection to making the Bill definite in that respect?


George Eulas Foster: All these reports given in the line of what is called for, there, in getting information which is the basis of tariff measures, is the property, not of the government, or of the minister, hut of parliament and of the country. Nobody, I think in this House, has ever had any other idea of it.


William Cameron Edwards: The Minister of Finance distinctly 6tated that yesterday.


Mr.   POSTER@North Toronto: X think we elaborated this matter in council. So far as Mr. McKENZIE.
I am concerned, I never had any other idea of it than that. So I say that that will be the position of things. No one will he able to shield himself behind an ex parte statement, or behind lack of knowledge when the knowledge will he there, and every intelligent man will he able to draw his own conclusions.
The subsection with which we are dealing, subsection 6, says that information can be in possession of the commission and of the minister which can never find its way into this parliament, because it is to be private and confidential, and, so treated. We are told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that every one of the 220 members will be in possession of the facts and can argue for himself and can arraign the minister armed with the same evidence as the minister. The minister can reply to the member, if the evidence is to be taken ias now proposed; that is all right as far as the evidence you have is concerned.
But we have information not in your possession. You are putting your facts all right, but you must not forget that power was given to us by parliament to enable us to collect facts and figures and information which you have not at all. On those facts and figures and information we have based clauses of the tariff in such a manner that you cannot criticise them. This is the position in which the members on this side will be placed, as against the idea laid down by the Minister of Trade -and Commerce, that every member of the House oil the government or the opposition side would have the same data upon which to base his arguments. Now, however it is now proposed to carry out a contrary idea, and to gather any quantity of information of a private character which the commission intend to use but which those members who are unfortunate enough to be in opposition will know nothing about. They can always be told that the tariff is perfectly scientific and supported by the evidence although that evidence remains secret and inaccessible to us. That was the basis and the reason for the ground which I took, that no information should be in possession of the commission, that nothing in the form of evidence should be used by the government which should not afterwards become public property.
Amendment negatived on division.


William Pugsley: I would move that section 5 be amended by striking out subsection 6 as printed-being in reality subsection 7 because there has been another subsection added. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to this and ask him in the first place what it means, 'and secondly what is the neeessity of the subsection. Now let me read:
Evidence.

Which, of course, would mean evidence taken under oath:
Should evidence or information in its nature confidential, relating to the business or affairs of any person, firm or corporation, be given or elicited in the course of any inquiry, the evidence or information shall not be made public by the commission in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation, respectively.
It seems to me the Minister of Finance, if he is going to insist upon this should simply say, ' it shall not be made public ' but he says ' it shall not be made public in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival' etc.


John Allister Currie: Common sense would tell the hon. gentleman-


William Pugsley: I am asking- the Minister of Finance.


John Allister Currie: Of course if the hon. gentleman will not let me answer him the-


Mr. DEPUTY  SPERKER@: The hon. gentleman for St, John has the floor.


William Pugsley: I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the Minister of Finance to answer the question.


John Allister Currie: It has been answered several times already.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) I hope will not feel that I am treating him with discourtesy when I suggest that the Minister of Finance should answer.


John Allister Currie: Oh, certainly not.


William Pugsley: 
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Without this provision the commission could not. compel tlie giving of that information.

3G00


William Pugsley: At all events under the Bill as it now stands, the amendment of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) having been voted down, these commissioners could get private information, but the clear intention is that they shall take evidence under oath. They) have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to subject persons to fine and imprisonment, if, on being summoned, they fail to attend and give evidence. I think that whatever information they get from witnesses under oath, that information ought to be submitted to the minister, and, in the ordinary way, by the minister to parliament. The court ought to be an open court, just as the Board of Railway Commissioners is. Whoever heard of a proposition to amend the law establishing the Board of Railway Commissioners iso as to authorize them to hold a secret and private tribunal or to give them power to take evidence under oath secretly which they might declare should not be made public? I have never heard anybody suggest such a thing, and I should be surprised to find any such provision in the Railway Act, certainly I have never heard such a suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member look at section 374?


William Pugsley: It may be that there is such a section, but certainly, I never heard of it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will be good enough to let me see it. This section reads:
All returns made in pursuance of any of the provisions of the four sections of this Act last preceding shall be privileged communications, and shall not he evidence in any court whatsoever except in any proseo-tion for,

(a)	Default in making such returns in accordance with the requirements of this Act;
(b)	Perjury making any oath required by this Act in connection with such returns;
(c)	Forgery of any such return; or
(d)	Signing any such return knowing the some to be forged.
That is entirely a difieient matter from the section before us.


William Sora Middlebro: Just the other day I had occasion to write to the secretary of the Railway Commission asking him for the list of complaints that were made in respect of a certain crossing, and was informed by him that it was not the custom of the commission to divulge any information obtained in that way.


William Pugsley: That may be. All I say is that every examination under oath before the commission should be a public examination and everybody should have the right to hear the evidence of every witness. All that this section 374 of the Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
Railway Act-and I thank my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) for sending it to me-pro-provides is that the return' made ahull raiot be used in any other proceedings which raaiy be taken.
Mr.	MEIGHEN.	They	are	privileged
entirely.


William Pugsley: It may be so, but they are public.
Mr.	MEIGHEN.	No.Mr.	PUGSLEY.	They	are	absolutely
and necessarily public. But the evidence given in a case


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Section 374 refers to returns, not to oral evidence.
Mr.	PUGSLEY.	What	the	section of
the Bill now before us provides is very different from that provided by section 374 of 'the Railway Act. It is proposed here that the Tariff Commissioners taking evidence under oath may, in their discretion, determine that certain evidence is private and confidential and that it shall not be made public. Then follow the extraordinary words ' in such a manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival.' If the section declared that such evidence should not be made use of in a court of law that would be in accordance with a well known principle of law, and I should have no objection to a section of that kind. But this provides that parliament shall, in the discretion of these commissioners, be debarred from the knowledge of the evidence on which they have based their conclusions with regard to tariff matters. 1 say that is unjust to the public. This commission being appointed by authority of parliament, parliament ought to have access to every fact on which these commissioners make their renort.


Arthur Meighen: While I should like to see better progress made, the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) may be worth replying to once more. The hon. gentleman started out by stating boldly that this was * unprecedented ', and suggested ' star-chamber ' methods, and said he would be astonished to find such a provision in any other Act. But section 374 of the Railway Act, to which I have referred him, distinctly says that certain evidence to be taken before the Railway Commission shall be privileged and then goes on to specify that, besides being privileged, it shall not be available in any court of law. Is that evidence to lie public property when it is specifically declared to be privileged? The hon. gentleman is too good a lawyer to say that. But if the hon. gentleman is not satisfied with section 374, he might turn his

attention to section 292 of the Railway Act. _ The first subsection of this section provides that the commission may make investigation into accidents and causes of accidents, and that reports shall be made to them by the railway companies, of all the circumstances of these accidents. Then subsection 2 provides:
The board may by regulation declare the manner and form by which such information and notice shall be given and the class of accidents to which thi9 section apply, and may declare any information so given to be pri-vi'eged.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: ' Privileged ' does not mean private.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) contend that information miay be ' privileged ' and still be public property?


