1912-02-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill. (No. 98) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. - Mr. Mc-Craney.
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Bickerdike.

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

Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	Is the government aware that in the newspaper ' Le Devoir,' on the 30th January last an article appeared which reads partly as follows:-
' Mr. Lemieux.and the Dismissals.
' Editor of ' Le Devoir.'
' Dear Sir,-In reply to the defiance of Hon. Mr. Le-mieux to produce the names of ten employees that were dismissed in 1896, you will 6nd inclosed a list of the names of those

who were dismissed on the 30tli Deeemher, 1896, by the Laurier government, of which Hon. Mr. Lemieux was then one of the most zealous friends, although simple member for Gaspe.
' On the 30th December, 1896, these brave fathers of families were, on the eve of New Year's Day, cast out on the street, . . . and one of the number was my poor father. Hence it is that I speak whereof I know. They were sent off without any reason whatsoever, unless it be that they were Blues, and that the Rouges governed.
' Now, Mr. Editor, Mr. Lemieux rages against Mr. Monk, asserting that he has dismissed hundreds of brave fathers of families. How comes it that, even as I write, in the county that the hon. Minister of Public Works represents, at Lachine, no dismissals have yet been made? The Liberals of Lachiile who may be dismissed have only to thank Hon. Mr. Lemieux. . . Learn, Mr. ex-minister, that in vain you shout, ... it will have no effect. We know the love for the French-Canadian that Mr. Monk has, and you. . . will never make us forget the one who has ever been devoted to us.
'You have asked for ten names; read now the following list and remember as you count them that these dismissals were only on the Lachine canal, at the Lachine locks. On the 30th December, 1898. were dismissed: Adolphe Leblanc, lockman, Lachine; Alex. Carignan, lockman, Lachine; Ephron Picard, boom guardian, Lachine; J. B. St. Aubin, lockman, iachine; Alex. Clement, lockman, Lachine; Camille Cousineau, bridge keeper, Lachine; Damase Chartrand, bridge keeper, Lachine; Oscar Belanger, lockman, Lachine; James Teiirney, lockman, Lachine; Edouard Lauzon, fockman, Lachine; Urgel Yiau, lockman, La-ehine; Theo. Davis, lockman, Lachine; Roderick Hogan, lockman, Lachine, Alexander Snider, lockman, Lachine.
' And I will add that two years later they found a way to superannuate Messrs. J. B. Deschamps, canal collector, and Louis Pare, each with a small pension not sufficient for livelihood, happily they had some savings.
' Amongst the dismissed was Mr. Damase Chartrand, who had had the misfortune of losing a leg through an accident at the locks during the summer of 1896. The Conservative government had made him a bridge keeper, in order to let him have easy work. With the others, on the 31st December, he received, mercilessly, his dismissal. Is this enough, Mr. ex-minister? You asked for ten names; count them well. . .
' Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your kindness, I remain, &c.,
'RAOUL CARIGNAN, Lachine, son of one of the dismissed.
2.	If so, does the government intend to take steps to find out the truth concerning these statements ?	.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	The attention of the Minister of Public Works has been called to the article in question.
2.	The accuracy of the statement contained in this article can easily be verified on reference to the records of the Department of Railways and Canals.


POSTMASTER AT SCOTCH VILLAGE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who was the postmaster of Scotch village, Hants county, Nova Sootia, previous to 1903?
2.	For what reason was there a change made in the postmaster of that place in that year ?
3.	What is the name of the new postmaster appointed in 1903?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Jeremiah NoTthup.
2.	The postmaster resigned.
3.	Thomas E. Nelson.


AUGUSTE MICHAUD.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Was Auguste Michaud, an employee of the Intercolonial railway at St. Elavie station, county of Rimouski, dismissed?
2.	If so, on what grounds was he dismissed and at whose request?
3.	Has an investigation been held in his
case ?	.


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For offensive political partisanship, to the personal knowledge of Mr. H. Boulay, M.P., by whom the charge was laid.
3.	Instructions were given, by the department on February 2, 1912, to C. E. Geliy, of Quebec, to hold an investigation.


GASOLENE ENGINES ON FISHING BOATS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many fishing boats engaged in fishing in Canadian waters are equipped with gasolene engines?
2.	What was the number of engines in nse in Canadian fishing boats each year for the five years ending December 31, 1911?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	At the end of the fiscal year 1910-11 there were 4,588.
2.	No figures are available for any year previous to 1910-11. The statistics for the present year are not yet complete


TRANSPORTATION OF FRESH FISH.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. How much was expended during the last fiscal year by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in assisting in the transportation of fresh fish?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. $48,141.97.


POSTMASTER OF ST. AMOUR.
Mr. PROULX:: 1. Has there been a change made in the postmastership of St. Amour in the county of Prescott, since the 1st of January, 1912? If so, for what reason?

2. Who was appointed postmaster dn the place of the previous one and who recommended his appointment?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes. It "was decided to reinstate Mr K. St. Amour, who was unjustly dismissed from the postmastership in November, 1896.
2.	Mr. St. Amour was reinstated on recommendation of Dr. E. G. Quesnel.


MR. RAOUL DESCHAMPS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Has Mr. Raoul Deschamps, of Notre Dame de Grace, heen appointed to some position in the Department of Public Works? If so, what salary does he receive?


Mr. MONK.: No.	'


MRS. J. N. COTE.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 


Has Mrs.   J.@: N, Cote heen dismissed as charwoman? If so, what were the reasons for her dismissal and by whom was said dismissal recommended?


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: No. Mrs. Cote was employed for temporary work from September 19 to November 1, 1911, when her employment ceased.


DIRECTOR GENERAL OP MEDICAL SERVICES.
*Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	Who is now the director general of medical services?
2.	Since when has he occupied his position?
3.	How long is it since his appointment?
4.	Has his time expired?
5.	Why and on whose recommendation has he been kept on duty?
6.	Is the intention of the government to remove him soon?


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria):: 1.	Colonel G. C. Jones.
2.	December 22, 1906.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The term for which he was originally appointed expired on December 22, 1911.
5.	In the interests of the service, on recommendation of the Minister in Militia Council.
6.	He has been reappointed for a period of four years from December 22, 1911.


STATUE ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LANDS, QUEBEC.
*Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	What are the limits of the land west and east of the land belonging to the Federal Government, situated opposite the legislative building at Quebec?
2.	Has the statue, which the Quebec government has just erected to the memory of the father-in-law of Mr. Gouin, been placed


Mr. PROULX.: on land belonging to the Federal Government ?
3.	Did the Quebec government ask the-Federal Government for authority to erect this statue on property which does not belong to the province?
4.	If so, when was this request made, and if granted, on what conditions?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The limits of the land belonging to the Federal government situate opposite the legislative buildings at Quebec are as shown coloured red on the attached blue print.
2.	The government has no information-
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada, for the year ending March 31, 1911-Mr. Hughes (Victoria).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings', Prince Edward Island).: Mr. Speaker, could any member of the government inform me when the cheques for the census enumerators will be issued? I have received many letters about this matter, the services were rendered a long time ago and there seems to be some unnecessary delay.


Mr. ROGERS.: Any delay that has occurred is due to. the fact that the accounts that have been sent in are not regular. Everything possible is being done by the department to adjust them, and have them 'paid as rapidly as possible.


APPOINTMENT OF TARIFF COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. White (Leeds) for the second reading of Bill (No. 88), to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Commission and the proposed amendment of Mr. Guthrie thereto.
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: The objections which have been taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to this Bill may be summarized under three heads, first that there is no call whatever for the Bill, and no proper reason given for its introduction; second that it is a subversion of constitutional government or certainly constitutional practice in Canada and, third, that it will tend to more closely ally the question of the tariff with party politics. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), twits the Finance Minister (Mr. White, Leeds), with not having given sufficient
266b

reasons for the introduction of this Bill. It is a peculiar thing that upon very many subjects with which, on account of the very short space of time that this government have been in power, we have not yet been able to deal, we are twitted by the opposition from day to day for not introducing such legislation, or at any rate declaring our policy. Upon the debate in reply to the speech from the Throne, this House was divided, because the government had not declared its policy on the naval question. We have been twitted because we have not announced our policy with reference to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and we have been twitted that we have not brought down legislation with respect to the granting to the provinces the land within their borders. And yet to-day, when we do bring down legislation implementing one more of the promises made by the present Premier (Mr. Borden), when he was in opposition, we find the opposition objecting, and stating that we were not justified in enunciating our policy to the people of this country. So it seems we would not be able to satisfy the opposition no matter what we did. But the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), answers his own argument in his speech. He says that we have no reason for bringing in this legislation, yet at page 2666 of ' Hansard ' he says:
For some years back, I have been one of those who have found fault with the statistical information gathered by the Canadian government. A much better system might well be evolved and put in practice, instead of the present one which is neither accurate nor convenient. I believe that all the information which the Finance Minister, judging hy his remarks, desires, lie could obtain by the appointment of experts added to the departments of Trade and Commerce and Customs. There is no necessity for the appointment of a permanent Tariff Commission at all. You could appoint to the Customs and Trade and Commerce departments, expert technical men, who would get for you all the information which these commissioners are supposed to obtain. I believe that this would he a much less expensive way of arriving at more satisfactory results. These experts would he at work under the eyes of the minister and he responsible to him for their work, whereas the commission will be an irresponsible entity.
So that the hon. gentleman himself points out reasons for introducing this measure. The only contention of the hon. member is that the proper method of collecting information had not been adopted. Later on in his speech my hon. friend said:
Let him amend the Customs Act, if necessary, to make this change. I believe that both sides of the House would support an amendment to that effect. We do not begrudge any expense to get necessary information, hut we do not want legislation which will be a most radical departure from a cardinal principle of our constitution.
The junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) said that he had suggested to the late government three years ago that a change should be made in the administration of the Customs Department, he bad suggested to the then Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding), that there should be established what he called a Tariff Bureau. I would like to know the difference between a Tariff Bureau and a Tariff Commission. It is a matter of name. He is going to establish a tariff tribunal to gather information and it seems to me a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Thus I say that these gentlemen have answered themselves when they say there is no reason for the appointment of this Tariff Commission.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that the Minister of Finance in introducing this Bill had simply copied cheap Yankee legislation. He said:
The bill is largely an American model, nothing more or less than a cheap Yankee device.	.
The junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) says:
In the United States there is no such thing as a Tariff Commission, and there may never he-likely there never will be. Strictly speaking, there is no tariff board.
We have the hon. member for South Wellington saying that this Bill is an exact copy of something which the junior member for Halifax says does not exist. That is a peculiar state of affairs. Upon this point the hon. gentlemen have again answered themselves. The hon. member for South Wellington holds out a challenge to the Minister of Finance to disprove his statement that this proposed Tariff Commission will have the effect of increasing the tariff and that it was introduced for that purpose. If I thought the institution of the present Tariff Commission was being placed before this House and passed by this House for the purpose of increasing the tariff of this country at all times and would not be used also for the purpose of reducing the tariff, I for one would vote against it, and it is not fair to say that because a Tariff Commission was passed in the United States and because a protectionist party happened to be in power, therefore, the commission was created not only to preserve a high tariff in the United States, but to increase that tariff, because we know that in the last few years in the United States public opinion has been in favour of lowering the duties and that commission was appointed concurrently with

that feeling in the United States. I shall read the words of President Taft in his message to Congress, upon that particular measure, and see whether he thought that the creation of a Tariff Commission in the United States was intended for the purpose of increasing the tariff:
It is not unlikely that in the light of accurate statistics we may find that certain schedules in our tariff are too high. If we do, I shall at that time not hesitate to immediately recommend their revision. I believe the work of a tariff board should be to secure and present evidence, not to frame a tariff. With this evidence before it Conga-ess will act fairly and wisely and the United States have under this method, a tariff established on a thoroughly scientific basis, as it should have been a quarter of a century ago.
So that the challenge of the hon. member for South Wellington is answered by the President of the United States himself in a message upon the very subject of which my hon. friend was speaking.
Let me point out some other inconsistencies between the statements of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the statements of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) at page 2662 of ' Hansard ' told us:
The fact therefore is that we are going to have three permanent tariff commissioners; a board just as permanently appointed as a bench of judges is appointed.
He entered a strong protest against the Bill because it created such a permanent tariff board. But, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) half an hour afterwards directed all his remarks to the importance of having a permanent tariff authority, and to ensure that permanency he urged that civil servants be selected to form a tariff bureau. What inconsistency there is between these gentlemen on the opposite side of the House! If only a few more of them would speak they would tear to shreds every argument they have used against this Bill. Then, we were told by gentlemen opposite that the appointment of this commission would have the effect of more closely allying the tariff with party government, and as a remedy against that the hon. member suggested that there should be officials taken from certain departments, officials under the control of the government, and to some extent depending for their promotion upon the minister, to form a ' tariff bureau ', and he contended this bureau would be freer from party bias than the board proposed under this Bill, which my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) said would be composed of men as independent as are the judges of the land. The fact " that hon. gentlemen opposite are driven to such a line of argument shows the weakness of their case. The three gentlemen Mr. MIDDLEBRO
who have spoken on the other side of the House usually present good strong reasons to support their views, and the fact that their arguments in the present instance are so illogical and so inconsistent simply shows that they have been casting around aimlessly for some contention to buttress their objections to this Bill. Then, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) referring to the probable appointments to the tariff board stated that there was no doubt but that the appointees would be Conservatives. Well, so long as we have party government in this country, so long will the party in power favour its own friends, other things being equal. We might as well accept that idea as a start. It is a principle of party government that the party in power should appoint officials in whom they have confidence. Suppose, for example, that after we had been returned to power at the last election by an overwhelming majority on the principle of moderate protection, and on the principle of sustaining our tariff substantially as it is, except with such variations as are necessary from time to time, and that then we should turn around and appoint three free traders on this tariff commission, would any one suppose that we would be carrying out the mandate of the people and doing our duty to those who trusted us to administer the affairs of the country? No, we would be guilty of a breach of faith. However, that may be, I want to remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) that it is not true that in all cases this government has followed _ the practice of appointing only its own friends. Why, the very minister who introduced this Bill comes from the ranks of his own party, and the man whom this government placed at the head of the Transcontinental Railway Commission is a Liberal. It will therefore be seen that although we have the right, if we choose, to appoint party friends, we have so far exercised our best judgment in calling to the various public positions men who we think can best administer public affairs in the true interest of the country. Another reason why we are introducing this Bill is to carry out a promise made by the Conservative party when in opposition, and this government believes in implementing its promises, although, I hope it will not cost us as much to implement our promises as it cost the late government to implement its guarantee to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let us look at some of the duties which will be cast upon this new tariff board. It will be one of their first duties T presume to consider each item in the tariff. Now, I have given a little attention to this tariff for my own satisfaction, and I am free to say that I know very little about it, although possibly I do know as

much about it as mo3t hon. members in this House. Here is the tariff and I find there are three thousand seven hundred different articles dutiable and free in schedule A, and these again are grouped into seven hundred and ten items, so it is pretty safe to say there is not a single member in this House who knows what every item in that tariff is. It is also safe to hazard the assertion that not one half the members of this House know where the products come from, the local conditions of production, the cost of transportation, and what the duty is or what it ought to be. This board will be composed of specialists competent to study the tariff, and, as we know, this is an age of specialists. Every man who comes to the government urging a change in the tariff is a specialist in his own line, and when he appears before the minister to urge his case he necessarily has an advantage over tile minister because he has studied his own special line of business and knows what suits his own heeds. It is quite apparent that the time has come when we must have some regularly constituted body with proper powers of investigation, in order that we may intelligently legislate with respect to tariff matters. Under present conditions, some one walks into the office of the Minister of Finance or some deputation complains that the tariff is too high on a certain article and another comes in and says the tariff is too low. A deputation waits on the Minister of Finance urging him either to lower or to increase the tariff and that deputation presents arguments from every standpoint in favour of their request, and as to the accuracy of these statements the Minister of Finance of course has no assurance. Is it not well to have such a board as is now proposed to advise the minister; to seek information and to present a well considered and carefully thought out report to him? Let me give you an example of what I mean. Within the past few weeks there came from my own riding two deputations, one of them being on behalf of the Coal Association of the province of Ontario. That deputation pointed out to the Minister of Finance what was news to me, that if a vessel loads with coal at the town of Owen Sound and sails for Port Arthur, touching at an International port en route she does not have to pay duty on that coal; but, if the same vessel loads coal at Owen Sound and does a coasting business, and does not touch at an international port she has to pay a duty vof fifty-three cents per ton on that coal. That case is brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and of course the Minister of Finance cannot be expected to know all the circumstances and conditions which made that imposition of duty in the one case imperative, and in the other not. Such a case as that would be a 85
matter for the consideration of a Tariff Commission.
This body of experts would be able to take evidence on that. That certainly has the effect of diverting trade through international waters, because in one case there is a duty of 53 cents a ton on coal and in the other case there is no duty.
Then, the cement manufacturers may come down here. In my town there are three cement companies, and I understand the west desires a reduction of -the duty on cement, because the people in the west are complaining that the price of and duty on cement are too high. They say that a cement merger has been formed and is paying on watered stock a dividend which is equal to 25 or 30 per cent on its legitimate stock. These cement gentlemen cofne down here' and say, the price of cement is high, not because of the tariff, but because of the high freight rates between the east and the west. This commission has power to investigate both the cost of production and the cost of transportation to the west. In the State of Kansas there is a cluster of mills turning out cement which undersells to a great extent the cement produced in this country, and what is the reason? It is because they employ the cheap labour of the Latin races from Europe to whom they pay a lower rate of wage than our people will accept. In addition, alongside of the cement mills are silk mills in which the women of these Latin races work, so that the combination of the two makes it possible for these people to live on a rate of wages which would be ruinous to the workingmen of this country. These are matters which this commission will take into consideration. They are stated to me as facts, but I do not know whether they are facts or not. Therefore, I want the commission to take evidence and find out.
Then we had the fruit growers coming down here and saying that any lowering of the duties on fruits would be injurious to them, and you heard the answer of the late Prime Minister to the effect that he did not know whether the representations made were true or not, and that as reciprocity was on the tapis he could do nothing. The grain growers of the west also came here with their representations. The farmers of Ontario came saying that they were injured by the introduction of cheap American pork, and asked to have the duty on pork increased. Was any man in this House able to say definitely and accurately whether or not those duties should be increased, without some authoritative statement from a body of experts such as that proposed by this Bill? I could go on and illustrate by references to many other things. Take the Combines



Act. If a deputation comes to this House and says, we believe there is a combine in this country, in a certain article, by reason of which the price of that article has been unduly enhanced, who in this House knows whether that is the case or not? This commission has power to go right into the factories and investigate their books and bring the men before them and do anything else necessary to see whether the price has been unlawfully enhanced or not.
The next argument presented to the House by our hon. friends opposite is that the passage of this Bill would subvert the constitution of this country. I will admit that if there is anything in this Bill which gives legislative or executive action to the Tariff Commission, that argument is perfectly sound. I myself would vote against giving this commission any legislative or executive action with respect to the alteration or revision of the tariff. But the whole argument of hon. gentlemen opposite is based on an assumption which does not exist, and which would lead me to believe that they had prepared their speeches on this Tariff Commission, in the expectation that it would have some legislative or executive action. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) referred to the resolution that was" moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the last Imperial Conference, which he said bore mo analogy to the functions of this commission. If the hon. gentleman had read that resolution, I think he would not have made that statement. What was the resolution that Sir_ Wilfrid Laurier mowed on that occasion. It was one praying that the Imperial Government would appoint a conn-mission composed not only of representatives of Canada, but of representatives ofv every other portion of the empire, and of Great Britain as well, to do exactly what this Tariff Commission is going to do. I will read that resolution:
He asked for the appointment of a Royal Commission with a view of investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each rrart of the empire represented at this ."on-ference, the development attained and attainable, and the facilities for production, manufacture, and distribution; the trade of each part with the others and with the outside world, the food and raw material requirements of each, and the sources thereof available. To that extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise.
That commission was to do nothing but investigate and report, just what is proposed for this commission. Was there any question of the subversion of Canadian autonomy when the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, and who is supposed to be the omnipresent protector Mir. MIDDLEBRO.
and vigilant mentor of Canadian autonomy, moved this resolution at the last Imperial Conference ? Yet the cases are exactly analogous, because that commission was simply asked to go and investigate facts and report, just as the commission now proposed is to do.
I wish also to refer to the Railway Commission, which hon. gentlemen opposite [DOT]appointed when in power. We have no fault to find with them for that; on the contrary, we have commended their action in that respect time and again, and so have the people of this country-why? Because there was a time not long ago when all the duties performed by the Railway Commission were performed by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council- more or less of a political body. But there came a time in the development of Canada when, by reason of the -development of our railways, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council could not attend to the many questions brought before it, and it became necessary, in the -interests of this country, that railway rates and everything pertaining to railways -should be assigned to a commission; and that commission was given -powers greatly in excess of those given to this commission.
This commission will only have power to-investigate and report. It would never do to give it the right and the power to do anything which would affect the revenues of the country. We are giving it much less power than we gave the Railway Commission. To the Railway Commission we gave power, not to do anything that would affect the revenues of the country, but to control the railway freight and passenger rates throughout the whole Dominion; and1 in that respect we gave them executive power and took from ourselv-es the right to have anything to say in fixing traffic rates on railways. Yet, although when we vested in the Railway Commission this sole-executive power to deal with railway rates, hon. gentlemen opposite had nothing to say but on the contrary fathered that proposition; now, when we are about to appoint a commission which will simply have the power to investigate and ascertain the facts-, and will not have any executive power at all, we are charged with subverting the constitution. Can hon. gentlemen opposite really realize the meaning of their words when they make such an argument?
The late First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) consented to the appointment of a Waterways Commission. He appointed t-hree commissioners. For what purpose? To ascertain the facts and conditions in connection with the international waters between this -country and the United States. But why did he appoint special commissioners for that purpose? Because the right hon. gentleman -and the late government

came to the conclusion that the subject of the international waters and the various encroachments on the Tights of the Dominion in that connection, were so complex and abstruse that the ministers of the late government had not the time to deal with them, and, therefore, they appointed an International Waterways Commission, whose duty it was to investigate into all the circumstances, conditions and facts and report. What were they authorized to do- their duties are defined in their first report in 1905 as follows:
Whose duty it shall be to investigate and report upon the conditions and uses of the waters adjacent to the boundary lines between the United States and Canada, including all of the waters of the lakes and rivers whose natural outlet is by the River St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean; also upon the maintenance and regulation of suitable levels, and also upon the effect upon the shores of these waters and the structures thereon, and upon the interests of navigation by reason of the diversion of these waters from or change in their natural flow; and, further, to report upon the necessary measures to regulate such diversion, and to make such recommendations for improvements and regulations as shall best subserve the interests of navigation in said waters. The said commissioners shall report upon the advisabilty of locating a. dam at the outlet of Lake Erie, with a view to determining whether such dam will benefit navigation, and if such structure is deemed necessary shall make recommendations to their respective governments looking to an agreement or treaty which shall provide for the construction of the same, and they shall make am estimate of the probable cost thereof.
Our hon. friends opposite will see that the late government gave that International Waterways Commission more powers than we are proposing to give this Tariff Commission, because they gave the Waterways Commission power to make regulations respecting international waters. This will be seen by reference to page 90 of the International Waterways Teport and carry them into executive action.
In due course by a report of the Committee of the Privy Council of Canada, approved by the Governor General of Canada, it was resolved : That His Majesty's government accept the invitation to co-operate in the formation of a commission. This report, after further reciting that as the subject to be dealt with pertained to ' the regulations of the waters adjaoent to the international boundary,' the matter, in so far as Canada was concerned, should he under the Department of the Interior and the Department of Public Works.
On the following page ol that report will be found the following:
After the appointment of the Canadian commissioners, the Postmaster General of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in communicating the matter to the Canadian House of Com-85J
mons, in January last, dealt with the subject-matter of the commission as covering all waters adjacent to the boundaries of the two countries, and in the course of his speech made the following statements: In sections of the country where the boundary is not water, hut land, there are streams and large rivers which have their sources in one country and which flow into another. Complaint has been made by the United States that Canadians have constructed some works upon rivers which have their sources in Canada and which flow into the United States, and that these works affect the flow of the waters^ in their country. We also have made oomplaints to the United States that Americans have constructed upon some rivers, the St. John river, for instance, works which affect the flow of the waters in our country. It is, therefore, to the mutual interest and advantage of both countries to have the question properly investigated with a view of having concurrent legislation, if such should be found necessary.
For these reasons we have thought it advisable to respond to the invitation of the United States to have this question investigated. We have agreed to a commission to he composed of six members, three to represent the government of the United States and three to represent the government of Canada.
Did it ever occur to any hon. gentleman opposite to object that by establishing that Waterways Commission and giving it the powers we did, the late government was in any way subverting the constitution or taking from this parliament any of the poweTs which justly belong to it? Not one of them raised any such objection, but on the contrary, the Bill establishing that commission was supported without dissent, because parliament desired that the government should obtain the uest information available before deciding on any definite action. Then there was the International Fisheries Commission. Why did we appoint that? Let me here say that if there is anything in the argument hon. gentlemen opposite put forward against the appointment of a Tariff Commission, that argument would apply with still greater force against the appointment of any international commission. Because in the case of a Tariff Commission, this government has absolute control, whereas in the case of an International Commission, there are two governments concerned, each of which has as much say as the other. The government, in the ease of the Tariff Commission, may remove the commissioners from office and abolish the commission, but it cannot in the case of an International Commission, which is the outcome of a treaty, without going to Great Britain and consulting the Imperial authorities.
Why did the late government appoint an International Fisheries Commission? Because of the disputes which arose in connection with our fisheries. Some people wanted nets of a certain size, the people of British Columbia wanted certain things

done, and our maritime provinces wanted other things done. The government then did what any other intelligent government would have done. They determined to place these matters in the hands of experts, who would call the parties interested before them, gather the facts, on oath if necessary, and enable the government to devise more executive and intelligent legislation than it otherwise could have done. I can point to commission after commission and ask hon. gentlemen opposite to show one essential difference between the powers given these various commissions I have named, and the one we are appointing today, except that we are not now giving the Tariff Commission such large powers as we have some of the others. Yet we are told that in appointing this Tariff Commission we are subverting our constitution. Why, if that be the case, our constitution must have been completely upset long ago by these hon. gentlemen opposite, and yet we seem to be getting along famously.
A little while ago the question of technical industrial education came up in this House, and my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), himself proposed that this government should do-what? That it should appoint a commission. What for? To visit the industrial centres of Canada, and the United States, gather all the information there obtainable, and then cross the water to the countries of Europe, and after having made all the investigation possible, report to this House. There was then no fear in my hon. friend's mind of our subverting the constitution by the appointment of such a commission. That idea never occurred to hon. gentlemen opposite until the Bill we are now discussing was submitted to the House. They then went into their little chambers and worried about what position they ought to take, and what opposition they could make, and they determined on a line of argument which does not do much credit to their intelligence.
My hon. friend the junior member for Halifax said: I do not care that this commission may not have legislative or executive power. When it brings in a report, that report is bound to be tinctured into the tariff. But does he not know that this commission is appointed simply to ascertain the facts, and you cannot get rid of the facts. You must have the facts in framing your tariff. Let my hon. friend look up the speech made by Mr. Champ Clark on the Bill which was amended by the United States Senate, and he will see that the leader of the Democrats and the advocate of low tariff reform in the United States, while he objected to the establishment of a commission, because it would be composed of Republicans, said that the Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
commission would not have legislative or executive power, but simply power to collate the facts and report; and he went on to say that facts are facts, no matter whence they come, and, therefore, he would not oppose the Bill. My hon. friend said this afternoon that the present government are in favour of higher protection. Nothing of the kind. Suppose the representation is made that the duty on agricultural implements are too high. Well, if they are too high I am in favour of lowering them, but I want some definite scientific information to prove this, and at present there is nobody, and no tribunal from which I can get that information. This Tariff Commission, however, will have the power to enter every factory, every industrial establishment, examine its books find out the cost of production, the amount of capital invested, the dividends paid, and all the conditions governing it, and then report the facts to the government. And on the reports of this commission, the government will come to a conclusion as to what tariff legislation is desirable. To my mind the objection to investigations of that kind should come rather from the manufacturers, and be prompted by a desire to conceal the facts from the country. As President Taft said, when speaking of the tariff board appointed under the Payne-Aldrich law: I do not say that this board should be established, because the tariff is too high or too low, but in order that we may ascertain the facts and revise our tariff if the facts call for a revision.
My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), said on several occasions that there is not in other countries a Tariff Commission similar to this. Quite true, but they have other institutions for determining what the tariff shall be. What is the object of appointing those men? It is simply in order that we may get at the facts, because our tariff must be based on the facts.
Now, let me give another illustration of our lack of information in this House; and, if I refer to the reciprocity treaty, I do so in no controversial way, but in illustration of the need of actual information which we should have in the country, not only to assist us in revising our own tariff, but in negotiating commercial treaties with other countries. Last year, when the reciprocity matter was before the House, we were very anxious to get information as to the prices of commodities on the American side and on our own. In the debate on the 2nd of March, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), said:
I would like to call the attention of the Finance Minister to the message sent by President Taft in reply to a request from the Senate, in which statistics are given as to

the different items affected by the schedule in the agreement now under discussion. These statistics include the prices of various commodities such as beef, pork, butter, Ac., in Canada and the United States for a series of years, especially for the last year. In reply to the request the President sent down a list which gave the exact information required by the Senate.
In reply, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, said:
Of course we had to use our own sources of information and hon. gentlemen who criticise the agreement will have to do likewise.
That is the only answer we got. Later on the present Prime Minister (Mr. Borden.) drew the matter to the attention of the then Minister of Finance, but the only information he received was that a document had been published by the Minister of Labour giving prices in Canada and labour conditions. But we all know that that document was not compiled with a view to the reciprocity treaty, but merely in connection with the work of the Department of Labour. And the hon. Mr. Fielding added:
There is no other information available.
The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) wrote to the Department of Trade and Commerce asking for information. Fur we must have information in a case of that kind if we are to give an intelligent decision upon a question whether such a treaty as was proposed should be approved or not. We must know, for instance, whether products affected by the treaty could be raised in a foreign country more cheaply than here and even adding transportation laid down here at a lower figure than they could be produced for in this country. And what reply did the hon. gentleman receive?
I beg to return you herewith your reference No. 172 for statement showing comparative prices of butter and eggs in London, England, and certain points in Canada and the United States. This department has no information upon the subject.
Imagine that! Imagine writing to the Department of Trade and Commerce for information that we ought to have in order to form an intelligent opinion upon a reciprocity pact and then only receive the answer, ' This department has no information !' Think of what this means, especially when on the other side of the line they had a body of trained experts who had been employed for years in collecting facts, so that when the United States government came to deal with this matter they had ' mountains of information '. Hon. Mr. Perle.y also wrote to the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce on the subject and. received this reply:
The compilation of statistics such as that requested in your return has more than once engaged the attention of this department, but we found that it required very considerable work which this department has yet been unable to undertake.
Not only that, but the then Minister of Finance told 'the people of this country that it was not necessary to have any information in order to negotiate the reciprocity pact. I will read you his speech to that effect. In this very same debate we were twitting hon. members who then sat on this side with having nothing to act upon except the blue-books which had been laid upon the table and which give us no intelligible information as to prices and conditions here as compared with those of the United States. Hon. Mr. Fielding said:
Then, with regard to what took place at Washington, I want to say to my hon. friends that we had abundance of statistics. We had the various documents and public books of the United States and Canada, to which we were able to refer from time to time, and we did not fail to make use of the ... I wish to add that in my judgment, the information for the purpose of this agreement, was not necessary at all.
Imagine that ! And the former Minister of Customs made a similar statement later on, as I will show. These gentlemen went there saying: We do not need information oar statistics such as have been compiled by the United States Tariff Commission; we can go down there and, without anything of that kind, negotiate a treaty with the President of the United States. I imagine the two representatives of Canada on one side of the conference table, and on the other side President Taft and some of the brainiest men. of the United States, armed with official information as to the prices, as to consumption of products and the extent of production on the American side, and on the Canadian side as well, which they have been collecting for years'. I can imagine the smile on the President's face when he found Mr. Fielding did not have, and apparently that he did not want, any information. And when these American representatives asked for concessions and Mr. Fielding gave them, they must have felt that it was like taking candy from children. The Canadian representatives went there without information, without any knowledge to guide them in what they were doing. On the other hand, the American representatives knew tile position exactly, their every move on the chessboard of that negotiation was made on definite, accurate, scientific information gathered by men who had been all over the United States and Canada and knew exactly the conditions in both countries. They knew exactly what they were doing, and we were playing the game like