William Manley German: Why, the statement the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) makes here is a ' privileged ' statement, even though it may be libellous; but it is a public statement nevertheless.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) contend that the word ' privileged ' is used in that sense?


William Manley German: Certainly.


William Pugsley: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) inquire of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) made inquiries and the reply confirms exactly what I say. The information is given a certain way and is given under privilege, that is to say it shall not be public property. Here is another instance:	The United States Congress, not altogether a star-chamber body, not a body wholly unused to constitutional methods, created a tariff board-or attempted to do so, and would have created it had not methods similar to those used by hon. gentlemen opposite filibustered it out of the House. Under this Bill, (No. 32,010) of the Congress of the United States, which passed the Senate, but was referred back by the House of Representatives, the following clause occurred:
No evidence or information so secured under the provisions of this section from any person, firm, co-partnership, corporation or association, shall be made public by such a manner as to be available for any business competitor or rival.


William Pugsley: Precisely as it is copied into this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Pugsley: I have here a copy of the congressional Bill, but the Bill did' not pass.


Arthur Meighen: It passed the House and passed the Senate, and was referred back, but was filibustered out of the House.


William Pugsley: Has my hon. friend read section 6 in the congressional Bill? It does not only apply to private or confidential information, but applies to all evidence and information which the board may obtain. No wonder it was thrown out in Congress. Let me read the section of the Bill that Congress rejected:
In any investigation authorized by this Act the board may obtain such evidence or information as it may deem advisable, but said board shall not be required to divulge the names of persons furnishing such evidence or information; and no evidence or information so secured under the provisions of this section from any person, firm, co-partnership, corporation or association shall be made public by said board in such manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor or rival.	"	|
Is it any wonder that that was thrown out?


Arthur Meighen: That was not thrown out. This section was adopted, in the Senate but it was filibustered out of the House by people talking too long.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has tried to copy that, because he is using the identical words, but adding * evidence of a confidential nature.' The clause has been taken by the draftsman holus-bolus from section 6 of the Bill of the United States Congress, only adding these words. Some person who drafted the Bill for Congress provided that any evidence, whether confidential or otherwise, which was taken by the board, should not be made public in such a manner as to be available for use by any competitor or



rival. But how could it be made public without being available for use by a business competitor or rival? It is absurd. And so it is absurd to say in this Bill that no evidence of a confidential nature shall be made public by these commissioners in such a way as to give advantage to any business rival. Once you make it public, it is open to business competitors as well as the whole world to make use of it.


John Allister Currie: Let us be fair and don't let ue be partisan. The1 Bill! introduced into Congress made a provision that the commission should be composed of both political parties, a certain number of Republicans and a certain number of Democrats, It was supposed to be a non-partisan commission. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, in this country we do not recognize political parties as they do in the United States, where they give them a legal standing. That was the idea of the United States Commission, it was to be non-partisan. I hope that our commission will be a non-partisan commission; I only hope that the statement is true, made by hon. gentlemen opposite, that a very prominent Liberal is to be a member of the commission, and that the commission will be non partisan. Now why should that commission not stand as a buffer between the manufacturers, we will say, and a minister of the Crown? Suppose that a certain line of business in this country, say the leather manufacture, which iis supposed to be carried on largely by Liberals, was investigated by this commission', which finds a state of facts, without giving the names of the people that were investigated. If hon. gentlemen have read, for instance, the schedule on woollens and other things in the States, they would understand it. Now, if the minister was unfortunately opposed to the majority, or to some of the members of firms engaged in that business, he might take advantage of his position to pass legislation that would seriously injure them. I could name another line of business, for instance, the manufacture of iron pipe. Most of the people engaged in the manufacture of iron pipe are Liberals, and if they were investigated by this commission, and facts were brought out, which they thought it would perhaps be well to withhold from parliament, largely composed of the opposite side, this commission, being non-partisan, would simply make a plain statement of the facts, without giving the names of any members of the firms or of any members thereof. Now, if there is a buffer offered by this whole Bill to the Liberals, who are manufacturers, it is that very clause in the Bill. I do not assume that the Minister of Finance iis illiberal, but suppose 'he should be so unfortunate as to have strong partisan feelings, where would my good Liberal friends in the manufacturing Mr. PUGSLEY.
business be, if the minister could compel this commission to be constantly investigating them to find out the condition of their business, and proclaim their financial standing to the whole world, and put their business into such' a shape, that they could not get money to carry it on? I think the Biill is fair anid just, and I cannot see that the hon. member for St. John city can oppose that clause on any fair ground in view of these facte. I do not think there is any ground of complaint.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before six o'clock, I stated, in answer to a question put to me by the Minister of Finance, or in some manner at least, that I believed in the principle involved in this section. What I meant was that there must be many occasions on which the Tariff Commission would be in receipt of evidence which would be considered as confidential and which would be tendered to them only upon the understanding that it is to be* held as confidential. In "the very nature of things the commission must constantly be receiving information of a confidential character, but, I believe, that confidence can better be retained by the elimination of this clause. There is nothing in the Bill itself which compels the publication of any evidence or information which comgs to the commission. If any confidential information comes before the commission, I assume it would be their duty to ascertain whether the facts stated therein were in substance true and if the commission found them to he true they could make them a part of the report of the findings of the commission. It is a very unfortunate thing to concede by statute the power of making evidence or information confidential particularly when received by a public body whose chief duty is to go around the country ascertaining information. There is nothing in this Bill compelling the commission to disclose information given to them confidentially, and it is in the interest of everybody that the commission themselves alone determine how to safeguard confidential information, permitting at the same time the person or persons tendering this information to decide as to what shall be the measure of it. I know of no other instance in legislation where a similar power was asked for. I do not think it is very important what they do in the United States in so far as the matter of the form of our legislation is concerned. I think we are very much ahead of Congress in this respect, and I do not think the fact that; there is a similar clause in the Unite;} States Bill affords any justification for this clause. I propose voting for the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John' simply because I think the restriction im-

posed by the Bill on the commission is absolutely unnecessary, and it is very much better to leave in the hands of the commission the power to determine how they shall treat confidential information.


John Allister Currie: I would like to point out to the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), that under a clause of the Bill which we have not yet reached the commission have power to pass regulations which, on being confirmed by order in council, and by the minister, become law. If you do not put limitations upon the face of this Bill the commission may pass what regulations they please. I believe that the proper way of framing a commission Bill is to make it as short as possible to place certain limitations upon their actions. That is identically the form of this Bill. It does not go into a long rigmarole and lay down in detail what they can and cannot do. This is the proper form of a Bill creating a commission. You have put a clause in permitting persons to appear before them and give evidence. Then you must also put in a clause preventing. the passing of any regulations compelling the evidence to be made public. Then, the people who come before them will know that they have that protection. This is not a question of party; there are just as many Liberals, and perhaps more, engaged in manufacturing and other business in this country as there are Conservatives. Conservatives are not the only people whose interests are going to be involved by this commission, and it is in the interests of all that these facts should remain as they are, that the Bill should remain as it is and I believe that nobody who has at heart the best interests of individuals engaged in different lines of production will support an amendment of this kind.