a lot of children. And when the United States unwittingly threw out this lifebuoy, document 849, we grasped at it, and it helped to save us from national disaster. This document was one Of the most powerful arguments used by the Conservatives in the recent appeal to the people, for they were able to prove from it thut, oin the showing of the United States themselves, it would be injurious for this country to negotiate a treaty with the United States.
1 do not wonder that the bon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) does not want a Tariff Commission appointed, for it was the Tariff Commission of the United States which elicited facts which helped to turn the hon. gentleman's party out_ of power. I venture to say that had my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had a Tariff Commission in operation a year before, he would not have negotiated a treaty, and the chances are he would have been still on this side of the House. That is one of the most cogent arguments I can give for having authentic information on which we could base an intelligent conclusion.
Now, by way of digression, let me show the hind of information that these gentlemen in the United States collected. I refer first to the paper schedules. I find there are fifty schedules with respect to the paper manufacturing industry alone. And, be it noted, there is not a single recommendation in this report. They do not say to the President of the United States: It is better to do so and so. If our commission were to do likewise, I should object to it, because it is not for them to make suggestions for legislative action. Their message should be: Here are the facts; use your own sweet will upon them. So, in this document No. 849, there is neither suggestion nor recommendation as to what should be done in view of the facts collected, simply 127 pages of official facts with respect to reciprocity with Canada. Can any one find fault with that? And as to this department of pulp and news-print paper,' as showing the scope of the investigation, they say:
The data on pulp and paper included in the following tables was secured from 42 ground-wood mills, 17 sulphite mills, and 27 news-print mills, making a total of 86 mills and representing about two-thirds of the ground wood-pulp and news-print paper production of the United States and all of the sulphite pulp used in the production of newsprint paper. An investigation of the cost of production in all the other mills is now under way. The data from Canada were taken from a number of mills producing over two-thirds of the total output of news-print paper in the Dominion, including the best equipped mills . . . All these figures, including those from Canada, have been [DOT][DOT]secured directly by our representatives from the hooks of the different companies. We prepared exact schedules including all essential items of Mr. MIDDLEBRO. [DOT]
equipment, cost, and wages; and for each of the companies included in the tables, we have the original schedules covering all the items in detail.
An absolutely thorough investigation of the whole industry. Now, take the wool schedule, and let us see what investigation they made of the question of sheep raising, the basic industry for wool:
Coming to sheep, we approach a phase of agricultural production that has for several months past been a subject of a painstaking inquiry at the hands of the Tariff Board. We refer to that particular branch of live stock husbandry underlying schedule K of the United States tariff, to wit, the growing of sheep in the various countries and the conditions surrounding the marketing of flock products. This inquiry, necessarily worldwide in its bearing, is not completed. We are nevertheless, able to speak at the present time with a reasonably complete knowledge of the facts concerning the sheep growing industry in the United States and Canada, more especially as relates to comparative conditions in Ontario and such typical states as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Representatives of the board have visited some 700 typical farms in the leading sheep breeding sections of Ohio, south Virginia, western Pennsyvania, west Virginia, New Hampshire and Vermont, obtaining facts and figures covering costs and prices. These data are now being analysed and worked out with a view toward developing cost of wool production. In connection therewith the cost of maintenance of sheep per head for a year in Ohio and adjacent states has already been developed. The method pursued in obtaining first hand information as to the cost of keeping sheep was through schedules filled out by exnerts who personally visited the farms studied.
The accompanying tables show the result of a study of two Ohio counties so investigated, and the data presented may be taken as fairly indicating the cost of maintaining sheep in the localities most largely interested. These figures are tentative, and are subject to revision and possible correction when the entire investigation has been completed.
I quote that to show the thoroughness with which that commission made the investigation. The woollen industry in Ontario to-day is in a decaying condition. Would it not be proper for this commission to examine, after the manner of the United States Tariff Commission, the conditions in Ontario, and in that thorough manner? I think if we can rejuvenate the woollen trade of this country, that is one instance of what this Tariff Commission might do.
Now, Sir, I want to summarize what I think should be the duties of this commission.
(a)	Will be a medium of gathering accurate and definite information on production, transportation and prices of goods at home and abroad, without which there can he no intelligent legislation in tariff matters.

(b)	This information may be obtained on oath and the production and inspection of the books of any concern to prove or disprove the need of protection or bonuses.
(c)	In so far as jurisdiction is conferred on the commission it will tend to remove the tariff from party politics and transfer it to a semi-judicial body but rightly giving it no executive legislative powers to affect our revenues.
(d)	It will provide a long felt want, a body of experts on our tariff and on conditions of production at home and abroad.
(e)	Will enable the Governor in Council through its medium to decide whether, or not there exists any combine or agreement under section 12 Customs Act, 1907, and to remove or lower the duties on all articles unduly enhanced in price because of such combine.
(f)	Will be able to ascertain definitely and report whether or not goods are being dumped into Canada contrary to the dumping clause of our Customs Act and if so to enable the government to have the 15 per cent added.
(g)	They can prepare special reports of the cause of the decline in certain industries or in certain branches of agriculture, or trade with other countries, and the changes and effect and operation of the tariff of, or treaties with other nations; on the trade and industries of Canada.
(h)	Consolidate the many Tariff Acts, Schedules, orders in council in Canada and our commercial treaties with other nations and compile and publish a glossary on our own tariffs or as President Taft said of their own, to translate it into plain English, and save to a great extent the employment of customs brokers and the worry of importers and others in adjusting duties.
I think these conclusions cover probably what would be the principal duties of this commission. For this and other reasons I have given, I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton).: We had supposed that we had constitutional government, but I think we can consider now that we are henceforth to be governed by commission. While we have appointed a good many commissions, we have also dispensed with the services of some. I would like to call the attention of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) to the fact that while the government has seen fit, as a measure of economy, to dispense with the services of three commissioners appointed for the purpose of supervising the construction of the Transcontinental railway, the money that they are going to save in that measure of economv thev are going to lose now by the appointment of the proposed Tariff Commission. So if my hon. friend is that
friend of economy which he poses as being, he will vote with this side of the House against the second reading of the Bill. It is not economy, I think, either in the matter of the expenditure of money or in the efficiency of the public service, to dispense with three commissioners charged with the responsibility of constructing a work of the most essential advantage to the country, at an expenditure of many millions of dollars, an expenditure that requires the most careful supervision in order to secure satisfactory results. But it is right and proper on grounds of economy and efficiency to dispense with the three Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, then there are no grounds of economy, and I think it has already been shown no grounds of efficiency, for the appointment of the proposed Tariff Commission-three commissioners, at a salary equal to that of the cabinet ministers who appoint them, with a secretary whose salary is equal to that of the Deputy Ministers of the various departments up to a year or two ago.
However, it has been decided by the government to appoint this commission, and we must assume that there is a purpose in the appointment. It cannot be presumed that even a very lavish government would appoint a commission at an initial salary cost of $24,500 a year, and with the almost unlimited expenses that will follow, without a purpose, a purpose I am confident beyond the mere finding of positions at comfortable salaries for their friends.
If I understand the matter, the commission is to be appointed for the purpose of securing information upon which to base changes in the tariff. I heard the Prime Minister discussing that subject, and it seemed to me he wished the House to understand that this commission was appointed merely for the purpose of collecting statistics. But I cannot think, as I have said, that even a lavish government would appoint a $25,000 commission merely for the purpose of collecting statistics. There must be a purpose beyond the mere collection of statistics, and flip purpose I think is to be found upon the information collected changes in the tariff. Unless that hp the purpose, then there ;- no purpose that would justify the appointment.
The purpose of the commission, as I understood the Finance Minister in his speech and as I understand those, who have spoken on the same side on behalf of the Bill, and as I understand the contents of the Bill itself, is to find reasons -I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker-to find excuses for increases in the tariff, to find out to what extent the tariff can be increased while the people may still be induced to submit to these increased exac-

tions and retain our hon. friends in office.
I quite agree that if there is to be tariff changes it is necessary that there should be information, that there should be inquiry; but in my humble judgment the purpose of the inquiry should be the direct opposite of that which has been indicated from the other side of the House, and by the terms of the Bill. I understand that the revenues of Canada are some twenty or thirty millions of dollars in excess of the needs of expenditure. It would seem to me that there might very well be inquiry as to a readjustment of the tariff whereby the burden of this extra taxation might be removed from the shoulders of the people, and as to such a readjustment of the tariff burden that it would bear more equally upon the wealth and upon the labour of our people. There might be a further inquiry as to how far the present tariff conditions tend to divert the payments made by the consumer into private pockets rather than into the public treasury. If these were the purposes of the appointment of the commission I could understand its propriety.
At the present time the business conditions of this country are exceedingly favourable. The Minister of Finance suggested in his sipeech that such a time was not the time to make changes in the tariff. I would respectfully submit that if the changes to be made are to be made along the lines that I would wish to see, ' at such a time ' is the time to make the changes. The present boom condition in our country is good for the man who has nothing; because he meets opportunity to better his position; and it is good for the man who has much because he meets opportunity to make that much more; but in the interests of the 75 per cent or maybe 80 per cent of the people who have practically fixed incomes, the farmers, the salaried employees or the wage labourers, to whom these opportunities do not come by reason of these good limes but upon whom the high cost of living bears exceedingly and to a greater and greater degree from year to year, it seems to me it would be well worthy of consideration if some part of the burden of the $75,000,000 of our revenue that is raised by customs taxation might not, under some readjustment of the tariff, be lessened to reduce the cost of living and so better the circumstances of that 75 per cent of our people.
If the commission to be appointed were to be composed of men holding the well recognized and differing views which are held in regard to customs taxation, and if the members of the commission would loyally represent all the various interests affected, the consumer as well as the producer, and if the evidence as secured were made available to the public and were secured for that purpose, then the proposed Mr. OLIVER.
commission would be a commission in fact as well as in name. But the men whom it is proposed to appoint will be political and tariff partisans. The commission _ will act as directed by the minister and will report only to him. It will be a commission in name and in cost but not a commission in fact. As I understand the matter this is a commission to humbug the people into believing that the information being gathered is being gathered in the public interest when really it is being gathered in special interests at the public expense.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would remind the hon. gentleman that it is not permissible to impute improper motives.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker, I am not imputing motives to any person in the House, it is the legislation to which I am imputing motives as I think I am permitted to do.
To me it seems that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) disputes with the hon. the Postmaster General the position of humourist of the Cabinet. It is surely a joke that $24,500 of the people's money, with unlimited expenses, is to be taken in the people's name for the purpose of securing information which will enable the special interests the 'better to rob the people by means of tariff changes.
But there is a particularly creamy joke contained in subsection 3 of section 4 of the Bill. This clause provides authority by which the commission may hold inquiries into combines which are alleged to enhance prices. The provision reads:
' In the same manner as a judge of the Exchequer Court or any other judge, therein referred to, may be so empowered.'
The men appointed as political partisans to do certain work in justification of party policy, under the direction of, and reporting to the Minister of Finance, are to have the same standing as to inquiries concerning the combines to whom the government owes its existence, as a judge of any court.
I notice that the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Amesj laid1 some stress upon the necessity of tariff legislation that would protect the labourer. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the labourer, thie man whose capital is his labour and who must sell that capital in order to live, is in exactly the same position as the producer who depends upon the export market for the price of his products. The farmer who depends upon the export market must sell in competition with the world; and the labourer, even in the most highly protected country must sell his labour just the same in competition with the world. There is protection for the capital invested in the industries, but there is no protection for the labour that is the industriy.

It is a fact that the labourer is from time to time urged to vote for a high tariff, and it is a fact that up to the present and generally speaking he has done so; but it is not on the promise of higher wages, it is on the threat of the closed factory.
The demand for labour depends, not upon the tariff, but upon t'he market for the product of the factory, and the higher the tariff the greater the restriction on the demand for the product and therefore the greater the restriction on the demand for labour. At the_ same time, every increase in the tariff increases the cost of living to the labourer. The promises or the suggestions of benefit to the labouring classes from high tariffs have never been fulfilled and they never will be fulfilled.
The government was elected in opposition to the policy of reduction of taxation and expansion of trade. The defection of the high tariff section of the Liberal party represented in the Cabinet by the Minister of Finance aided most materially in achieving the success of the government. The interests elected the government; they are entitled to their pound of flesh and are demanding it. Admittedly it must be difficult for a government elected on the cry ' let well enough alone,' to accede to the demands of the interests on such short notice, or, in other words, to deliver the goods. But, this Tariff Commission will lay the wires through which the power will be turned on a little later.
In the meantime the interests will be kept quiet and the people will not be alarmed. If the government believes that industry can be built up and resources developed by maintaining or increasing the burden of taxation and by maintaining or increasing the restrictions on trade, they have the mandate of the people to give effect to their views. No doubt they will need a great deal of information, but it is for them to get their information by the ordinary means taken under a responsible system of government. They were elected to increase taxation and restrict trade, let them now do what they asked a mandate to enable them to do-, and not seek by subterfuge of miscalled commissions to shirk full responsibility for their policy and its result.


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: It is no small compliment to the merits of the legislation now before the House that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) usually the most belligerent of the opposition, glorying in strife and in his happiest mood when the strife is hottest, should be under the necessity of artificially creating the little enthusiasm he did, and that a man of his capacity and his power of language should be under the necessity of, in attacking this Bill, reading
from carefully prepared sophisms, and attacking what his friends call a radical measure by excerpts from the radical press. The hon. member for Edmonton, of all men, is at his best in opposition.
If a flaw can be found in the Bill, he is the one to find it; if there is an evil present or to be anticipated, he is the one to reveal it. But, Sir, he has laboured, as he never laboured in this House before, in his attempt to attack the Bill to create a tariff board. I favour this Bill; the hon. member for Edmonton opposes it. Why does he oppose it? If I can grasp that part of his address which dealt with the Bill, he opposes it first because it is expensive-because he says it will cost something over $24,500 a year. That is the annual expense of a tariff board that is to lay the foundation facts for a fiscal policy which collects annually some $73,000,000 of revenue. The hon. gentleman made no comparative references to other countries. He made no comparative reference to the present cost in our country to show that we are going to incur any more expense than we have done before. Nor did he make any attempt to show that the method now adopted is not as good as and not much better than the one we have had hitherto. So it is impossible to say how his argument ended, if it can be called an argument at all. He then went on to say that now was a golden opportunity to reduce the tariff, because we are in prosperous times. Yet he was a member of a government which entrusted the tariff to a Minister of Finance, who for ten years propounded to the House the very opposite argument-that while times were prosperous, while things were going well, the less we interfered with the tariff the better. But the exigencies of opposition necessarily produce anomalies, and, therefore, we need not be surprised at the hon. gentleman finding himself now compelled to conflict with -his own policy as a member of the previous government, and to present an argument that destroys the very theory on which that government acted.
I support this Bill, and for the simplest of all reasons, because in my judgment it goes to improve the public service. I can conceive of no other purpose in the Bill. There is no other purpose evident on its face and I can see no ghost behind it. I believe it will work out to the improvement of the public service. The task of framing a tariff in this country has been committed to this parliament by the voice of the people at every general election since there was a Canada, and never more pronouncedly than in the last general election. In that task I can see no divisions. That duty is one, and indivisible, and that duty belongs to the parliament of Canada. But,

Sir, that duty is great, and in proportion as it is great, for at every step in its performance we affect vitally the well-being of every citizen of this country; and in proportion as the responsibility for its right performance is great, in that degree should we take care that we come to its performance armed at every point and well prepared. This Bill provides the means for that preparation; it does nothing more; and it provides the means that seem to me to be suited to the immensity of the undertaking. It provides a means that can expand with the certain expansion of our industrial life.
I support the Bill because whatever this parliament has to do, if it is worth doing at all, is worth doing well, and I believe the commission to be appointed will assist us in the performance of our duty. But surely the hon. member for Edmonton and every other hon. member who has spoken can distinguish between the responsibility for the performance of duty and the procuring of means by which a duty can be well performed.
Now, this measure is opposed by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and why? There have been up to this time four hon. members on their feet, and I apprehend, from the conclusion of the arguments which they presented, that it was decided in the councils of the opposition, largely now composed of vacant chairs, that of the two evils, acceding to or opposing this Bill, the latter was the better one to choose. There was likely much disputing, and much violent disputing if we may judge from the confused and conflictm? arguments presented; but when a party addresses itself to the task of engaging the allegiance of two opposite schools of thought by presenting to each of them principles that mutually destroy each other, and arguments that are mutually destructive, when that is the purpose of a party's being then we must expect anomalies and absurdities in its attitude in parliament. The first ground the opposition took was this, that there was no mandate from the country for this Bill. None of them assumed the position that there was no purpose to he served by it. One and all can see that correct and sufficient data for the framing of a tariff are a necessity, and a great one. No one would assert that we have had those data before. Hon. gentlemen opposite have evidently been taught a lesson by the last election. They have evidently learned, from the quandary in which they found themselves, when confronted with the great mass of data in the United States as against our own, when discussing the reciprocity pact; and therefore not one of them has stood in his place in the House and argued that there was not a necessity in this country for more elaborate, complete and scientific data as a foundation for tariff revision.


Arthur Meighen: But they say there is no mandate for this commission. Why, the right hon. leader of the government on 40 or 50 platforms has advocated it in specific terms, and has specifically promised it if returned to power. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) stated that he himself had heard the right hon. leader of the government on more than one occasion advocate this, but briefly. Now, there is no doubt that it was presented as a more or less prominent feature of the programme o' the late opposition; it was laid before this country for its acceptance or rejection; the electorate of Canada came to the polls and signed the contract for its acceptance, and now we are asked to violate that contract. If a specific pledge of a united party prior to an election accepted by the people is not a mandate, then I ask my hon. friends how can a mandate be given? But I ask further, if a Tariff Commission had not been specificially advocated in the platform of the leader of the party prior to the election-if indeed nothing had been said of it-the people of this country have certainly entrusted the Conservative party with the task of framing a tariff. The people have certainly entrusted parliament and the government with the task of framing a tariff, and in so committing that task they give an implied mandate to the government to take the best means to carrying out that work. So that I say such an implied mandate would itself be sufficient even if a specific pledge had not been actually proffered and accepted.
What is the next objection to this Tariff Commission? It is that we could get the same information from officials in the department and that if, instead of taking officers immediately under the wing of the minister we choose to appoint a commission, we are thereby raising a barrier between the people and the government. Well, I can see no difference in principle between the gathering of information by a commission specially appointed for that purpose and obtaining it from officers directly under the control of the minister. But I can see a great difference in the practicability and thoroughness of the one method as compared with the other. In the one case we have a body of men specially appointed for the purpose of investigation and specially qualified, and divorced in proper measure from the control of the minister in chaTge. These men are appointed to do specific work and are responsible for the duality of the work they do. I should think, therefore, that we could obtain much better results from the work of a commission of that kind than from officials in the Customs Department who could neither be specially trained for that purpose nor have the same facilities for doing the

work. It, therefore, seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite are simply beating the air when they quote Bourinot and American constitutional precedents to show that this parliament is divesting itself of responsibility when it authorizes the government to employ a commission of experts in order that it may be put in possession of the facts and the information that is required on which to base tariff legislation. This is all the Bill does.
Then hon. gentlemen opposite proceed to argue that there is an evil spirit behind this measure that the ghost of' high protection is behind it, and that it is part of a scheme by which the government hope to evade responsibility for imposing a high tariff on this country. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) said that the battle is now on between the moderate and the high protectionists of Canada. Well, I can assure my hon. friend, if that would give him any, encouragement, that if the battle is on between the moderate and the high protectionists, he will find me in the army of the moderates. But where does he see the gauntlet for that battle in the Bill before us. We are told that the ghost of high protection is stalking around this measure because in the United States, which is a country of high protection, there is a Tariff Board. They say there is a Tariff Board in Japan, one in Germany and another in France, and that all these countries are protective. But when the hon. gentleman opposite cites France, Germany, Japan and the United States as countries having Tariff Boards, he should remember that these countries are the advance guard in the industrial progress of the world.
German statesmen at one time belonged to the school now represented in this House by the lonely member for Red DeeT (Mr. Clark 1. Prince Bismarck was one who once belonged to the school my hon. friend represents in Canada, but after look-ink over the world, after looking especially into the record of the United States, he said that the history of that great republic was a lesson to him in industrial progress, and he thought that Germany ought to benefit by that lesson. He, therefore, in 1878 a year that is also historic in Canadian annals, abandoned free trade in Germany, and gave that country a protective policy. To-day Germany is the leader of the world in industrial growth. It has seen fit to introduce business methods into the conduct of its national affairs-. It has delegated to well qualified individuals the task of collecting -data on which to base legislation. That is a task we are giving to this Tariff Commission in order that it may collect and collate all the information and data possible and submit the same to the minister responsible so that
he may, in his tariff legislation, carry out the will of the people. Other European countries are moving in the same direction. Hon. gentlemen opposite say to us:	We
do not want you to collect the facts, we do not want you to have data collected by this independent commission which you can submit to the people in order to show that the tariff you put in force is a just one. I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite should take that position. For years back the Liberal party has_ been an organized anomaly as regards its fiscal policy. There are in that_ party whole squadrons of men whose opinions are diametrically opposed on fiscal questions. The only cement that keeps them together is their opposition to the government. _ Now, we must either embody the _ principle of protection in our tariff or eliminate it. Has any hon. gentleman opposite declared that he would eliminate it? Would the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) eliminate it? Would even he, representing a constituency in the far west eliminate that principle from onr tariff? He remains silent. Why, if he -did, by whom would he be opposed? He would be opposed at once by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) whose spineless amendment he now supports, and he wou.d be supported by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), possibly by some others who think that a certain local sentiment in their constituencies would back them up And he would have the support of a section of the electors of this country who still harbour the free trade theory. These two sections are both sitting together in the opposition, both clinging to principles which cannot live together. And, while that conflict of opinion obtains among hon. gentlemen opposite they must necessarily assume absurd positions in this House. I have often felt sympathy for the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads the opposition. For between the two factions that he leads, the directly opposite schools, the right hon. gentleman has been pitchforked for twenty years, between free trade doctrines on the one side and the protectionist doctrinaires on the other, until finally he landed without any opinion at all. And the right hon. gentleman, in order to lead a party that endeavours to combine irreconcilables, has been compelled to acknowledge to the people of Canada that, between the free trade theory and the protection theory he inclines neither to the one side nor to the other. On this side, of the House, as I have previously stated, if a war was on-as the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), and the hon. member foT Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), both devoutly hope-between the moderate protectionists and the high protectionists, I am
26!>5

on the side of the moderate protectionists. I believe that in this young country, with, for a long time at least, a far greater store of natural resources than we are able to bring to a developed state at home, we must, for some time at least, follow a protectionist policy. I also believe that the best objects of protection are served by a moderate tariff, by a policy that accedes to and recognizes the interests of all classes. I believe also that the interests which each section has in that policy are not in every sense equal or in every sense uniform. I believe that, under these circumstances, the proper policy is a policy of reasonable protection doing justice to the consumer, as well as to all others.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: On agricultural implements, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, as on everything else. And if my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will read the address I had the honour of delivering in this House in January, 1911, he will find that I stood then where I stand now; that I stated then-not in the same words perhaps, but in words with the same meaning-just what I state to-day. And I would remind those who see evil spectres behind this Bill, those who think that clause by clause and sentence by sentence it is quite innocuous but that there is something terrible, but all unseen in this measure presented by the government, let me remind them that the Board of Tariff experts in the United States has presented several specific reports to Congress and the president, and that every recommendation made by the president in pursuance of those reports has been in favour of a revision downwards; that the Tariff Board of the United States, as between the high and the moderate protectionists-if such exists over there-has favoured the moderate protectionists every time. But no report of that body, or of any other such body that pretended to economic intelligence, has ever favoured a policy of free trade there or here. So that, I should think, if hon. gentlemen opposite could see any light at all through the confusion that exists around them, they would favour this Bill especially if they are, as stated by the hon. member for Richmond, moderate protectionists. Because wherever the Tariff Board has operated it has brought about conditions of moderate, rather than high protection.
Now, Sir, I have stated concisely my reasons for supporting this Bill, and have endeavoured to meet what I conceive to be the arguments raised by hon. gentlemen opposite. If there is any that I have missed, I would like to hear it now. If there is not, I would like to know why these hon. gentlemen oppose this Bill. Of course, they are subject to the exigencies of party warfare; they want to look both Mr. MEIGHEN.
ways when the general election comes on. Unless they can say rightly or wrongly- that we are Haman's-gallows protectionists, they cannot say anything; and as they want to fight our tariff, be it good or bad, they feel they must oppose our tariff commission as well. That is practically the sole reason that animates the opposition. There can be no other.
Now, if our tariff is going to be made in a back room, if it is going to be made in the ante-room of the Stock Exchange, if it is going to be made in the private closet of a campaign committee, then I am willing to concede that the fewer facts that are presented to the public land to parliament, the better; for a system of that kind loves darkness rather than light. But, if the tariff is to be made to suit tire necessities of business and of all classes of business, farming included, if the circumstances that govern it are to be business circumstances and not party political circumstances, then the more facts we have the better, and the more light we have the better. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not frame their tariff upon, that principle. And, so far as' they altered it and revised it, or left it alone, as time went on and as circumstances and our industrial life developed, they were animated by this principle-if you call it a principle-that their course was dictated on the one hand by 'political friendship and on the other hand by political antipathy. If that is to be the guiding principle of the party in power we should have no Tariff Commission, and the smaller the body of facts we have the better. But folly is the very essence of such a tariff and disaster its result; and I concede the point that darkness is its 'best associate and ignorance is its only fortification. I commend the government in proposing this Bill, because it is a specific implementing of a specific promise to the Canadian people. I commend it because it promises to this country that we will endeavour to get method into our 'business legislation, such as people who succeed introduce into their own business affairs. I think this is. only a step. I do not think it will give ail the results that some anticipate from it. I know that its difficulties will be much greater than' many expect. But I believe that it will give some substantial results. And I believe that the principle embodied here, instead of being combatted should be extended from one department of our legislation to another until we should have more systematic and equitable laws throughout with results more generally suited to the conditions in Canada.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and pleasure to my hon. friend, toe Minister of Finance, in his address in moving
the second reading of this Bill. I listened

with interest, because I am always anxious to know what an hon, gentleman means by a Bill he has introduced.
I was particularly interested to hear what arguments the' Finance Minister could use to justify the Bill. I listened with pleasure to the very clear, simple and excellent speech with which he moved the second reading of this Bill. I am one of those who at all times are willing to hear arguments; I am not anxious to hear arguments surcharegd with hot air from anybody or on any subject. Therefore I would not attach too much importance to the so-called arguments of some hon. gentlemen who have spoken since the Finance Minister on the other side of the House. They have not said much about the Bill, but they have had a lot to say about many other things. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have long been in favour of a statistical department in the Finance Department, well organized, for the purpose of collecting statistics and facts,, as hon. gentlemen opposite call them, to aSord information to the Finance Minister in compiling a tariff. I [think everybody in the House recognizes that the Finance Minister, no matter which party he belongs to, requires all the information he can get when he compiles a tariff. Therefore we are all united on that point. The question is which is the better way to get that information. My own opinion is that the best way to get it is by means of a statistical branch in connection with the Finance Department, or the Customs Department, something like the Insurance branch now belonging to the Finance Department. It has been said by an hon. member opposite, I think the hon. member for St. Antoine Montreal (Mr. Ames), that in 1907 when three ministers of the late government travelled through the country getting information for the purpose of compiling a tariff, their work amounted to a farce, or words to that effect; he said they gathered a lot of material that was absolutely impossible for them to digest. Now one strong argument in favour of a statistical branch in the Finance Department is that it would not take away the purpose the late ministers had in view in travelling through the country to get information. With all due deference to my hon. friends opposite, I think they will find that the people will insist on getting access to the minister himself, that is to say, interested parties will insist on seeing the minister himself. Therefore he will not get rid of the trouble, he will not be able to avoid interviews with various interests, by appointing tne proposed Tariff Commission. Nor do I think that he ought to refuse to see directly the various interests particularly interested in the tariff. Now when these three ministers belonging to the late government went through the country they
came in personal contact with the people most interested in the tariff; not only that, but they became acquainted with the country through which they travelled, they visited the factories, and they endeavoured to acquire information from the working man and the farmer. Now how many farmers and how many working men will the Finance Minister see if he sits in his office and depends entirely upon the reports of the Tariff Commission? I think, even with the Tariff Commission, it will still be necessary for the Finance Minister to visit various parts of the country and get his information at first hand. But if he had the aid of such a statistical branch in his department as I am advocating, he might be able to get rid of much of this trouble.
The Minister of Finance in introducing his Bill laid stress on the fact that it gave the Tariff Commissioners authority to examine people under oath, l'hat authority could also be given a statistical branch of the Finance Department; to summon witnesses and hear them under oath if they wished, and under Section 12 of the Tariff Act, the Governor in Council have that right, now on certain conditions arising. Parliament could easily authorize the Finance Department or any other department to examine witnesses under oath in matters pertaining to the tariff. The hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal, (Mr. Ames), said, and I believe he was correct, that the manufacturers and others who are interested in the tariff would be only too glad to produce their books so as to guide the tariff makers in their work. That argument would apply equally to any proposed statistical branch in the Finance Department. I belive that the officers of such proposed statistical department could travel through the country and get information just as well as the Tariff Commission, and at much less expense. After all, if we come to examine the cost my plan would be far more economical. They might find it advisable to visit the United States. It is a very necessary thmg in framing a scientific tariff to ascertain the experience of other countries with which we are competing, both as to labour and material, and as some hon. gentlemen have said, as to transportation also; and all these things could be done by the officers of a statistical branch within the Finance Department.
Now then as to the expense. It is all very fine for hon. gentlemen opposite, with a large surplus at their credit, to say in the words of the girl ' Paw's rich, and Maw don't care.' But .there is a vast difference between the proposed Tariff Commission and a statistical branch in the Finance Department or the Customs Department. As to expense it will be a constant source of expense. The expense of the commission

2700'
itself, that is, the salaries of the three commissioners, would be unimportant in comparison with the vast expense that will be necessarily incurred in the operation of this Tariff Commission. There are secretaries and clerks belonging to the commission, with constant travelling, all of which will amount to a very large expense.
I presume, however, that that matters little to our friends on the other side of the House; we on this side of the House have always endeavoured to be economical.	,
After all the most important feature of this Bill will be the personnel of the Tariff Commission. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) very naturally surmised and suggested *that the Tariff Commission was urged upon my hon. friends opposite by the high tariff party. We all know that there is in Canada a class of people who are in favour of a high tariff. Personally I am a moderate tariff man, I am in favour of a moderate tariff. I am in favour of a reasonable protection, but it depends entirely on what you consider a reasonable protection. I can quite imagine that a commission of this kind or a statistical committee attached to the Finance Department, if they properly attended to their duties, could gather a very great deal of information for a minister and for the government. I can quite understand they could do a great deal of good, but I can also understand that they could do a great deal of harm. Hon. gentlemen opposite who are in business know that it would be very easy for any commission to so colour their reports to the Finance Department as to get the Finance Department to increase the tariff on any particular commodity on which they wished it increased. I can see a very grave danger if the surmise of the hon. member for South Wellington is correct that this commission has been dictated by the high tariff class, that the tariff may be raised on a very plausible theory. Every business man knows that it is a simple thing for people compiling statistics to colour the statistics, and if they will only give facts, if the commission is as innocent as it actually looks, then apart from the difference in the expense it could do iust as good work as a statistical committee of the Finance Department. It would lack, however, that narticular advantage of the other system that the minister himtself would have to do a certain amount of travelling throughout the country to gain information. My hon. friends laughed at the old ministers when they compiled the tariff of 1907. Let me remind them for a moment that we sat here last year for three months and heard hon. gentlemen Mr. NESBITT.
opposite extol to high Heaven that very tariff which my hon. friend who has just sat down said was no good. We heard them extol that tariff and say they did not want any change, that the tariff was absolutely perfect.


Arthur Meighen: Who said that?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: All of you said that without any exception.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman quote from ' Hansard '?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I will not bother hunting * Hansard my hon. friend knows that all of his friends said that, and said it on the platforms all over the country. First it was: Let well enough alone. Next it was: Where is it leading us, which was the same thing clothed in other words. I wish to say to my hon. friends that the tariff of 1907 compiled by the Hon. Mr. Fielding, was the best tariff ever compiled in Canada and one of the best and sanest tariffs ever compiled in the world.
My hon. friend spoke about the information which the Americans had. That information was not given by the Tariff Commission of the United States, or by the Tariff Board. Both the Tariff Board and the special Tariff Commission of the United States were appointed for the purpose of gleaning information for the Executive of the United States, and it was only last fall that any of that information was given out. It was given to the President first and only very recently, on two schedules, to the Congress of the United States. My hon. friends say they cannot change the tariff until they get the Tariff Commission appointed and get the information. Then will it not be a long time before we have any change? It has taken the Tariff Board of the United States, if I mistake not, two years to make a report on the wool and iron schedules, let .alone all the schedules that have to be gone over. My hon. friend who has just sat down told us how Bismarck sat on his throne and looked abroad across the world and saw the United States advancing more rapidly than Germany and so adopted a scientific tariff in Germany. Let me remind my hon. friends that it was only last week or the week before that they had an election in Germany and the socialists gained unprecedentedly and they are in favour of lower tariff. In the United States whichever party wins either the presidential elections or the next congressional elections, will support a lower tariff. Therefore, if there is anything in what my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says that this Tariff Commision is simply appointed by the high tariff class in this country, there would, in my judgment, be very grave danger. I do not think we should have two classes in this country. I think the government of Can-