William Pugsley: There is one thing that I forgot to mention. It has reference to the Congressional Bill mentioned by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). My hon. friend also forgot to quote section 7 of the Bill which is very important as showing that the draftsman seemed to have in his mind that in some way the Tariff Board should be prevented from making evidence public in such a manner as to be available for any business competitor or rival, yet by the next section he was very careful to provide that all testimony should be available for the information of Congress. The words of the section are as follows:
That said board shall submit the results of its investigation, as hereinbefore provided, including all testimony, together with any explanatory report of the facts so ascertained to the President or to either House of Congress from time to time when called upon 114i
by the president or the leader of either house of Congress.
_ All I want is that whatever testimony is given before these commissioners who are constituted a court, shall be available to the minister, to his colleagues in the government and to this parliament. That is all we want and if my hon. friend will consent to another subsection being added similar to the one in the Congressional Bill I shall be quite willing to withdraw my amendment, and let the subsection be included. What I thought of proposing is this:
The said commission shall submit the results of its investigation as hereinbefore provided including ali testimony to the minister who shall lay the same before parliament within ten days after the opening of the next then ensuing session.
If my hon. friend will consent to that I will be quite willing to leave the subsection just as it is. If the commissioners choose to obtain information privately let them do it. Give them large latitude in that respect; I think that is a just and sound principle. But what we do want is that whatever testimony they take, with all the power that they are going to have to go from one end of this country to the other to compel people to come before them and to examine into their business matters, shall be available for the members of this parliament.


Arthur Meighen: And made public?


William Pugsley: Then parliament can deal with it as they please. If this parliament is satisfied that there is information of a confidential nature that ought not to go to the public upon the recommendation of the Minister of Finance probably a committee of this House can be appointed to deal with it. But, at all events this parliament and not this Tariff Commission, should be the judge as to whether evidence is of a confidential nature or not.
_ It is contrary to every principle affecting the public interest that this commission should have power to say that they can keep their doors open or that they can close them just as they please. It is not right to give them the power to say that when they are investigating Mr. A's business the public shall be allowed in, and when they investigate the business of Mr. B that the doors shall be closed and the information he gives treated as confidential. That is a power which ought not to be vested in this board which is practically independent of parliament for a period of five years.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not the fact that in the past the Cabinet ministers have had the advantage of information which was not available to parliament and not in the public interest to disclose?

' Mr. PUGSLEY. Undoubtedly so, and they will still have that privilege. There is nothing in this Bill which takes away from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Customs 'the power or right to receive confidential information. But, when the Minister of Finance asks parliament to make n change in the tariff he has to give the reasons to parliament for 'that change, ai d he is responsible to parliament. But that is a very different thing from constituting an independent tribunal with the power of examining witnesses undei oath and to determine what evidence shall be open to the public and what evidence shall be private.


William Sora Middlebro: I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that the Congressional Bill does not give the commissioners the same power as to subpoenaing witnesses as the Bill we have now under consideration. It is true that the Congressional Bill says the commissioners shall have power to summon witnesses, but if a witness does not appear there is no remedy and all the commissioner can do is to report the fact to Congress. Under the present Bill, if the witness does not appear he is liable to imprisonment. The reasons for protecting evidence of a confidential character under our Bill are much stronger than under the Congressional Bill, because under our Bill we can put men right into the factories and take the most confidential information that their books contain. The very fact that we are giving this commission these larger powers is the reason why we should treat the information we have thus compulsorily obtained, more or less confidentially. If you are going to get at the root of the matter and you rvant to get full and frank information as to any particular line of industry, the very fact that the manufacturer knows that the information will not go into the hands of a competitor in his business will be a reason why he will be more frank about it. We have to choose in this case between an absolute publication of all the evidence as to a man's private business, or we have to put in some limitation of this kind. I would not like taking on myself the responsibility of making the secrets of every man's trade in this country absolutely open to the public. The clause of the Bill simply says that the information shall not be made public in such manner as to be available to a competitor.


William Pugsley: What does that mean ?


William Sora Middlebro: I think it would permit the commission to make the evidence public to the minister and it would enable the minister to make it public to the


William Cameron Edwards: Cabinet Council which is sworn to secrecy. If you are at the .stage where under this Bill you can give this information to the Minister of Finance and to the Cabinet Council, are you in any different position than you are to-day as to the confidential information you receive, and which of course goes to the council 'and which may never go a step further? When that information goes to the council chamber then you can as heretofore use your discretion as to whether it should be made public or not.


William Pugsley: But is it not a fact that these 'commissioners can determine as to when the doors can be closed and a star-chamber investigation proceeded with, or when the doors can be opened 'and the public admitted ?


William Sora Middlebro: There is nothing in 'the Bill which says the commissioners shall not publish the evidence. It says they Shall make a report of the fact and they snail submit the evidence, except that it -shall not -be submitted -in such a manner as- that it may be used by a trade competitor. There is no power in this Bill for the commissioners to refuse to give to the -minister the evidence they obtain; the only restriction is that they themselves shall not make public the evidence in such a manner as to be used by a competitor.


William Pugsley: Is it not so that if this Bill passes the commissioners can determine when they can hold -secret inquiries or when they should hold public inquiries?


William Sora Middlebro: I do not think so; I think the minister would have the right to demand -at any time -all the evidence that the -commissioners -have gathered, but that evidence should not be made public in such a manner as that it might be used by a competitor. The minister would give the evidence to the Cabinet Council which is sworn to secrecy, and then you are in the same position as you are in to-day. You determine whether or not it is in the public interest that the information should oe made public.


William Manley German: It rests with the commission to say whether the evidence shall be taken in open court or whether it shall be taken in secret.


William Thomas White: My hon. friends are too theoretical about this. How it will work out in practice is this: suppose any business man in this House is asked to give evidence on oath before the commission, he invokes the subsection which says that evidence is not to be made public in a way to injure him with a trade rival, and as a matter of common sense is there a man in this House who would seriously suggest that a business man of this country should

be subpoenaed by this commission 'and asked to divulge the last secret of his business before a crowded court room ?
The mere statement of the thing brings its own refutation. It is not to be thought ' of, public opinion would not stand for a moment for the creation of such a tribunal. It seems to me that every phase of this matter has been brought before the committee and considered. I am unable to adduce any further arguments and I think that none have (been adduced since 8 o'clock and we might well proceed to a vote. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton, however, with regard to the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there is absolutely no disagreement between the minister and the rest of us who have spoken on this question. The minister was acquainted with all the provisions of this Bill including the subsection now under consideration, he was speaking generally and was simply saying what I have said over and over again.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not said definitely whether or not he would accept the proposal of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). It would have some influence on my vote on sectibn No. 6 if I knew he would consent to a section being inserted that would enable parliament to have possession of the facts. This clause is a dangerous one unless there is some restriction, perhaps a provision that ten days after the opening of parliament the evidence taken by the commission should be laid before the House.


William Thomas White: I think the clause as it stands is sufficient to protect all interests. I am sorry to say I cannot see any necessity for the amendment.


William Pugsley: ^ The question has been quite thoroughly discussed >as the minister has said. Of course he discussed it himself quite freely and has been well supported by gentlemen all around him. When a government wants to shorten a discussion they can do it iby limiting the number of their supporters who speak. We on this side are called upon to criticise and feel it necessary sometimes to take more time than hon. gentlemen supporting the government. I think fihe government should accept an additional clause, perhaps to this effect:
The said commission shall submit the result of its investigations as hereinbefore provided, including all testimony to the minister, who shall lay the same before parliament within ten days after opening of the next ensuing session.
With the Bill in its present form, if the commission should decide that certain evidence will be of a confidential nature, and so state to the witness, then when their report of that evidence w,as submitted to the Minister of Finance he could
not properly bring that evidence down to parliament because the commissioners had undertaken that it should be confidential. Thus the Minister of Finance and his colleagues might have that evidence before them but parliament would be absolutely debarred from examining it. That is a condition of affairs that should not be permitted. If confidential information must be_ obtained it should be obtained by the minister as it has been in the past. I feel like pressing this amendment if the minister will not add a further subsection.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. gentlemen opposite will not have to wait a minute. We will keep them very much longer if they get nasty. I wish to bring to the notice of the minister the scope of subsection 6, notwithstanding the fact that he may have made up his mind not to listen to ns.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad indeed to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite, but I have really nothing to add to what I have already .said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister would bring his legal training to bear on subsection 6 he will see there is hardly any kind of evidence this commission could get or look for but would come within its operation. There is no kind of contract or undertaking which a merchant might enter upon but would be regarded as private except a public contract. The contract of a merchant to supply goods to the government, of course, is public in its character, because the public pays for it. Every other kind of business which a merchant or manufacturer is engaged in comes within the scope of this provision. The wages of his men doing his .own private business, the price he charges for the article, the commodities which enter into the manufacture of the article, the transportation arrangements he makes with .steamship companies or railways, all these are private under the terms of this section if it passes.
Amendment (Mr. McKenzie), negatived: Yeas 24, nays 50.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7, staff,
William Pugsley: I move, seconded by Mr. Sinclair, that the following be added as clause 8:
The said commission shall submit the results of its investigation, as hereinbefore provided, including all testimony, to the minister who shall lay the same before parliament within ten days after the opening of the then next ensuing session.
That would take the place of the present printed clause 7, which otherwise would he section 7.


John Allister Currie: That is an amendment to clause 8.


William Pugsley: No, it becomes a new clause.


John Allister Currie: I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman. It is the amendment to the clause which has (just (been carried


William Pugsley: No, it is a new clause, but that is the order in which it will come.


John Allister Currie: It is simply an amendment to clause 7.
. Mr. PUGSLEY. No, I do not (propose to strike out clause 7 as (printed, but this will become a new section.


John Allister Currie: The clause to which this amendment is proposed deals with the salaries. (Clause 7 is the clause we have just passed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the hon. gentleman's (amendment is carried it will nullify the vote on the last amendment.


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It must be out of order. The amendment of the hon. gentleman will have the effect of nullifying the vote on the previous amendment.


William Pugsley: It will not be out of order even in the judgment of the Minister of Finance, (because he says that while the commissioners (shall not make the evidence (public, they shall submit it to him, and then we provide by this amendment that the Minister of Finance shall -submit it to parliament.


John Allister Currie: That is exactly what you asked before.


William Pugsley: That is not inconsistent with the subsection passed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is absolutely inconsistent.


John Allister Currie: It is the -same thing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We have (been told by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and certainly by the hon. member from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), that it was the intention of the government, to submit the evidence taken by this commission, to parliament. If that is the -case, why refuse this clause?


John Allister Currie: I have raised the point of order, -and I would like a ruling from the Chairman.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to see the minister -accept this amendment, (because it looks very simple to me. Of course it is all right to say that any information Mr. PUGSLEY.
can he submitted to parliament, hut it means when we ask for information, we are -subject to the will of the government, no matter what it may be.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the Minister of Finance ought to accept this amendment, more especially as it appears to me to be carrying out the idea he himself expressed to the House. I have been trying to think all through this discussion that the minister was sincere, that he was trying to give us a Bill that would he of advantage to the country, and I have not so far, been at all suspicious. The refusal of the minister, however, to agree that the evidence on which the tariff is based shall be given to parliament is inclined to make the suspicious that this subsection 6 may be used for a purpose for which it was not intended. Hints have already been thrown out by hon. gentlemen opposite, for example by the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), who, it will be remembered, told us that the members of this commission must be men who would be in sympathy with the ideas of the government. In other words, they must be high tariff men, who would be inclined to raise instead of lowering the tariff. Then there is my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), who declared the other night, when it was suggested that the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) might be a suitable mail to put on this commission, that such a proposal would be absurd, and that the gun would not go off if such an appointment were made.
What did he mean by that? Does he mean that this is some deadly instrument that is levelled at the farmers and consumers, and that if my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) were put on the commission it would not go off? With statements like that made by two prominent men on the other side, men I suppose in the secrets of the government, and with the Minister of Finance refusing to adopt a simple suggestion that the evidence should be placed before parliament, what are we to think? How is parliament to get the evidence? Will it be necessary for some member to give notice and to move that the evidence taken by the commission shall be produced and if this is done, how do we know it will be granted? It is within the power of the majority to refuse it. It seems to me there ought to be some rule by which the evidence-or the main part of the evidence; if the minister wishes to qualify, let him suggest a form of words that would prevent the confidential and private parts of the evidence being called for, that would be a reasonable position for him to take- should, as a matter of course, be furnished to parliament. But that the minister should refuse to accept an amendment of this kind seems to me unreasonable. And I think that when he considers the matter