ada should be here to serve the interests of the whole people not od any class of the people, and I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, no matter what pressure may be brought to bear upon him, will be above catering to the views of the high tariff party and will make a tariff, whenever it is brought down, that will be just as much in the interests of the farmer and of the working man as in the interests of those who want to make fortunes in a day.
I do not know much about my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). As I said I was pleased with the way he introduced his Bill. I, of course, know that words sometimes count for very little; some people use words to express their thoughts and others to hide them; I hope my hon. friend is not one of the latter class, and that he will carry out what he t-crld us was the intention of his party. I am strongly in favour of a department within the Finance Department and also of the ministers gathering by themselves for their own use, by contact with the people, all the information that they can gather with reference to the compiling of a tariff.
There are certain errors and anomalies no doubt in the present tariff, but that is a condition which it is impossible to avoid, because changes may take place in a business any day that would make the tariff bear hardly in some direction. But taking it as a whole, I do not think there is any man on either side of this House, who can justly say a word against the present tariff. I am sorry the Minister of Finance was not able to give us some idea of the personnel of this commission, because we could speak very much more intelligently as to the merits of the Bill if we knew from what class of the community these commissioners would be drawn. On a question of this kind you want men of ability, it is true, but you want men of more than ability, you want men of unprejudiced mind, and I need not say that there are few people in this country who have absolutely unprejudiced minds. Even the judges on the bench have to be there sometimes for a number of years before they can look at a question with an unprejudiced mind. Therefore, you want on this commission men of ability and of wideness of business knowledge, and above all, of unprejudiced views, if they are going to serve the purpose which is intended by the Minister of Finance. I would also urge on the minister that when the Bill gets into Committee of the Whole, he will reconsider his intention to appoint a permanent commission. There is no reason in the wotM why the commissioners should not stay on that board so long as they are giving service, but, on the other hand, if a commissioner be not satisfactory, there should be power
in the minister to remove him. Under the wording of the Act as at present, it would require on the part of the Minister of Finance a great deal of force of character to remove any one of these men. We are told that these commissioners are supposed to look into the cost of labour, but, surely, that ought to be the work of the Department of Labour, and if the Department of Labour is doing its duties, and has the statistics it should have, then it ought to be known what is paid for labour in every line of business throughout the country. But, there can be no particular hurry about the passage of this Bill, and I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that now, having introduced it, he should let it stand over until next session so as to allow the different Boards of Trade and other bodies throughout the country to think it over, and to formulate their opinion with regard to the proposal. So far as I am personally concerned, I think it is impossible for the Minister of Finance, or for the government, to have too much information before it in compiling a tariff, if they wish to do justice to the people of the country generally. I repeat that the Minister of Finance would have been more wisely advised had he formed a tariff bureau within his own department, and by means of which I am certain he could compile just as good a tariff as he can by utilizing the services of such a board as this.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: The Minister of Finance must be highly gratified at the reception his Bill has received at the hands of the members of the House. From the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who spoke first for the opposition, to the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) who spoke last, all of them without exception have stated that so far as the Bill itself is concerned, they have little or no fault to find with it. Nearly all the arguments on the opposite side of the House have been based on the supposition of some sinister motive which they fear will be brought into the administration of this law and in regard to the appointment of the commissioners. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made only two points in connection with the Bill, and in support of one of them he quoted the following from a speech made by the right hon. the Prime Minister:
Mv idea of a tariff is one which would give the industries of this country a fair chance and more than a fair chance perhaps, to stand up against competition in countries where it may be the standard of living among the labouring people is lower than in Canada and lower than it ought to be anywhere. That is a reasonable proposition. A permanent tariff commission if established would be

the most fitting authority to decide on this point.
Now, if there can be found anywhere a clear cut clean statement of principle in regard to the protection of all the labouring classes of this country, it is to be found in that statement, and yet we find the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) leaving out the true application of these words and endeavouring to make them apply only as between the producers and the consumers of this country. Later on, the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) said:
If they can have more than a fair chance somebody is going to suffer; it is at the expense of somebody else. At whose expense is it to be? Certainly at the expense of the great consuming masses of this country.
Now, that is a most unfair deduction from the words of the Prime Minister; no greater misstatement could be found anywhere than is to be found in that paragraph, and yet it is upon them that the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) based almost his entire argument.
The right hon. leader of the government clearly and distinctly said that in his opinion the people of Canada, in competition with nations having a lower standard of living and a lower wage scale, should have fair protection and a fair chance to build up their industries; and yet the hon. member deliberately misquoted the application of the principle so. clearly laid down. If there is one reason more than another why at this particular time I give this Bill my unqualified support, it is that hon. gentlemen opposite have played with skilled fingers on the instrument to produce discord between the various classes and portions of this Dominion. They have over and over again endeavoured to set the manufacturer against the farmer and one province against another. If there were no other reason, that reason alone would more than justify us in introducing this Bill, because when it comes to be thoroughly understood throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion that there is a commission appointed by the government of Canada, with full authority and power to act independently, to gather statistics of fact, and to collate them, not on behalf of the manufacturer, not on behalf of one class or another, but in all their relationships with each other, it will I believe do more to do away with that feeling of mistrust than any other thing that could pcssibly be conceived by this government. If there is one thing about which I have had a feeling of disgust since I became a member of this parliament, it has been this, that day after day, as we open our post office boxes, we find there special pleading for certain Bills that are asked for in this House, and that we find our corridors filled with lobbyists making special Mr. GOODEVE.
pleas on behalf of some concessions which they desire to obtain. I venture to say that if we have this independent commission appointed, it will to a very large extent check that practice, because every member of this House will have placed in his hands accurate information on which he may base his judgment. When a member on this side of the House ventured to ask the hon. member for South Wellington whether he was in favour of protection or not, his answer was: 'A tariff for revenue only.' That is not a new term in this House or throughout this country, and for a moment or two I would like to say what I conceive to be the meaning of a tariff for revenue only, and compare it with what we call a protective tariff. The principle of a tariff for revenue only is something like the principle applied at the Donnybrook fair, where-ever you see a head hit it-wherever you see a dollar, grab it. If I understand the distinction between the two parties, it is this. While both parties agree that we shall raise the revenues of this country by means of a tariff, those in favour of a tariff for revenue only are men who, disregarding all other interests, disregarding what the effect may be on the industries of the country-on the producer, the consumer, the mechanic, the labourer or the artisan-are prepared to get revenue at any cost and under any conditions, whereas those of us who are protectionists go further and say that it is our duty, in taxing the people, to see that the tariff is laid down equitably as between all classes of the community, and is so applied that every industry in the country is amply protected and nurtured in order that it may increase and grow and prosper.
If I understand it aright, that is the cardinal difference between onr friends in opposition and our friends on this side of the House. For that reason we believe that we should give careful consideration to the probable effect of every duty imposed. Knowing the intricacy of making a tariff, probably the most intricate of all the duties of a government, we believe that by gathering all the facts bearing upon the relations between the producer and the consumer, the relations between the trade of this country and the trade of foreign countries, the freight charges between the east and the west, how they apply and modify or increase the amount of protection on any particular article, we should have a thoroughly scientific tariff. The assertion made by hon. members opposite that to say we are in favour of a protective tariff means that we are in favour of an increased duty, can easily be shown to be not in accord with the facts. Over and over again the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has shown in this House that in the actual amount of taxes taken from the people of Canada

there has been less than one per cent of difference between the so-called revenue tariff and the tariff as applied for protective purposes under the Conservative government. So that, taking the facts as they are, we find that we can give a reasonable protection that will build up our industries and develop our home markets without increasing the amount of taxes taken from the people of the Dominion. This is our reason for earnestly desiring that we should have placed in our hands all the facts hearing upon the framing of a tariff. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) said: You are appointing a commission in order that you may do away with responsible government, and in order that this commission may stand between the Finance Minister -or the government and the people. I venture to say that in that, as in his other arguments, the hon. gentleman was far astray. He spent a, large portion of his time in reading extracts to show what the duties of a Royal Commission were.
Let me ask the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), what is the attitude of all railway corporations throughout the world to-day? Each of these corporations has a bureau for collecting statistical information. If you were to ask the president of any railway company on what the company is guided in its conduct of the road, he will tell you that it is largely guided by the facts furnished by its statistical bureau. Surely no one in this House will venture to say that the staffs of these bureaus of statistics appointed to collect the facts, are the men who are really managing and regulating the policies of these railway companies.
Another argument advanced is that by the appointment of this commission, we are doing away with constitutional government, and making these Tariff Commis-missioners the real framers of the tariff. Let me give another illustration to show the fallacy of that argument. I had the privilege of listening the other evening to Sir Edmond Byron Walker when he gave a sketch of the operations of the large financial institution of which he is the head. After he had placed before his hearers very clearly some salient facts in connection with the progress of that institution, he said:
If there is any gentleman present who at any time, when any trade question arises, would like to avail himself of the information possessed by our bureau of statistical information he is welcome to it. By simply sending word we will be pleased to place at his disposal all the facts connected with trade questions.
What was the important point brought out by that statement of Sir Edmond Walker, who is at the head of one of the 86
largest financial institutions in Canada? Sir Edmond realized that no institution could act promptly or formulate any policy with regard to trade unless the facts were in its possession, and he ventured to say that the Bank of Commerce had at its* disposition one of the best means of ascertaining all facts in connection with trade and commerce that could be found in the Dominion, but would anybody venture to say that because these banking institutions have each a bureau for gathering statistical facts to enable them to better administer the funds entrusted to their care, the directors were delegating to the men they appointed to collect those statistics the management of these institutions? 1 do not think any hon. member would have the hardihood to make any assertion of the kind, but hon. gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to take that ground when it enables them to criticise a policy of the government. All that these Tariff Commissioners will be appointed to do is merely to collect and collate all the facts in connection with the various industries of this country. They_ will then place these facts before the minister, who in turn will submit them to the government and the House. There is a clause providing that, under certain conditions, the members of the commission may withhold secret confidential information obtained by them in the course of their investigation. ' Every hon. member will realize the necessity of a provision of that kind. Hon. members will see the necessity of reporting the facts to the minister who administers the revenues of this country, and who will use his discretion and judgment in giving these facts to the House. In my opinion this Bill is a step taken in advance legislation, and I am glad that the government have had the courage to implement the promise made in this connection by the right hon. the First Minister. The bringing down by him of this Bill will be a great factor in restoring business confidence throughout all portions of this Dominion.
In the late campaign, I was able, owing to the very unusual and peculiar circumstances to give a unique illustration of how this tariff will work out under certain conditions. It was largely owing to these peculiar iconditions that I gained the great majority which I did in the last election. Hon. meanbeTS wtho were here last session will remember that in the discussion on -reciprocity, the hon. member for Nanaimo and the hon. ex-Minister of Inland Revenue took the position that the proposed reciprocal tariff would be a great advantage to the coal mining industry throughout the Dominion. I took exception to that position, and owing to very unusual and peculiar circumstances which


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: When you left the Chair at six o'clock I had just given an illustration of one of the effects of the tariff, and was showing how it was inter-related to so many other industries in the province of British Columbia. I will not attempt to work out in detail the result of the tariff on that particular industry, as my object was simply to make .an illustration of the necessity of a commission of this kind in order to ascertain all the facts, and bring them before the House and the people. We have another great industry in our province, namely, zinc and lead. This is probably one of the most technical and complicated of the natural resources we have in the Dominion. They are a class of metals that are difficult to handle, and yet are used in nearly every industry in Canada. We had a clear illustration of that principle a number of years ago, when all the Boards of Trade in the Dominion of Canada met in the provincial House in the city of Toronto, with the president of the Toronto Board of Trade in the chair. At that time we were seeking in British Columbia to obtain a readjustment of the old tariff, and it was pointed out how the whole industry of the manufacture of agricultural implements would be affected by any change in that particular tariff. But the result of our getting together and frankly discussing the entire situation in all its bearings, was that we were able to induce the government to make some slight alteration in the tariff, with the result that there was established in the city of Montreal a large corroding work in which a large amount of capital is invested, and which has been a great employer of labour. Here is one of the natural resources of an outlying province, away out on the Pacific coast, and yet it directly and indirectly affects a great industry in the largest commercial city in the Dominion of Canada. There again is an illustration of the necessity for actual information in regard to these matters which concern the tariff.

Then we have another great natural resource in that province, one that has been recently discussed in this House, I refer to (the great lumber industry, the one in which probably more capital is invested than in any other industry in our province, and one which is vital to the prosperity and growth of our province. Now I think every hon. member will admit there has been an effort made by nearly every hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House to try and set the farmer against any protection of that great industry in our province. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the relation of that industry to the Bill before the House; I merely want to say that every lumberman in the province of British Columbia, yes, every lumberman throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion from Nova Scotia westward, would welcome a thorough investigation into their business, and I believe it could be shown, and would be shown, that it is not only in the interest of this great industry itself, but in the interest as well of the farmers and of all other people in this Dominion, that that industry should receive protection. So along these broader lines, not in any narrow way, but in the very broadest way, we believe this Bill is a great step in the right direction, because we think it will engender a confidence in the minds of all classes of the community. We believe in no other way could the same confidence be engendered in the minds of the people as by the appointment of this independent commission, which would be free from the control of parliament, and would be just as independent as the Railway Commission, which has won the confidence of the people of Canada. It is because I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that it will bring the consumer and the producer together and will thus be in the interest of the worker and the labouring man as well as the manufacturer, that I am strongly in favour of this Bill. I want to say that I have absolutely no sympathy with the little provincials, men whose vision is bounded by the gate posts of their front yard and the pumphandle in their back yard, men who would cut and carve this great Dominion into small sections, divided by schisms, men whose souls are shrunken by the dollars that they wotild tie around them. We take a broader view of the destiny of this great country. Indeed it is difficult for us to grasp the great future of this wondrous Dominion of ours. In 1 addition to the music caused by the rustling of the golden grain on our wind swept prairies, in addition to the lowing of the kine and the bleating of the sheep on its foothills, we should yet see great factories established in our western districts, making use of our inexhaustible supplies of coal and iron, and yet cheaper raw ma-861
terials of natural gas and electrical energies of our great water-powers, giving employment to an ever increasing population in varied industries. I call the attention of this House to the fact that there lies in our great west, not only the magnificent coal-bearing strata to which I have referred, but the very cheapest power known in the civilized world to day. We have this great glacier bed producing electricity in abundance, we have natural gas in abundance, we have the iron, we have the coal, we have everything that goes to form the basic necessities for a wonderful manufacturing development. On that ground I appeal to this House, to both sides of this House, in support of this Bill. We should not treat this as a political matter, we should seek the best way of developing every portion of this far-flung empire. On that ground, believing as I do not only in interprovincial, inter-dominion and inter-imperial trade, believing as I do that in working together along the lines outlined by this Bill, we can build up in this great Dominion the brightest gem in the greatest commercial empire the world has ever seen, I shall have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.


Mg.   F.@: Bi. CARVELL (Carleton, New Brunswick). I do not know whether I would come within the class of the narrow, contracted back yard politicians that my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) has been so graphically describing, or whether I would be one of the empire builders that he has spoken of in the latter part of his peroration. But, Sir, unfortunately perhaps for myself, I am unable to arrive at the same conclusion as the hon. gentleman in regard to the value or necessity of this Bill. I think that no person can find fault with the government for attempting to get information on every question which enters into Die lives of the Canadian people; and if I believed that this Bill was only for the purpose ^ of getting accurate information on all the great trade questions, I could not find very much fault with it. I am bound to assume that the Minister of Finance is sincere when he tells us that he wants to get information. Perhaps it would not be derogatory to the hon. gentleman-I am sorry he is not in the House at this moment-to tell him that he has not been in public life very long; he does not know the wiles of the deceptive politician, and until we have some evidence to the contrary, it is only fair to say that he is sincere in trying to get the information.
Let us look for a moment at the origin and history of the scheme which has resulted in bringing down this Bill. We had not any difficulty when our friends were in power in getting information on which to frame a Tariff Bill. In 1897 and in 1907 the ministers of the Crown made an itiner-

ary over the Dominion of Canada. They gathered a lot of information, they codified that information, and on that information they framed a Tariff Bill. I remember distinctly that instead of finding fault with these gentlemen for getting the information, fault was found that they were spending too much time over it. But let that be as it will, the late government were able to frame a tariff under which Canada prospered more in the next ten years than she had ever done in all her previous history. If conditions had remained as favourable as they were during those ten years, then I cannot say that there would have been much need of a change. But conditions change in Canada as well as in all other parts of the world, and the time came when the government found it necessary, in the course of eight or ten years more, to make another itinerary of Canada to see what the changed conditions were. Messrs. Fielding and Paterson, with a very able secretary, whom I am sorry to say is not now in the employ of tiie government, travelled from one end of this country to the other, they obtained further information, and on this further and additional information they framed the Tariff Act of 1907. There were not many changes made, perhaps not as many changes as some of us would have liked to see made; but I maintain that the viciousness which has sprung from the tariff had not commenced to show itself in 1900 or in 1907 as it does at the present day. Therefore, as there are changed conditions, we need a change in the tariff.
It is in the mind of every hon. member in this House, of every thinking man in Canada, that the time has come when there will be a change in our tariff relations. It has been argued here that all over the world where the highest tariffs prevail we have had the greatest prosperity and three-quarters of the speakers on the other side of the House have instanced Germany and the United States,as evidence of the greatest prosperity and have ascribed that prosperity to a high protective tariff. If that be true, it is a remarkable thing that in all of these countries a very serious agitation is going on to get a reduction of these high protective tariffs. I spent a few days in Germany last summer and although I was not able to make as extensive economic investigations as I would like, every man I was able to talk with, and I am sorry their number was not large, claimed that the taxation was something terrific, the cost of living almost beyond endurance and what with the taxation and the army and navy they could not tell what was going to happen. It was prophesied to me by many people that the result of the next election would show a wonderful increase in the representation of the Socialists, and Mr. CARVELL.
the elections have shown this prophecy to have been well founded. We know that the doctrine of the Socialists is not only to get rid of the army and navy expenditure, but to get rid of high protection as well, because high protection in Germany is producing to a very great extent the same results as it is producing in the United States and in Canada.
I come now to the greatest example of high protection the world has seen, the United States. I do not think my hon. friends the high protectionists of Canada will claim that the great development _ in the United States is altogether due to high protection. The United States would have developed in the last 50 years if they had not had a tariff at all. The very richness of their soil, the prodigality of their natural products, the great influx of population from all over the world, naturally make the United States great. The United States would have become a great country without a tariff. If they had resorted to direct-taxation, they would have had an enormous prosperity, but they would not have had the conditions that they have to-day, the trusts, mergers and combines, with which they are now contending. The result of this high protection has been to create these trusts, mergers and combines, and now we have a revulsion of feeling, almost amounting to a revolution in the United States against the condition of affairs which the tariff has created. A year and a half ago when elections were held over a great portion of the United States, the high protection party was swept out of power from end to end of that country. It is hard to tell what may take place in the next elections owing to conflicting interests, all we have to do is to read the papers and there we will see that there is the same unrest in the United States to-day as there was two years ago and I do not think a person can be blamed for prophesying that no matter which party may come into power as the result of the next election there will be a reduction of tariffs and the voice of the people will be a protest against the high taxation under which they are groaning now. Take any newspaper in the United States, take the Boards of Trade, take any expression of public opinion and there you will find ^ simply pne outcry against the enormous* cost of living.
Coming to the Dominion of Canada, w'e find exactly the same condition of affairs, we find the same outcry going up from the people against the high cost of living. Who are better able to judge the political and the public barometer than our protectionist friends or the Manufacturers' Association? We find that away back in 1909 the Manufacturers' Association at their annual conference first intimated or proposed this idea of a Tariff Commission