he wil'l not want to have it go to the country that he refused a proposition of this kind.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think the members of this House clearly understood that the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) merely expressed their private opinions and were in no way attempting to commit the government to placing high protectionists upon this commission. Representing, as I do, an agricultural constituency, I should be sorry to see high protectionists upon this commission. I have yet to learn that because a man is a free trader or a moderate protectionist, that he is, therefore, incapacitated from ascertaining the facts that this commission is created to ascertain. Hon. members opposite have repeatedly stated that this commission was not asked for by anybody but the manufacturers. That is not in accordance with the record. This commission is created for the purpose of benefiting the consumer, and as a representative of a rural constituency I am in favour of the creation of the commission, because I believe that it means that the tariff will he revised downwards if the facts justify it, rather than upward. The Minister of Finance showed conclusively that the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) favoured a commission similar to this when he was speaking before the manufacturers in Montreal. We also remember that in 1910 when that right hon. gentleman, touring the west, was approached by a delegation of farmers asking for a revision downward of the tariff, his answer was that the government would refer that matter to a commission. What did he mean?-what kind of a commission? A commission similar to that which it is proposed to create under this measure. When such a commission was conceived in the mind of their leader, hon. members opposite seemed to think it calculated to benefit the community, but when the idea is taken hold of by the Minister of Finance, elaborated and put into execution, it is calculated to benefit the manufacturers alone. In my opinion, it is calculated to benefit the consumers; and for my part. I am in favour of it because I believe it will do justice both to the consumers and the manufacturers. I think it would be unfair to make public the confidential reports of this commission. It is well that the commission should be in a position to learn the confidential facts relating to men's business, and it would be monstrous to have these things published. It seems to me that this amendment is only designed to Te-introduce a proposal which has just been voted down by the committee. On that ground, it seems to me, the amendment should be ruled out of order.	j


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We were told a moment ago that there was not the slightest difference of opinion in the government in regard to this Act. There is a motion before the committee that the proceedings of the commission should become, at a certain stage, the property of parliament, and the Minister of Finance and his friends oppose that idea. I would like the hon. gentleman to square what he *says with what was stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) with respect to this commission. In the same speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which I quoted a moment ago, I find the following:


Hugh Guthrie: Is it my hon. friend's idea that these reports will be brought down to parliament?


George Eulas Foster: I never had the least idea that they would not.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there any objection to making the Bill definite in that respect?


George Eulas Foster: All these reports given in the line of what is called for, there, in getting information which is the basis of tariff measures, is the property, not of the government, or of the minister, but of parliament and of the country. Nobody, I think in this House, has ever had any other idea of it.


William Cameron Edwards: The Minister of Finance distinctlv stated that yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: I think we elaborated this matter in council. So far as I'am concerned, I never had any other idea of it than that. So I say that that will be the position of things. No one will be able to shield himself behind an ex parte statement, or behind lack of knowledge when the knowledge will be there, and every intelligent man will be able to draw his own conclusions.
I think the ingenuity of the Minister of Finance will he strained to the breaking point to show how he is in ' absolute accord ' with the statement of his colleague and yet continue to hold his view that this evidence should not become the property of parliament.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) never asks me anything more difficult than that I shall be much obliged to him. There is no difficulty in reconciling the two statements. A few minutes ago, the committee voted against striking out subsection 6. My hon. friend from St. John now moves an amendment to the effect that the information that comes to the Minister of Finance, even if it is the confidential information which is absolutely safeguarded from being made public by this section of the Act, shall be hrought down and made public. In other words, as pointed out by my hon.

friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) he raises again the very question that was voted down only a few moments ago.
Now, what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) said, I say, that all the information would be brought down and would be subject to the order of the House, save only as expressly provided in the statute by this subsection. He was not discussing every section. Of course the Minister of Trade and Commerce knew what was in the Act, he had gone over it carefully. How could he say anything that, on the face of it, was in contradiction to the express words of the statute? How could he say that everything would be made public, knowing at the same time that there was a clause in the Bill that expressly forbade making public certain classes of information ? My hon. friend failed to remember that the minister was speaking generally of the class of information obtained by the commission which would not come within this subsection..
Mr. MeKENZIE. Is there anything in this Act which provides that such report as can be brought down without any violation of the provisions of subsection 6 of section 5, will be brought down without being moved for ? Surely we ought to be put in possession of ia blue-book containing such evidence as is not objectionable under that subsection.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bennett, Simcoe).: I was going to rule that subsection 6 having passed, this amendment is inconsistent with it.


William Pugsley: Then I shall have to appeal against your ruling. It seems to me the point of order is not well taken. The subsection as now carried by the committee is simply that the commission shall not make the evidence public in such a way as to be available for use by any business competitor or rival of the person, firm, or corporation respectively. That is the section which has passed. It simply means that the commission shall not make the matter public, but shall report the result of the investigation, with the evidence, to the Minister of Finance; that is not making it public in such a way as to injure any business rival. Then the amendment further provides that the minister must submit the evidence to parliament within *ten days of the opening of the session. Parliament may have it printed, or may treat it as it pleases. I take it that this parliament 'has just as. much power as the Governor in Council to keep any of its documents private if it wants to. Parliament is the high court of the land, and has absolute control over its papers. I submit that there is nothing in my amendment which is inconsistent with section 6 which has already been passed.


William Thomas White: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: I .see no reason to change my opinion, and I still hold that the amendment is out of order.


William Pugsley: Then I appeal to the 'Speaker from your muling.
Committee rose, and the Speaker took the chair.
Mr. 'SPEAKER. The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair [DOT]be sustained ?


William Pugsley: I would like to explain to your Honour


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is not open to debate. Those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair will please say 'Aye.'
Those opposed will please say * No.'
I declare the ruling of the Chair is sustained1.


William Pugsley: Before you leave the Chair would you allow me to say that there has been no appeal made to the House, but an appeal to your Honour under the rules.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The appeal is to the House, not to the Chair.


William Pugsley: I made no appeal to the House. Before you leave the Chair-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot permit discussion, because the rules strictly forbid it.


William Pugsley: Would your Honour not permit me to point out-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.
House again went into committee on the Bill.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: You ought to be ashamed of yourselves on the other side.


John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Temisoouata (Mr. Gauvreau) has used unparliamentary language.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am going to how to the ruling of the chairman.


An hon. MEMBER.: There is no ruling.
iMr. CURRIE. It is an insult to the House and it should be withdrawn.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order; I want your ruling.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has used unparliamentary language and I think he should be compelled to retract.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I do not think the hen. gentleman was in his seat when I spoke and I do not know what I am called upon to say.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman said that we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bennett, Sim-coe) I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the remark.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I suppose, for the sake of peace that I will have to take it back.
Mr. CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bennett, Simcoe) The question is on clause 7.
Mr. MACLEAN i(Halifax),. Will the Minister of Finance permit me to make a suggestion here which is not strictly referable to this clause. Clause 5 provides that the commissioners shall subpoena witnesses. I notice in section 63 of the Railway Act in reference to witnesses and evidence-


John Allister Currie: Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not in order


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have the permission of the Chairman.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has not permission unless there is a motion to go back to that clause. Otherwise he cannot discuss it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I ask the minister if he will be good enough to receive a suggestion upon a clause we have passed, and if the suggestion is worth anything I am going to ask him to consider the advisability of an amendment which perhaps cannot properly be made to the clause now before the committee. I wish to refer to section 63 of the Railway Act, providing for the summoning of witnesses contains this provision:
Provided that no person shall he compellable against his will to attend-


John Allister Currie: Now, Air. Chairman again I ask for your ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman is speaking ,vith the consent of the minister-[DOT]


John Allister Currie: It is patent to any person who has sat in this House for a number of weeks that the rules of the House in committee have been trampled under foot again and again. As one member who likes to see progress made I would ask for a clear interpretation of the rules. The hon. gentleman cannot discuss this unless there is a motion to reconsider clause 5.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I consider-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is speaking with the concurrence of the minister.