and a resolution was passed at that meeting embodying this do-ctrine and suggesting that the government should appoint such a commission. We heard very little about that Tariff Commission for the next year or two. It is true that just before the election the right hon. the leader of this House (Mr. Borden) advocated it as a plank in his platform. But let me show you what was the attitude of the gentlemen who were the originators and the fathers of this scheme, who have urged it along and who will benefit by it. When you learn the views of these gentlemen you will not have much difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to who is behind this scheme and whom it will benefit and what the result and general scope of the investigations of this commission will be.
I find that at the meeting of the Manufacturers' Association held in Toronto in October last this matter was referred to by practically every speaker who discussed tariff questions. I have no quarrel with the Manufacturers' Association as individual members of the community. They are gentlemen who are working in their own interests and when working in their own interests they probably believe they are working in the interests of Canada. They are controlling large industries, they are doing a great work for Canada, and I do not wish to say anything derogatory to the individual members. I do, however, say and I think I shall not be contradicted that the one aim and object of the Manufacturers' Association as an association is to secure as much protection as they possibly can for their manufactured products and to obtain their raw materials free of duty, wherever it is possible to do so. That I take as being the aim and object of the Manufacturers' Association of Canada. This matter was referred to by President Rowley in his address. He concludes that address as follows:
No matter what the cost may be, and no matter whose toes may be trodden upon, let us first get our tariff right and fair-
That is right and fair from the manufacturers' standpoint.
-then let us ensure its stability, making from time to time only such slight modifications as the changed conditions of the country demand. As manufacturers we should be able, we should .be willing to view the creation of a Tariff Commission with complacency; so I hope we will all facilitate this work as far as we can, by giving such data as we are able to snpply.
You do not find any protest on the part of the Manufacturers' Association. The president says: Let us get our tariff right and fair and as manufacturers we can view the workings of this commission with complacency. But that is mild compared with statements made by the chairman of the Tariff Branch of the commission, Mr. Russell, of the Russell Motor Car Company of Toronto. Mr. Russell makes a very exhaustive report on practically every branch of the Canadian manufacturing industries, and when he comes to .this particular branch he makes some remarks which I think are of more than ordinary importance when we consider the manner in which certain gentlemen on the other side of the House have received the suggestions or perhaps stronger terms which we have used against this Bill. The right hon. leader himself, I thought with more heat than was really necessary or perhaps entirely proper in view of the splendid work which the Manufacturers' Association did for him in September last, took particular pains to disavow any connection with the Manufacturers' Association and even went so far as to say that only one member of that association had ever spoken to him about it and that member was opposed to it.
Well, we have to take the word of the right hon. gentleman, but I would like to know if the Minister of Finance would pledge his_ word to the same extent and I would like to know if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would make the same declaration as the Prime Minister has made. Does the Conservative party expect the people to believe that the Manufacturers' Association are not the originators of this scheme? Are not the men who are behind the Manufacturers' Association the men who are pushing this legislation along and are they not the men who will benefit by it? Why, you only have to take the history of the Conservative party since 1878, and the question is answered. The Manufacturers' Association and the high protectionists are the men who want this legislation and it is to pay them for their magnificent support in September last, and to carry out the principle advocated by them in all these years that'this Bill is being promulgated. I make bold to say that on account of that very thing, more than anything else, I am opposed to this Bill. The Minister of Finance told us, and the supporters of the government have reiterated the statement, that it was never intended that the commission would have anything to do with making laws, and that the information they collect will be handed to the government and the government will frame the tariff as the government sees fit. That is true, taking the literal wording of the Bill, but what are the views of Mr. Russell, Chairman of the Tariff Branch of the Manufacturers' Association? I quote from 'Industrial Canada' for November, 1911, the words of Mr. Russell:
Usually commissions which have been appointed have been appointed for administra-

live work, for carrying out administration. This commission lias to do an entirely different thing. It has to do no administration work but law-making work, the actual making of the laws; the making of the laws for which the parliament of Canada will be responsible. The composition of that Tariff Commission and its ability to obtain information, the use which will be made of that information, whether public or private, and all that sort of thing is going to he of tremendous importance to the whole of Canada and to the manufacturng interests perhaps specially, and I think it is of tremendous importance that our tariff committee for this coming year shall be seized with the importance of that and prepare their recommendations accordingly.
Well, Sir, -when you read that statement of the chairman of the Tariff Branch of the Manufacturers' Association, you have the whole thing in a nutshell; you have the very thing that the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) contended for; you have the very thing for which the Liberal party of Canada is contending today, and you have the pith of the reasons why we are asked to pass this legislation. Does anyone mean to tell me that- the government are going to appoint a commission which will cost from $50,000 to $100,000 a year and keep this commission doing nothing else but investigating? Remember that this commission is only going to make such investigation as the Minister of Finance requires them to make and that when the Minister of Finance asks this commission to make an investigation into the cost of production of any article in Canada and they submit a report of their findings, does any man mean to tell me that the government will not accept the findings of that commission in framing their tariff? Why did the government appoint this commission, why did the government give this commission such powers, why spend all this money on it if they do not accept their recommendation? No matter how you work it out, indirectly this commission is to make the tariff law of Canada.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the hon. gentleman show me any clause in the Bill which authorizes the commission to recommend any particular line of action?
, Mr. CARVELL. I am surprised that my hon. friend asked me that question. I tell my hon. friend that section 4 of this Bill provides what are the duties of the commission and the hon. gentleman cannot show me where that commission has power to make one bit of investigation except under the direction and at the instigation of the Minister of Finance.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell), has not answered my question. The hon. gentleman said that if this commission made a recommendation the government would be bound to follow it, and Mr. CARVELL.
I say there is no clause in the Bill which provides for any such thing.


Mr. CARVELL.: I do not think my hon. friend does his intelligence the justice which it demands. In the first place I never said so. I said that' no man could conceive of a government going to all that expense, and all this trouble unless they were to accept the findings of this commission, and I repeat it. And my hon. friend knows, and I repeat it, that they have no power to investigate anything except what they are directed to investigate by the Minister of Finance, or by the government, and my hon. friend knows they will make no investigation into anything only what they are told to investigate. I go further and I say that my hon. friend ought to know that they will only investigate that which the government wants them to investigate, and if the government wants to put a duty on a certain article they will send the commission after it, and they will be pretty liable to get the evidence which, in their opinion, will justify them in raising the duty. I believe this Bill should not be adopted because it is misleading; it will not produce the results expected of it in the way of taking evidence. The whole object of this Bill and the only powers conferred on the commission under this Bill are to investigate into cost, price, transportation, labour, &c., when so directed by the minister. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), spoke last night on this question, and he is a gentleman whose honesty when discussing tariff matters I always admire. The hon. member (Mr. Ames) told the whole story. He said that these gentlemen need not necessarily be Conservatives in order to have a place on this commission, but he said they must be high protectionists.


Mr. AMES.: I beg your pardon; the words ' high protectionists ' were not used by me. I said they must be in sympathy with the well known sentiment of the present government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will not quarrel with me very much when I say that that means that they must be protectionists.


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes, but I did not say anything about high protectionists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Ames), said they are going to appoint a commission of protectionists, and he says this commission will not have any trouble in getting evidence, because, he says: ' we will furnish the evidence.' Well, that is just what we object to. When the minister sends out the commission to investigate the cost of boots and .shoes, of course 1 we '

will furnish the evidence, and 'we' will take mighty good pains to see that no evidence gets before the commission except the evidence which justifies either a retention of the present duties or an increase as high as my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) can get it. That is the kind of evidence that this commission will get, and that is one reason why I object to it. I object to it again, because of the secret clauses in it. I do not believe the present parliament has any right to pry into a man's private affairs. The result of this will be that nine-tenths of the evidence which is adduced before this commission-because remember the only evidence we will have in the ordinary working out of it will be the evidence of the manufacturers themselves-will be evidence which the protectionists and the protectionists commission will consider as confidential, and therefore the public will not be allowed to have it.
The result will be that we shall have findings by this commission, but we shall not have the evidence on which those findings are baised. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), last evening said that we on this side of the House should welcome this commission as a means of getting information, but in the working out of this scheme, we shall have very little information. There will be confidential information given to the commission, but we shall have only the conclusions of the commission without seeing the information on which its conclusions have been reached. There has been considerable talk here about the necessity for information. I do not think anybody denies the necessity for information, but I do not believe there is much necessity for more information than we have at the present time. Hon, gentlemen opposite talk about this haphazard tariff; but this haphazard tariff has got along pretty well so far as Canada is concerned, and the people of Canada have got along pretty well under that tariff. If you went to-day to the Departments of Trade and Commerce, Finance and' Customs, I believe that you would get pretty nearly as much information as you would require in order to come to a pretty good conclusion as to what is necessary in framing a tariff for any branch of Canadian industry. I wonder if the hon. member for St. Antoine thinks that it is necessary to appoint a Tariff Commission to tell the government 'whether the duty of 30 per cent on boots and shoes should be retained in the interest of this country, or raised' to 35 or 40 per cent, when the fact is known to every man who thinks in Canada that the hides from which leather for those boots and shoes is made comes into this country free of duty. We had the admission of the hon. member for St. Antoine in this House the other evening that with
a preference of only 5 per cent the Canadian manufacturers of boots and shoes could wrest the trade of Australia away from the United States; and then, he tells us that we cannot make boots and shoes in Canada to compete with those from the United States without 30 per cent protection. Does he think the government wants further information on that point? If they ask the hon. member for St. Antoine, they will get all the information they want.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the boot 'and shoe manufacturers of Canada were never abie to persuade the Conservative government that they needed over 25 per cent protection, but that -the Liberal government gave them 30 per cent without their asking for it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not a member of that government, and, therefore, I cannot answer my hon. friend's question; but I can hardly believe it-I do not say that offensively. If the hon. gentleman wants us to believe that the boot and shoe manufacturers of Canada never asked for more protection during the days of the Conservative government, they were a different class of people from the men who are manufacturing boots and shoes in Canada to-day. Now, my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon stated that he was not a high protectionist, but a low protectionist. Well, I have always a great deal of confidence in anything which that hon. gentleman says, because in my judgment he is one of the ablest men and possesses one of the best reasoning minds in this House. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie does not require information from a Tariff Commission to show him that the time has come when the duty on farm machinery should be reduced, because last year he introduced a resolution into this House, and spoke upon it on more than one occasion, declaring that the time had come when the duty on agricultural implements should be reduced. Do the other hon. gentlemen from western Canada want any further evidence? The manufacturers of farm machinery in Canada last year not only supplied two-thirds or more of the home market, but exported between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 of farm machinery to all the civilized countries of the globe, in competition with the whole world. In the face of that fact, do these hon. gentlemen want any further evidence from an expert Tariff Commission to enable them to decide whether the duty on farm machinery should be retained at 174 per cent, or reduced ? I will tell you in what respect I think the evidence of an expert Tariff Commission will be useful to our hon. friends opposite. The primary

object of this measure is, I believe, to get at just such wavering minds as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and other members from the western portion of this Dominion. In 1907 thirteen hon. members supporting the Conservative party did not want any further evidence to convince them that the time had arrived when the duty should be taken off agricultural implements, and I see two or three of those gentlemen before me tonight. So firmly were they convinced of the necessity of that demand that on the third reading of the Tariff Bill they moved an amendment, and compelled their own leader to vote against it, in order to put themselves on record; and these men have gone through western Canada from that day to this parading the fact that they had voted for the reduction or abolition of the duty on farm machinery. These hon. gentlemen did not want any further evidence in 1907; the hon. member for Portage la Prairie did not want any further evidence last year; but the government wiants further evidence, because the government wants to show these men that they are wrong-^and see how simple it is. The government appoints this commission; it hands over to it a certain statement; it says we want you to investigate the question of the duty on farm machinery, and give us the evidence that will convince the hon. member for Portage la Prairie that he is wrong; and in all probability they will produce the evidence. That is one of the reasons I am opposing this Bill. But it may be said that I am imputing bad faith, that I am drawing conclusions not warranted by the facts. I say I am not.
That is the logical conclusion of this Bill which is forced upon the government by the Manufacturers' Association. It is the logical conclusion of this Bill which only gives the commissioners the right to get information when directed to do so by the Finance Minister. It is the logical conclusion of a Bill which only enables the tariff commissioners to get the sort of information the Finance Minister may require. It these commissioners were at liberty to gather information at their own discretion and of their own free will, without dictation from anybody, one of the great objections to this measure would be removed. But if they had such power, that would defeat the very purpose of this legislation, because we might get a man on that commission who would have sufficient industry to do some work on his own initiative and who would summon before the commission parties who would not give the kind of evidence which the government required. Therefore the government have taken precaution to muzzle their own ap-Mr. CARVELL.
pointees so that they will not be able to do anything except what they are directed to do.
Do the government want information from an expert tariff commission to tell them whether it is necessary to grant a bounty to the manufacturers of iron _in this country, after these manufacturers have received some $15,000,000 in bounties in the last 15 or 18 years? Surely not. Do the people of this country believe that the iron and steel industry needs a bounty? I am not going to talk bounties now because we shall probably have an opportunity later on to discuss them.


Herbert Brown Ames: What does your hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) say?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no care for the opinions of any man on earth on this question. I am giving my own. Let me tell you, Sir, that when the Dominion Iron people were trying to get the bounties renewed last year, their great plea was that by the reciprocity agreement they were going to lose eight cents per ton on coal and therefore ought to be recouped by a duty on steel rods. Well, the duty on coal was not removed, yet they are coming here asking the government to make them a present of a half a million or a million dollars more in the shape of a bounty. Do my friends from western Canada, who are not directly interested in the manufacture of iron and steel, want any evidence to convince them that- a bounty is unnecessary? I should say not.
I come to another item. I think it was the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) who wanted evidence regarding the cement industry. I am surprised that there should be a man in Canada who wants further evidence in order to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the duty should be retained on cement, after the evidence given by Sir Sanford Fleming during the last eight or nine months. Sir Sanford Fleming gave evidence which was incontrovertible. He proved that some shrewd capitalists bought up practically all the cement industries in the country for $12,000,000, merged them into a combine, issued $7,000,000 of bonds, and $10,000,000 of preferred stock, and placed that stock on the market at par. They paid for the property and had $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 to the good, then they issued $13,000,000 of common stock, which is now selling at 28 cents on the dollar.


Mr. EDWARDS.: How much did the Liberal party propose to reduce that duty by the reciprocity agreement?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Eight cents per barrel.


William Cameron Edwards: How does that compare with the duty imposed by the United States?	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It brings it to about the same.