John Allister Currie: No, he is not.
Some hon. MEAIBERS. He is not.


William Thomas White: I have no authority to consent in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the hon. gentleman must move the reconsideration of the clause.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will try and discuss the question-


William Thomas White: If my. hon. friend (Air. Alaclean) will give me privately a note of the suggestion he wishes to make 1 will consider it but we cannot go back to this clause now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is your duty, Air. Chairman, to keep order in this committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rule that the hon. gentleman must move a reconsideration of the clause or else come back to clause 7 which is before the committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was going to make a suggestion.
Some hon. MEAIBERS. Order, order.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, some hon. gentlemen may consider that very smart and indicative of some intelligence.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. I do not think it is very smart, hut I do think that when the Chairman rules every hon. member of this House ought to bow to the ruling. The hon. gentleman who has just been speaking has refused to bow to the ruling and is persisting in going on. I therefore call him to order and unless he will move to reconsider this clause he has no right to discuss it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I deny the right of the hon. gentleman to say that I have disobeyed the ruling of the Chair. I do not propose to submit that statement being made by the hon. gentleman or anybody else in this House.


Haughton Lennox: I will not withdraw it all the same.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite is that I have not had an opportunity of making the statement that I propose to the committee. Section 7 provides that the commission may carry on an inquiry at some suitable place in the city of Ottawa and that in their discretion they may carry on that inquiry elsewhere. The only suggestion I was going to make was that the commissioners should not have the power of compelling-[DOT]


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has to sit down when I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is proceeding to discuss section 6.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I deny the right of the hon. gentleman to say so.


Haughton Lennox: He says that is the section that he is referring to. The hon. gentleman has no right to discuss section 6 unless he moves to reconsider it. The hon.

gentleman has had a long experience in this House and he knows that what I say is correct. I insist upon the rule being carried out, that the hon. gentleman shall obey the ruling of the Chair and that he must move the reconsideration of this section or else say no more about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far the hon. member for Halifax has simply treated of the particular wording of clause 7 and until he transgresses I cannot rule that he is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I rise again to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Haughton Lennox: I rise again to a point of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Chair.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman did speak of section 7 but he went on from section 7 and he said: Now, the suggestion I want to make in reference to this section- referring to section 62


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 62 of what?


Haughton Lennox: Section 62 of the Bill, as I understand. I have not the Bill before me.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no such section in the Bill.


Haughton Lennox: Referring to section 62 is what he said. I have not the Bill before me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to take up time unnecessarily, and I am not going to be howled down by anybody. I am referring to the point now before the committee, and I say that this hon. gentleman is persisting, in defiance of the ruling of the iQhair, in discussing that clause as having been passed. I submit to you, Sir, that he shall not be allowed to do so unless he will move to reconsider that clause and discuss it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Chair, chair.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call your attention to a very important matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has the floor.


Michael Clark: I wish to call your attention to the fact that the mace is on the table, and to ask whether that is proper?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I do not think or


Haughton Lennox: believe for a moment that I was out of order, and if hon. gentlemen opposite had been good enough to listen to me just for a little longer I am sure that they would have concluded in their own minds that il was not out of order. The 'section before us is subsection 7, which states that inquiries under this Act shall take place in the city of Ottawa or, in the discretion of the commission, elsewhere. A previous clause of the Bill which has been passed gives the commission the power of compelling the attendance before them of certain witnesses. The amendment I wish to suggest is that the commission shall not have the power of compelling witnesses to attend before the convention except in the province where the witness resides. I would suggest further to the Minister of Finance that possibly it would be better to have that amendment in clause 5. That was the suggestion that I wished to make to the committee earlier in the evening, and I submit there never was a time when I was out of order. That amendment might fairly be placed in some section of the Bill.


William Thomas White: Yes, I think the suggestion of my hon. friend might fairly be taken into consideration. I am quite willing to consider that, and before we conclude with the Bill I shall see whether or not it is acceptable and if acceptable it might be inserted in section 5. Prima facie it seems to be a good suggestion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is quite satisfactory.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Is there any provision for the payment of the fees of persons who are summoned to Ottawa?


William Thomas White: I think it is covered by section 5.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That language is not sufficient to provide for the payment of witness fees, because the procedure under which parties can be summoned and attendance compelled must be prefaced by an arrangement for the payment of fees.


John Allister Currie: I should think that subsection 3 of section 8 would cover it. It refers to the salaries and actual and reasonable travelling expenses and all other expenses incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of the Act, and makes these expenses payable out of the appropriation by parliament.


William Pugsley: I think subsection 2 of section 5 would cover it. It says:
The commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evidence as is vested in a court of record in civil cases.
Before you compel the attendance of a witness in a civil case you must tender him his witness fees.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: But you have a provision in the procedure relating to civil courts for the payment of witness fees and fixing what they shall be. Section 2 is not sufficient to provide for the payment of fees of persons who may be summoned to Ottawa.


William Thomas White: I shall be glad to consider the point raised by my hon. friend. In the Railway Act there is a provision by which persons summoned to give evidence before the commissioners or any officer of it may in the discretion of the minister or of the Board of Railway Commissioners receive like allowances as if summoned before the Exchequer Court.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: That would be sufficient.


William Thomas White: I shall consider the matter, and if the Bill as it stands is not sufficient to cover the point raised by my hon. friend I will introduce an amendment.


William Manley German: I hope it will be made clear that the commissioners should not compel gentlemen who are interested in business affairs, saiy in Hamilton or London, to come to Ottwaa simply on the payment of witness fees. The Minister of Finance is aware that men engaged in large business concerns cannot afford to come to Ottawa simply for the compensation represented by the fee of a witness. The commissioners should hold tneir meetings in the locality where the matter is to be inquired into. For instance, they might meet in Ottawa, or in London, or in Welland, or in Toronto, to take up any cases within those districts.


John Allister Currie: The Bill provides that the commissioners may in their discretion conduct their inquiries in whole or in part in any place in Canada, and they can go outside of Canada with the permission of the minister.
On section 8,


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a clause in the Bill which says that the inquiry shall be conducted in a summary manner; what is the meaning of that?