William Cameron Edwards: I beg your pardon, it did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If that came from any other hon. gentleman, I would ask your ruling Mr. Speaker, but as I do not care what the hon. member for Frontenac may say, I shall not ask him to withdraw it.
But hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that they want further evidence on the question of cement.
Does it not, I would ask, appeal to the intelligence of every one, that when you can bring cement from England, Germany or Belgium and lay it down at any Canadian seaport or lake port at 50 cents per barrel cheaper than you can buy it from the manufacturing industry in Canada, and when you can go to any of the American lake ports and buy cement there 50 cents cheaper than you can in Canada, and when you have in the freight from the seaboard or lakeport all the protection that you can need-is it necessary to have a Tariff Commission to tell us whether the duty ought to be retained on cement or not? That is about as preposterous as the argument of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) about the duty on boots and shoes.	_
Another objection I have to this Bill, which is as vital as any of the others I have enumerated, is that it does not provide for any investigation into the capital stock of any of those companies engaged in manufacturing. Take the cement industry as an example. Let us suppose that this Tariff Commission is going to investigate the cement industry. They will go to the cement combine and ask how much it costs to make a barrel of cement. They will ask that combine to produce its books and we will suppose that the combine gives correct answers. Let us suppose that the combine gives correct information and full information regarding the cost of transportation and the other expenses that enter into the cost of production, the commission will then be met by this plea on behalf of the cement company :	You have no right to reduces the
duty because if you do we shall not be able to pay dividends. We have to pay interest on the bonds, dividends on the preferred stock, and we ought to pay dividends on the common stock. But if you reduce the duty, we shall not be able to pay dividends on the preferred stock much less on the common stock; and the Tariff Commission will report that it would be an injustice to reduce the duty on cement. But, there is one thing, on which the commission will have no evidence whatever and on which they will not have the power to obtain evidence, and that is as to the amount of water in the capital stock.
They will not be able to determine whether the $13,000,000 common stock is all water, besides $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 of preferred stock. The result will be that this commission will submit a report to the government, not based on the real facts at all. I would be glad if any hon. member will show me where, in the four corners of this Bill, this commission has the power to inquire into the capitalization of any company and ascertain how much is cash, and how much water and on what amount of capital the company ought to pay dividends. Without that power the commissioners might as well be kicking their heels around Sparks Street as trying to investigate any combine.
For these reasons I am opposed to this Bill. The only possible excuse for it is to furnish the government with some pretext for making the protective features of the tariff still more protective.
There cannot be any other reason for it. I oppose it because this body has not sufficient investigating power; it has no initiative. These commissioners can only investigate what they are told to investigate, and have no power to institute investigations of their own and learn the conditions of any branch of trade except those which they are directed to investigate. Their conclusions must of necessity be incomplete and inefficient, and must be an unsafe basis for action by the government. Above all things I oppose this measure because, in my opinion, no matter what may be the avowed intention, the logical result, the necessary, the only logical result, will be to foist upon the people of Canada a higher protection than that under which we are groaning at the present time.


Mr. J. A. M. AIKIRS (Brandon).: Mr. Speaker, I had always lassumed that Don Quixote was the fantastical creation of a vivid imagination, nothing real about him, there may, perhaps be some allegory in it. Had the author lived now, he might have applied his idea of Don Quixote to hon. gentlemen opposite. They have raised in their imaginations ghosts, spectres and bugaboos in respect of this Bill, .and, having raised them, they are prepared to' overthrow them. It is stated of Don Quixote that on one occasion when he was riding with Sancho Panza and looked out upon the plains, and saw aibout thirty substantial windmills, he said to his companion, ' Providence directs our efforts better than we ourselves could have wished. Look yonder, friend Sancho P-anza; there are at least thirty outrageous giants whom I intend to encounter, and, having deprived them of life we will enrich ourselves with the spoils, for they are our lawful prize and the extirpation of that cursed brood will be an ac-


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Never breathless.


James Albert Manning Aikins: No, never breathless, I take the expression back and apologize to hon. gentlemen opposite. They are never breathless. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have told hon. gentlemen on the other side that, the purpose of the Bill is to ascertain the fact of the cost of production of commodities at home and abroad, and other facts. The hon. member who has just spoken, says that the inquiry is to be limited, and that the commissioners cannot inquire into such things as the


James Albert Manning Aikins: capitalization of the companies. If the hon. gentlemen will look at the last two
Clauses of section 

 of the Bill, he will find the fallowing :
All conditions and factors which affect and enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumer in Canada.
What does that include? It includes the amount of capital


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the cost of production, not the capitalization.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I presume that the capitalization of the company, the capital invested in it, will be a factor in determining the cost of production.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So do I.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Book further, and you find this provision:
Generally all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
We have been told by the right hon. the Premier and the Minister of Finance, that, in order to ascertain the facts broadminded, virile men will be appointed, men capable and -experienced in investigations, men capable of ascertaining facts, analysing, and systematizing them, report them to the government and the House, and the House will give them to the people. For nothing will satisfy the people except full information. The safety of democratic legislation lies in publicity. So the hon. minister has said frankly that what is aimed at is to ascertain the facts and he will submit the facts to the government, the House, and the people. It is objected that the Bill says the commissioners are also to submit their ' results.' ' Who sticks in the letter sticks in the bark.' And what are their results? Simply the facts they have ascertained. .Nowhere in the Bill is it stated that the board to be appointed is to submit its opinion and recommendations and suggestions to the minister, to the government, or to the House, and upon the facts so ascertained and reported is to be based a tariff which is to -govern the trade of Canada. A tariff is essential iand necessary. For the country is committed to the principle of protection.
We must have a protective tariff. I am well aware that some years ago hon. gentlemen opposite and their predecessors did not have that idea. For instance, at the Liberal convention in 1893 we find the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier saying:
But I appeal to your judgment in the face of the experience of the last fifteen years under the system which was introduced toy the Conservative government which was dubbed the National Policy to say if -that system is not vicious in principle, iniquitous in

its terms and dangerous in its consequences. I say that it is vicious in principle. I want to know-and I put the question so as to be heard through the length and breadth of this country-by virtue of what principle will you tax a man to enrich his neighbour? By virtue of what principle will you tax the farmer in order to give work to the workingman? On what principle will you tax the workingman in order to give better prices to the farmer?
A little further on he stated:
I submit to you that the ideal fiscal system is the British system of free trade. Sir, my loyalty, as I have stated, does not ooze from the pores of my body, but I do want to go for an example to the mother country, aDd not to the United States, much as I respect and love the people on the other side of the line. I say the policy should be a policy of free trade, such as they have in England, but I am sorry to say that the circumstances of the country cannot admit, at present, of that policy in its entirety. But I do propose to you that from this day henceforward it should be the goal to which we aspire.
Three years after that the right hon. gentleman and his party attained power, and what happened then? Did they adopt free trade as it was in England? They adopted the policy that was dubbed the National Policy, and the country has lived under that policy to the present day. It is true that the right hon. leader of the opposition and his friends recently *endeavoured to depart from that policy, and they have been corrected for it. So we may take it as ia fact that the settled policy of Canada is a policy of protection. As other young nations have prospered under such a policy, as Germany and the United States have prospered under it, so is Canada prospering under it. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Carvell) has declared that Canada is prosperous. Why? Because of the protective policy. Now if a protective policy is right, and we believe it is right, we must see to it that the protection is a reasonable one. I believe that every supporter of the government in this House is in favour of a reasonable policy of protection. They do not want a high protection, but they want some measure of protection, and if it is necessary to have a tariff it (must be a sane tariff. In order to have a sane tariff it is necessary to know the facts. I think I may state it as a principle that a protective tariff that will be justified by the country must be one which, in respect to the various commodities which are produced in Canada, either largely or entirely from our own raw material, will be based on the cost of the production of the article imported, the cost of its transportation to Canada plus the duty, equalling the cost of production in Canada plus a reasonable profit to manufacturers.
Now what	does such a principle
involve? It involves the necessity of an inquiry into the cost of production at home and abroad, the necessity of an inquiry	into the transportation rates,
into the capitalization of great companies, into the cost of labour, and all other things which go to make up the equation I have mentioned.
If that be necessary, we must have capable men and experienced men to make that inquiry. It has been suggested by an hon. member on tlhe other side that it was the duty of the Finance Minister to visit the factories and industrial centres, and find out for himself how matters stand. Imagine a minister visiting all those factories to find out what was going on; imagine him attending all the labour congresses, all the farmers' conventions, in order to ascertain their wishes and their views. What would happen in his department while he was gone? Already the ministers of this government have too much work on their hands, so much that it is impossible for them to look after the details of their offices; and yet this hon. gentleman proposes to throw upon their shoulders the additional duty of visiting all the manufacturing establishments in this country. I think the true solution of this question lies in the establishment of the commission that is proposed by this Bill. It will be necessary for the government to ascertain the facts in order that they may formulate a policy based thereon. It will not do for the farmer to say that he must be protected to the detriment of his fellow citizens, or for the labourer to say that he must be protected to the exclusion of all others, or for the manufacturer to say the same thing; This Tariff Commission must ascertain just what facts are causing the contention of each class. If the tariff is to be so arranged that important object which should claim the 'attention of this 'Commission, that the cost of the production of the article in the foreign country, with the cost of transportation to Canada plus the duty, is to equal the cost of production in Canada plus a reasonable profit to the producer, if then that point is departed from downwards, the result will be that the Canadian producer will lose the Canadian market, the labouring man will lose an opportunity for employment in Canada at fair wagfes and the manufacturer will have to go out of business. On the other hand, if the tariff is raised beyond that point, there will shortly arise what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) described as informal trusts and combines, which are things not to be desired. The hon. gentleman said that they had already arisen. Perhaps they have, but why have they arisen? Because the tariff has not been properly adjusted, because it is not

correct in principle. If they have arisen they have arisen under the administration of the late government. But a proper tariff will correct those evils, will prevent the origination of combines. Therefore, I say it is very desirable that the government should ascertain all the facts, obtain all the information possible, on which to base a sane tariff, and such a tariff will undoubtedly correct the irregularities 'and discrepancies wihicih are now complained of. We are hearing complaints from the farmers of this country, we are hearing complaints from the western farmers that the tariff bears unequally upon them, and I am inclined to think that it does. But I am pleased to have the assurance of some members of the government that one of the first things that will he done by the Tariff Commission will be to ascertain the facts concerning the condition of the agriculturists in Canada. If that is done, I feel confident that better conditions may toe brought about for 'the farmer, that the interests of the employed will toe conserv.ed without prejudice to the employer, that the interests of the manufacturer will toe safeguarded without -any detriment to the workingman or the farmer. Ail these various interests must be considered in order to frame a tariff that will bear equally upon all! classes of our population. If a proper tariff is obtained protecting properly the farmer, the industrial labourer and the manufacturer our country will prosper and many people will not have to resort as they did before 1879 to the soup kitchen for their existence.


William Cameron Edwards: I wish to direct the attention of the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) to page 2495 of 'Hansard', January, 1911, which contained the speech of Hon. Mr. Fielding with regard to this reciprocity agreement. I asked the hon. member: How much did the Liberal party propose to reduce the duty on cement by the reciprocity agreement? His answer was, 8 cents. I said next: How7 did that compare with the duty on cement imposed by the United States government? His answer was it made it equal. I said no, it did not.
Under the reciprocity agreement I want to refer the hon. member to the page already quoted where the minister says that under the reciprocity agreement the United States tariff will be 8 cents. The rate proposed by Canada will be 11 cents. The reduction proposed by Canada was 1J cents. I ask the hon. gentleman to take that into consideration along with his statements in. answer to my questions a while ago and see if he feels justified in the heat he displayed and the rather discourteous manner in which he referred to myself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend asked about coal, and I said 8 cents.


Mr. ATKINS.: 


William Cameron Edwards: I was not talking about coal, I w7as talking about cement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was talking about coal, he asked the American rate, and I said it was the same, that it would bring it to the same.


William Cameron Edwards: ' Hansard ' to-morrow will show your position to be even more ridiculous than ever. 1


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: I heard the question put by the hon. member for Frontenac .(Mr. Edwards), and I am positive that the question could only have related to the proposed reduction of the duty on coal, under the proposed reciprocity agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does not do to say oh, oh. The hon. member w7as talking about coal when the hon. member for Frontenac put the question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was talking about coal.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: It was not my intention to take any part in this debate, but after some of the view's which have been expressed with reference to this Bill for the appointment of a Tariff Commission, I feel I w'ould not he doing my duty to myself or to my constituents if I did not discuss for a few moments some of these questions. I was not surprised to hear the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) advocating the appointment of a Tariff Comission, or advocating a protective tariff in this country. This is the same hon. member who, last year, when the reciprocity proposals were before this House, a measure v'hich presented to the people of western Canada at least, a measure of tariff relief, of freer trade and new markets, said that if the reciprocity agreement went through it was one bulwark of the grand old doctrine of protection gone. I am not surprised that he is in favour of a Tariff Commission which is designed to get. excuses to increase the tariff instead of reducing it.
I was more surprised when I heard the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen)who is a friend of mine, and wdiose friendship I hope always to retain, advocating the doctrine of protection in this House this afternoon. I am unable to understand as a western man how' any man in this parliament who represents a western constituency can advocate protection. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) was the gallant champion of the farmers' rights in this country. He was the man who moved

for the reduction of duties on, agricultural implements and at the same time,- when the reciprocity agreement was before the House and the country, an agreement which included the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements, was one of the, most ardent opponents of that agreement. Hon. members must be judged by their actions rather than by their words. I was not so much surprised at the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) to whose addresses I always listen with a great deal- of pleasure, as they are full of poetry, full of eloquence, and whom I am glad to follow in most things except politics. But I apply to him the same remarks as I have applied to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, how any man representing a constituency in western Canada with the economic conditions now existing there can stand here and advocate the doctrine of a high protective tariff, I cannot very well understand, and I think I know something about the economic conditions^ that exist at least in Saskatchewan and in part of the province of Manitoba.


Mr. STAPLES.: Who advocated a high protective tariff?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend has heard what I have to say, I say again that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the hon. member for Brandon have to-day advocated the maintenance of a protective tariff in Canada.


William D. Staples: You said a high protective tariff?


William Melville Martin: You can take -that out of it if you like, and I have no doubt my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) is prepared to advocate the same views as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. These hon. members during the late parliament and the parliament before, were the most ardent advocates of the reduction of the duties on agricultural implements and yet when the reciprocity proposals came before this House and the country every one of them, when they had a chance of supporting a specific reduction, opposed that particular agreement. That is the position they are in to-day and these gentlemen, ever since I have been in westr ern Canada, have gone through that country stating that the Liberal party had never reduced the tariff and that the Conservative party in western Canada was the party in favour of a low tariff. I have heard these gentlemen say that on the platform. I would support the Liberal policy to-day as during the past few years, if for nothing else than for the reduction of tariff they made in connection with the British preference. That was a substantial reduction in the tariff. The Conservative party has for years been directly opposed as shown by
their speeches and votes in this House, to the British preference. At the ,same time, during the recent election, they shouted loyalty from the housetops and said that we in the west would interfere with the British preference because we wanted to trade more freely with the United States. They say the Liberal party never reduced the tariff and there is no difference in the policies of the parties with respect to the tariff. Every member of this House who is familiar with the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce knows that the average rate of duty on goods dutiable and free entering Canada in 1896 was about 19 per cent, whereas in the past few years under the Liberal administration it has been about 15 per cent. You say that means nothing to the consumers? I say that during the fifteen or sixteen years of the Liberal administration, it saved the people of this country $100,000,000 as compared with what they would have paid if the old Conservative tariff of 1894 had remained in force.
The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) referred to cement this afternoon and he said that the reason for the difference in price of cement in western Canada as compared with Ontario is the excessive freight rates. The hon. member for North Grey was in a measure correct. There is a large difference in the price caused by'the excessive freight rates we pay on cement entering western Canada. But I call attention to this fact that in western Ontario to-day the farmers and the contractors, every consumer, is paying for cement $1.75 per barrel whereas in Buffalo directly across the line, the price is $1.25. What is the cause of that? It is not freight rates, it is that immense cement merger which I believe was one of the greatest steals ever perpetrated in Canada, which has made a millionaire of one man, Max. Aitken, has enabled him to go to the old country, to get a seat in the House of Commons and obtain a knighthood.
And that was all done by the tariff. If these so-called lords of high finance sitting in Montreal can purchase cement plants throughout Canada for twelve million dollars, capitalize them for eighteen million dollars and put the rake-off of six million dollars in their pockets, who is going to pay for all that watered stock. It is the man who buys the cement, the man who wants to put a cement floor in his stable that pays for that over-capitalization. And Sir, I say that is caused by the protective tariff on cement.
But somebody will say to me: what is your position on the tariff; you are a moderate protectionist. Well, I do not acknowledge the name of protectionist at all; I have always supported a tariff for revenue, and I do not believe

in framing a tariff from the standpoint of protection. I believe that the tariff of this country, particularly on the necessaries of life should be reduced. I do not want to see it wiped off altogether, but I say: reduce it gradually. I am not an enemy of the Manufacturers' Association, nor of any manufacturer in this country, but I say there are a great many manufacturing industries in Canada that could reasonably stand a small reduction in the tariff at the present time, and cement is one of them.
Take the tariff on agricultural implements. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) and the Conservative member for the province of Manitoba, will all agree with me when I say that the manufacturers of agricultural implements could reasonably stand a reduction in the tariff to the figure of ten per cent. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition. I believe that some of my Conservative friends in Manitoba would vote with me in a proposition to reduce the tariff on agricultural implements to ten per cent. These agricultural implement manufacturers have been competing for years with other agricultural implements in Australia and in Eussia, and of recent years in France, and surely they can compete in their own markets with a lower tariff than the present rate of seventeen and a half per cent.
Not long ago I referred to the Canadian tanner's combine in this House, and my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) did not agree with me, and he gave an explanation of why the price of canned goods in western Canada had increased since the formation of the Canadian Can-ners' combine. I may tell the House that during the past year and a half the price of canned goods in my district has increased from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent on all lines of goods. Is it any wonder that the people of the province of Saskatchewan are not very anxious to support a protectionist tariff for the benefit of the manufacturers?