William Thomas White: The idea is to get at the result expeditiously without the formalities attending the procedure of a court of justice. For instance, a police court is called a court of summary procedure.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Whoever drafted this Bill for the minister must have taken some sections from other statutes and put them in piecemeal without any regard to whether they were apropos or not. The minister has very aptly likened the procedure described here to the procedure in a police
court, and whether it is or is not a police court commission that is being instituted I do not know.- To say it shall be disposed of in a summary manner is certainly very poor drafting and I don't think it carries out what the minister has in his mind.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will find the description ' summary manner,' in many instances where it is intended to provide that the hearing it to be carried on without the formalities which cumber a court of record. The idea is that the commission will endeavour to get at the facts with as little formality as possible.


William Manley German: The word ' summary ' is a well known legal term in Ontario.


William Thomas White: Before we pass from the consideration of clause 8, I want to propose an amendment. This inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining in what respect the tariff bears unjustly on certain industries. I presume it would be contended by certain interests that the tariff in certain cases, was too high, and by certain other interests that it was too low. In order to enable the commission to come to a correct and proper judgment as to whether the duties on particular commodities are sufficiently high to enable capital invested in them to earn dividends, it will be necessary to go into an inquiry outside probably of the inquiries we all have in our minds at the present time. We do know that in the last two years a great many companies have become reorganized, amaigamated and combined with other companies, and in the process of this reorganization, they have increased their capital to a very large degree; they have issued bonds and preferred stock and common stock to an extent lyhich would appear to us to be altogether out of proportion to the amount of capital necessary to be invested in that particular industry. The amount of capital in a company has to do with the amount of earning power which that company possesses and the proportion of dividends that is divided from year to year among the stockholders. If the capitalization is large, the earning capacity relatively will be small. Owing to the enlargement of these companies, the presidents and directors vote themselves larger salaries than in the past. This has a bearing upon the dividends. In order that all the facts and circumstances may be before tile commission before they report to the minister, I think it would be necessary to add an amendment. I propose to add to section 5, the following subsection:
Whenever application is made on behalf of a manufacturing company for higher duties the commission shall investigate the capitalization of the company and all salaries paid to the president, directors and managers and the wages paid to their employees.


Arthur Meighen: The question of capitalization of companies is a large one, and its investigation may have several objects. One object may be to ascertain whether overcapitalization affects in any way the cost of production. There might also be an investigation to see whether it affects the (banking of the country generally, or if it affects the credit of our country or of our industrial institutions abroad and so on. Only one section is to be investigated by this commission, their only object is to ascertain how far, if at all, over-capitalization affects the cost of production or affects any matter that concerns the tariff. That is to say, under the Bill, as it stands, particularly haying reference to subsection 4, the commission has full power to investigate over-capitalization or capitalization providing they are investigating it only for the purpose of ascertaining cost of production or such a subject as comes within the review of this Act. They have no power to investigate over-capitalization in so far as it affects such other objects as I have mentioned. This. Bill already clothes the commission with all powers requisite for this purpose and requires no amendment.


George William Kyte: I quite understand the provision of the Bill limiting inquiry with respect to the subject to be dealt with by the commission, but I desire to enable the commission to have all the facts before it, particularly when a certain industry claims that it has not sufficient protection to enable it to earn dividends. The question of capitalization is a very pertinent one and ought to be considered in connection with this matter. The wages paid to their employees and the salaries paid to their directors all add to the cost of carrying on an industry, and if they are unnecessarily high there is no reason why the capital invested in that industry should make that an excuse to have further protection to enable them to earn greater dividends.


William Thomas White: It was clearly shown this afternoon that all these questions could be investigated and would be investigated by the commission in ascertaining the cost of production, as these are all factors entering into cost. It is not necessary to particularize in the statute, the Bill itself covers all those points and many others.


George William Kyte: To what section of the Bill does the minister refer?


William Thomas White: Section 4.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I raised this question this afternoon and was anxious to meet the objection met by the amendment now proposed. It was only Mr. WHITE (Lew's).
on the assurance of the Minister of Finance that tlie Bill as drafted covered that, point, that I accepted the Bill without the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will be important if the Bill already did not cover the point. It is well that this commission should have power to investigate all these things in regard to capitalization, bonds, etc., but as the commission has that power according to the minister the amendment is not necessary.


John Allister Currie: As I understand that amendment covers clause 4 and should have been moved there. I ask vour ruling if the hon. gentleman's motion is in order at this stage.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the hon. minister is proposing to add a subsection to section 5. We are now on the last subclause of clause 5, and the hon. member is perfectly in order in moving it at this stage.


William Manley German: I am opposed to the amendment, and I am opposed to the proposition of the Minister of Finance, when section 4 gives to this commission as wide a scope of investigation as he describes.
Amendment negatived on division.


John Howard Sinclair: I move to add as subsection 9 of section 5:
All evidence of information taken by the commissioners, and not held to be confidential under the provisions of subsection 6 of this section, shall be laid on the table of the House within ten days after the opening of parliament.
It is the same subsection as was moved by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), excepting that it does not conflict with subsection 6. I think the Minister ought to adopt this subsection, because there really cannot Ibe any objection why the evidence which is not confidential should not be put in the possession of the members of this House at the earliest date possible after parliament meets.


William Thomas White: I would be very glad indeed to take the matter under advisement if the hon. gentleman will allow the matter to stand.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If ten days is too short ia period the .time can be extended.


William Thomas White: I will consider the matter carefully.
On section 7,


William Thomas White: I would Suggest that the following be inserted after the word ' enquiries ' on line 25 of subsection 2.:

And may employ shorthand reporters.
The commission will need to employ shorthand reporters to take the evidence wthereever it may be sitting.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would point out to the minister that from my reading of the Act the staff should come under the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1908.


William Thomas White: The employment given under this Act may be of a very limited character. The commission wiil have to employ different classes of men, and offhand I do not think it would be wise to put them under the Civil Service Act. The check upon employment is of course the Governor in Council.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And the reporters may only be employed for a short time.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 8-salaries of commissioners,


William Pugsley: Are these not pretty h|gh salaries, $7,500 for the chairman, and $7,000 for each of the commissioners, in addition to all travailing expenses? The Minister of Finance and his colleagues have to serve the country for a salarv of $7,000.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Look at the honour they enjoy though.


William Pugsley: The judges of the Superior courts of the country get I think $6,000. That is the limit, in the smaller provinces. In New Brunswick $6,000 is the salary of a pusine judge of the highest court in the province. The salary of the chief justice is $7,000. Now, it is proposed to pay the chairman of this commission a salary of $7,500, and the commissioners $7,000 each. Although the tendency of late is to give pretty good salaries to commissioners, I am inclined to think that this goes a little too far in that direction. In this country $7,000 is a very good salary. In the public departments there are men in very high positions receiving $3,000 and $4,000 a year, men who have been in the service a long time, who are charged with great responsibilities and have the control of the expenditure of vast sums of money. The deputy ministers receive only $5,000, and they hold positions of the very greatest responsibility. It may be that some more liberal allowance should be made to the public officials, but up to the present time, we have not gone far in the direction of paying high salaries to anybody but commissioners. In this case it is proposed *to follow that line and give very liberal salaries to these commissioners. I think it only fair to compare this with what public officials are receiving. The chairman of the managing board of the Interconial railway receives only $6,000. And he must 'he a man of experience, of good judgment, and of tbe very highest technical knowledge.


John Allister Currie: Under subsection 3 the matter of witness fees was brought up. I suggest that am amendment be made there and that the subsection be made to read:
All salaries and actual and reasonable travelling expenses, witness fees, and all other expenses incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of this Act shall he payable out of any appropriation granted to His Majesty by parliament to defray the same.
The addition there, is the words ' witness fees/ This insures that these fees shall be payable out of the appropriation.


William Thomas White: I will consider that suggestion of my hon. friend when considering that of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If anything is to be governed by regulations surely this should be.


William Thomas White: That might be. I will consider the suggestion. Now. with regard to what my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has said: I believe that no commission that has been appointed by the government, not even the Railway Commission, will be charged with more important duties than the Tariff Commission^ a very high order of intelligence and special aptitude will he required for this work. And when we consider the scale of remuneration in recent years, the salaries paid to men in the world of business and finance and in professional life now as compared with a few years ago. I think my hon. friend will agree that $7,500 for the chairman, and $7,000 for the commissioners are not high salaries, provided we get the right men for this important work. In the Railway Commission the chairman who' As a very exceptional man and occupies a very exceptional position, and who must be a lawyer of high attainments, receives $10,000 a year. That is a very small salary for him. The other members of the board. I understand receive $8,000. The salaries of the Tariff Commissioners are placed below these figures, and I think they should be placed below, although this work is fully as important as, or even of more importance than, that of the Railway Commission. It must be borne in mind also that when you ask a man to take a position on this commission, or in faction any other commission, if he is a man in active business you interrupt the business in which he is engaged, and unless you compensate him reasonably well the offer will not appeal to him.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He has to devote his whole time to the work.


William Thomas White: Yes, that is provided for in the Bill. Take men of high ability and with the good judgment and knowledge required for the position, and I submit to the judgment of the House that the salaries fixed are reasonable. To be frank, I have been afraid we should not be able to obtain the class of ability I wrould like to obtain at the salaries fixed. The hon. gentleman has spoken _ of the salaries of members of the Cabinet. I think it is clearly understood, and the hon. gentleman would probably be the first to concede, that these salaries are probably the least consideration with those who take these responsible positions and give their time to these duties.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 'What is the main one?


William Thomas White: I think it is the
public service. If not, you reduce the position merely to a seven thousand dollar position. I should not like to believe that the ministers have that principally in mind. The hon. gentleman referred also to the civil .service. Since coming to Ottawa I have been impressed with the very high class of men whom you have in the civil service who are not paid nearly enough, such men as the chief engineer and other engineers. I am assuming that _ the men occupying these responsible positions have the ability to fill them, as I believe they have. Those who have been longer in Ottawa than myself can pronounce upon that point better than I can. But some of these exceptionally able men have salaries out of all keeping with the importance of the positions they fill. That is a condition whi h in time may be remedied. Of course, there may be men in such positions who are overpaid, not having the ability to fill these positions properly. One difficulty of the civil service is that it standardizes positions, as it were, and brings men to a common level. Of course, there is greater certainty in their employment, and they have a pension to look forward to, and so their future is taken care of, and they have a fixity of position that does not apply outside. But, after all that is said, I have no hesitation in expressing my own opinion that the ablest men in the civil service occupying these high positions are not well enough paid. Of course, I am not speaking for the government, but give what has struck me in my own observation and express my own opinion.


Frank Oliver: I just want to put in my earnest protest against the amount that is being paid in these salaries. In my judgment, 'there is no warrant, in the statement of the duties of these gentlemen, for the payment of this salary. The idea that men wihoise business it is simply to make the inquiry into industrial or commercial con-Mr. NESBITT.
ditions, should be entitled to the same compensation as members of this government, or members of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, or of the Railway Corn-Commission, does not appeal to me at all.
I certainly think that the salary of $7,000 each, proposed to be paid to the commissioners, who are not required to perform administrative functions nor yet judicial functions, but simply the functions of investigators, is out of all proportion to the duties they will be called upon to perform. If the civil service is underpaid, that is no reason why such a startling exception should be macle in the case of these gentlemen, who certainly cannot claim any higher rank, or sustain any more necessary qualifications for the work they have to do, than the gentlemen who are in the higher positions in the civil service. If we can properly administer an expenditure of $60,000,000 within two years, under the control of one man, who draws a salary, I think, of $10,000, then I must protest that a proposed payment of $24,500 to secure the collection of information such as suggested in this Bill, is absolutely out of proportion. To say that these gentlemen have duties that require greater abilities or experience than a deputy minister of this government, has no foundation in fact. These extraordinary salaries give this proposition the appearance of being a gross political job.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think these gentlemen will find it very irksome business to keep tab on all their expenses from time to time. It seems to me, it would be better to give them a sufficient salary to cover once for all their travelling expenses.


William Thomas White: I think that would be impossible. We do not know how much a man will spend in travelling. In cases of this kind, travelling expenses cannot be foreseen.
On section 10, franking privilege.


William Thomas White: I move that this section De omitted. The Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) has a strong objection to extending the franking privilege to every one who may have correspondence with this commission. He thinks that the Post Office Department should stand on its own basis, and I am disposed to agree with him. It seems hardly fair that the post office should * be deprived of the revenue that, it needs, to carry on its business.


William Pugsley: The franking privilege may properly be extended in respect of letters which are sent by the commissioners from Ottawa; and don't you think that those who have business with the commission, who want to make complaints, should be allowed to write to them free of postage, as is done in every other public department?

Mr. WHITE (Leeds) It is extraordinary how few people avail themselves of the franking privilege. I think a very large percentage of those who write to the departments, put a stamp on their letters for fear they will miscarry. The amount being so small, there is no hardship upon the people who desire to make communications to the commission, in asking them to pay the postage.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT. - BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOUDEN moved, the adjournment of the House.
William Pugsley: Would my right hon. friend tell us what business will be taken up to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: We will take up government Bills.


William Pugsley: Any particular one ?


Robert Laird Borden: We will take up as many as possible-I think Item 25 which would have been taken up to-day except for the absence of the hon. -member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).


William Pugsley: That is the Bill to amend the Civil Service Act ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. We will probably take up Order Number 21, Bill (No. 77), 'and I would hope that we may be able to take up Order Number 3, Bill (No. 97), and possibly the second reading of Bill (No. 100); after that, Supply, the estimates of the Minister of the Interior.


Frank Oliver: The Grain Act will not be taken up ?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the Grain Act is not coming up to-morrow, but it is to come up on Monday, I think.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might I suggest that Friday would be rather an unfavourable day upon which to take into consideration the Highway Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Why ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is usually a very small House.


Robert Laird Borden: The Highway Bill is not responsible for that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know, but it is rather an important Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 23, 1912.