Mr. MAKSHALL.: What is the cause of the increase in the price of canned goods?


William Melville Martin: My hon friend will not be at a loss to give some explanation for that increased price.


David Marshall: Answer that question if you can.


William Melville Martin: I will tell you then, it is because the Canadian canners have formed a combine in Ontario and have unduly enhanced the price of canned goods.


David Marshall: That is not so at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I want to say-


William Melville Martin: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) has the floor.


William Melville Martin: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) wish to ask a question?


David Marshall: Yes, you are making a statement which you cannot back up.


William Melville Martin: I quite realize the anxiety of my hon. friend (Mr Marshall) for whom I have the greatest respect, but I say that the great difficulty with the Tory government we have now in power, is that one half of its supporters in the House are mixed up with combines in the province of Ontario. I do not blame these men for making all they can out of their business, but I am giving you the point of view of the people in the province of Saskatchewan. If I lived in Ontario like my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) I might take a different view of the matter and especially if I held a large block of stock in the Canadian Canners' combine.
I would take the articles which are necessities for the consuming population of this country and I would reduce the tariff on them until it reached, say, a minimum of ten per cent. It may not make much difference to some men in this House who become millionaires by reason of the protective tariff whether they pay five dollars or six dollars for a pair of boots, but it makes a great deal of difference to the people who live in the rural parts of Ontario and Saskatchewan and the other provinces of the Dominion, and so I would reduce the tariff on boots and shoes to a nominal rate. I would take gasolene, and oil, and tinware, and kitchen" utensils and I would reduce the tariff to a minimum on them.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) aware that the late government which he supported raised the duties on boots and shoes by five per cent, and never reduced the tariff on boots and shoes at all?


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman and all other hon. gentlemen who sit on that side of the House are always very anxious to refer to what the late government did. In answer to what my hon. friend has said I want to say that I was not in concurrence with the policy of the late government on matters of tariff and I did not agree with the tariff that was maintained by the late government. I advocated time .and again, although probably not from my place in the House, although I did on two -or three occasions advocate here a reduction in the tariff-but before the various ministers of the government I did advocate the necessity in the interests of western Canada of reducing the tariff

on the necessaries of life. That is the platform I stand on to-day and that is the platform I shall continue to stand on so long as I live in Canada. Will any one tell me what reason th'ere is why by means of a monopoly in tinware, any man in this country should be allowed to become a millionaire by taking money irom the pockets of the common people and putting it into his own pocket? And, Sir, these very same men who control the tin monopoly in Canada when other men wanted to get a tariff of ten per cent put on sheet tin to be manufactured in Canada, came to the late government in a body and opposed any tariff favour being given to anybody but themselves.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who are they?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend knows them and he knows they sit on the government benches and not on this side of the House. I say that in any matter relating to the tariff I shall always view with the greatest suspicion the action of this government because many of the government supporters sitting in this House to-day are interested in the monopolies and trusts and combines in Canada to such an extent that they cannot let the interests of the people of the country appeal to them in connection with such matters when they come before this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. LALOR.: Is it not a fact that all these combines which the hon. gentleman speaks of were organized when the Liberal government were in power?


William Melville Martin: If my hon. friend (Mr. Labor) was sharp enough to get ahead of the Liberal government in organizing a combine he is entitled to great credit for it. I 'have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. I. a lor), like the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall), has something to do with the Canadian Can-ners' combine, and I have no doubt that no matter what commodity I refer to some hon. member on that side of the House would get up and put to me a question about it. I want to say that I am in favour of a gradual reduction in duties, especially on the necessaries of life, including such articles as agricultural implements, hoots and shoes, gasolene, oil, cement, canned goods, woollens, and 'all 'articles which may be properly classified as the necessaries of life for the labouring and agricultural population. I believe that no member from the west, whether Liberal or Conservative, will venture to say that this is not a proper policy as f'ar as western Canada is concerned, and so far as the consuming masses in 'any part of Canada are concerned.
Now, there does not seem to be unanimity among the members of the government with respect to the effects of this Bill. The Secretary of State, speaking in Arnprior the other day, said:
The present government would divorce the making of tariffs from political pull; a new departure from the practice of their predecessors. A Bill has been already prepared for the establishing of a Tariff Commission which would thoroughly examine every tariff and see that it was not mixed up with politics.
According to the Secretary of State they are going to take the tariff out of politics, but according to the remarks of the Finance Minister when 'moving the .second reading of this Bill, you cannot take the tariff out of politics and that is not the object of the measure -at all.
Somebody is wrong; I presume it must have been the Secretary of State, because I believe that what the Finance Minister says is perfectly correct, that you cannot take the tariff out of politics, and I do not think we should' try to do so. The tariff is a matter of taxation, and perhaps the most important matter with which this parliament has to deal from year to year. At the same time, there does not seem to be unanimity on this subject even in the ranks of the government themselves.
Now, the only reason given by the government for bringing in this Bill is that it is for the purpose of getting information. We all agree that it is very important that we should have information with respect to goods manufactured in .this country-the cost of the raw material, the cost of labour, the cost of transportation-so as to enable us, when any item of tariff reduction or tariff increase comes before us, to form a proper opinion respecting it. But I say now exactly what I said when I spoke in the debate on the address-that I aim absolutely opposed to any Tariff Commission being appointed in this country which would in any way tend to relieve the government of the day of the responsibility of dealing with the subject of tariff taxation. We can only judge of what is the intention of the government by certain things that have occurred. I would point to one thing that occurred. A request has been made of the Prime Minister to investigate the cement combine; and what does he say? He says: this is a matter for the Tariff Commission. The hon. member for South Wellington yesterday asked the Minister of Customs whether or not certain triphammers would come into this country free of duty. They are not manufactured in Canada, and there is no reason, according to protective principles, why they should not come in free. The Minister of Customs replied that this was a question for the Tariff Commission. Before the Bill

has passed its second reading, the government are actually sheltering themselves from responsibility behind the proposed Tariff Commission.
Why does the government not take steps to investigate the cement combines? Why does it not appoint a committee of this House for that purpose?


Mr. BRADBURY.: Why did not the late government investigate it?


William Melville Martin: If the late government were in power to-day there would be a committee now to investigate the cement combine.


George Henry Bradbury: Wno allowed this combine to be created? Was it not the hon. gentleman's friends who refused to stop it when their attention was called to what was contemplated by the present combine?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend talks nonsense. He does not give the com-binesters, the heads of the mergers who sit on his own side of the House the credit of having brains enough to form that cement merger. I have not a personal acquaintance with the men behind the cement combine; no doubt my hon. friend has. I say we can only judge of the object the government have in view in appointing the Tariff Commission by the straws which indicate which way the wind blows. That object is to have a body of men behind which they can shelter themselves from responsibility when any question of tariff increase or tariff reduction is brought before them.
Now, who asked for this commission? Certainly the people whom I represent have never asked for it. The statement has been made in this debate that this matter was discussed from one end of this country to the other. As far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, that is not the case. No Conservative in that province during the recent campaign ever discussed it. We in the west have not asked for it; we would like some time to discuss it; I would like to know what the people of the province of Saskatchewan think of it before I can cast an intelligent vote on this measure. Therefore, I am in favour of delaying this Bill for a time. Some may say, as I have heard Conservative members say in the lobbies of this House, that it does not matter very much what the people of the west think about anything. There is scarcely a man from the province of Ontario sitting in this House to-day who knows anything about the needs of western Canada; otherwise the people of Ontario would not have voted against the reciprocity proposals to enable us to trade more freely with the United States. If I need any proof of what I say, Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
it is found in the fact that just as soon as there is a grain blockade in the west, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways asK the Interstate Commerce Commission to reduce the rates on grain to Duluth to correspond with rates to Port Arthur in order to give us temporary relief. Why did they not consider that last September? We have had grain blockades in the west for many years, and shall have them for many years to come, and the only way to give us relief is to allow us to ship our grain over American railways. If hon. gentlemen who occupy prominent positions in the government to-day would go into the province of Saskatchewan and see grain rotting on the farms of men who have not enough money, some of them, to build proper granaries to house their grain, I think they would change their views on this matter.	*
I was rather interested in a declaration of policy by the Minister of Finance. _ I have always regarded the Conservative party as the high protectionist party in this country. There is the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) for instance, he is a high tariff advocate; so are many other members from the province of Ontario. But I was somewnat interested in what the Minister of Finance said with respect to his policy, and I have no doubt it is the policy of the government with respect to protection. He said:	I am a
believer in adequate protection. He did not define adequate protection.


Mr. BURNHAM.: How do you define high tariff?


William Melville Martin: I will give my hon. friend a definition of high tarifl given in this House, I think, by the present Senator Taylor, formerly a prominent member of the Conservative party in this House.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: A Chinese wall.


William Melville Martin: They mean a Chinese wall, as the hon. member for Red Deer has just said-a tarifi wall high enough to keep out competition from any foreign country. Either the hon. member for Halton or the hon. member for Peel said he was a believer in putting a Chinese wall around this country so that it would prevent any goods from a foreign country coming into this country at all.


Mr. BLAIN.: I never heard of it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I will say for myself that the hon. gentleman has no right to make such a reference to me. I will state what I did say at one time in regard to agricultural protection, that I was prepared to put a Chinese wall around Canada, and for the protection of the western people I am prepared to do it to-day. I spoke of agricultural protection; I made no refer-

ence to manufactured goods. Now I hope the _ hon. gentleman will not repeat that again and misrepresent me.


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman is the last member of the House that I would attempt to misrepresent in anyway; but in reading some of the speeches made by these hon. gentlemen, I got that impression. It may have been somebody else.


Richard Blain: If it be necessary for me to deny it, I give the statement the most emphatic denial.


William Melville Martin: I am somewhat surprised at the anxiety of hon. gentlemen opposite to pose as free traders. We have had a definition of ' adequate protection ' given by hon. gentlemen opposite. According to that definition, it is protection sufficient to keep out the competition of any foreign country. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said that he would be glad to give the people of the west adequate protection to their agricultural products. The people of the west however would not thank him very much for any such protection. What they desire is not protection but more profitable markets for their products and easier access to those markets, but taking the meaning given to adequate protection by the Tory party, namely, protection sufficient to keep out competition from foreign countries, how would that affect the great provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, where there are practically no manufacturing establishments. We are compelled to pay excessive freight rates on a 2,000 mile haul of manufactured goods from the east, and are compelled by our protective tariff to buy these goods in our eastern provinces. If we had instead a tariff of 10 per cent on these goods, we could buy some of them in the United States, and the day is coming when we shall be forced to do so. We shall be forced to do so because of the increased cost of living in the west due largely to the excessive prices we have to pay for the purpose of building up the manufacturers in the east. Mianufacturers in Ontario and Quebec will do well to consider this point, for the day will come, when we shall refuse to buy goods from Canadian manufacturers.


An hon. MEMBER.: Are the manufacturers of western Canada in favour of adequate protection ?


William Melville Martin: I shall have to refer my hon. friend to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) for a definition of '-adeiquiate protection.' So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned and a large part of Alberta and Manitoba, we want no protective tariff at all because 87
we have no manufacturing industries there. We are in the initial period of our existence, thousands of people are coming in to settle in these provinces, why should they be compelled to pay 17J per cent duty on their agricultural machinery and 25 per cent to 30 per cent on their boots and shoes and 25 per cent on their tinware for the purpose of building up manufacturing establishments in eastern Canada.'


An hon. MEMBER.: Demagogue.


William Melville Martin: An hon. gentleman has referred to me as a demagogue. I would like him to meet me on any platform in Regina and apply to me that epithet.


Mr. NICKLE.: May I ask a question?


William Melville Martin: I have no objection to being asked questions but I have been interrupted pretty often.


William Folger Nickle: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he expresses the policy of the west, when he says they desire free trade and the complete overthrow of our present fiscal policy?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend is going too far when he imputes that statement to me. I do not want to be understood as saying that I am a free trader out and out at the present moment. The hon. gentleman could not have been here when I gave my ideas regarding a protective tariff, or he would not have put the question he did. I said I was in favour of a gradual reduction on the necessities of life until the tariff was reduced on such goods to a minimum of ten per cent.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to a protective tariff in the west just now because manufacturing industries
there iare in their infancy? In that ease when would he be in favour of it?


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, is trying to refer again to infant industries in the Dominion. We have heard in western Canada about infant industries needing protection, and no doubt my hon. friend thinks that .the manufacturing industries in the east are still in the infant stage.' What I say is that we have no manufacturing institutions of any kind in Saskatchewan to-day. Possibly if we had a large number of manufacturing industries there, which would supply our needs, the manufacturers, and probably a large number of the people, might be in favour of protecting them. But I am endeavouring to point out the urgent needs of western Canada at present, and what will be its urgent needs for years to come. There are people who think that in western Canada we are going to build up large manufacturing institutions. I do not think that



is at all possible. It is certainly not possible to anything like the same degree as in Ontario where you have water-power, cheap fuel, and cheap labour to a much greater extent than in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta. I do not wish to acquire the reputation of being an extremist in this House, but I want to put my views fairly before you. I have expressed them to-night in a stronger way than I probably would if speaking in western Canada because here I am addressing many representatives from eastern Canada.
There is a provision in this Bill which strikes me as somewhat peculiar. We know now that the policy of the government is one of adequate protection. Section 4 provides:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada per the commission shall, under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as
Under a government whose policy is one of adequate protection, the minister, who is the exponent of that policy, is to direct the Tariff Commission to inquire into certain things and report to the minister. It seems to me that instead of reporting to the minister, it ought to report to parliament, How is the ordinary member of parliament to get the information which this commission collects unless it reports to parliament direct? Then su/biclause 2 provides that the commission shall make inquiry into any other matter upon which the'minister desires information. This whole Bill is based on the policy of adequate protection advocated by the Minister of Finance; and the members of this commission, who will no doubt be adequate protectionists, are only to investigate such things as they are instructed to investigate by this adequate protectionist minister.
Subsection 6 of clause 5 provides:
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 manner as to be available for the use of any business competitor Otr rival of the person, firm or corporation, respectively, but this subsection shall not apply to an inquiry under subsection 3 of section 4 of this Act.
If that means business secrets, some peculiar method of carrying on business by which a manufacturer is enabled to profit more than his fellow manufacturers, I would not make any objection. But that section leaves the door wide open to make anything you like 'confidential information.' I submit that it would be safer to draft a clause more definite in its form to make clearer what is meant by this expression.


William Melville Martin: I think the whole question of the commission comes down to ia matter of what kind of men are appointed on it. As was said by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) there are various classes of economists in the matter of the tariff. There are high protectionists -perhaps nobody will admit that he is a high protectionist. Some call themselves moderate protectionists as does the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meig-hen). Then there are men who call themselves free traders. I submit, with all due deference to the Finance Minister, that he ought to put a man on the commission whose views tend somewhat towards free trade, if he wishes to deal fairly with the consuming masses of the country. If he puts only protectionists on the commission, whenever they take evidence as to the manufacture of any class of goods, they 'will have their minds biased in favour of the view that we should have some protection for this particular class of goods, and, if possible, will increase the amount of protection given under the present tariff. I have no idea whom the Minister of Finance will appoint on the commission. But I venture to predict that its membership will not include a farmer from western Canada. The minister will probably say he wants tariff experts. If that be so, then why not increase the staff in the Department of Trade and Commerce and his own department and gather information in that way? I cannot see but that he will get exactly the same result, and with less expense than by creating a tariff commission. It is not likely that there will be on the commission a representative of the great consuming classes, but probably they will all be men who are in favour of protection, which means that they will be taken from the ranks of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I hope not.


William Melville Martin: I hope the hon.' gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) will see to it that a farmer from western Canada goes on the commission.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman may depend on it that I will do all I can to have that done.


William Melville Martin: When the commission is appointed we shall be able to judge how much influence the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner) has with the government. I have spoken a good deal longer than I had intended to, and I have dealt with a good many matters of which I did not intend to speak when I rose, but which I was led to discuss by questions (put by hon. members opposite. I am opposed to the Bill and will support the amendment of the hon. member for South Weil-

ington (Mr. Guthrie) for these reasons- some of which I have not dealt with at length: It tends to weaken the doctrine of ministerial responsibility; the purpose of the Bill, as stated by the Minister of Finance, can be attained by less objectionable methods; there is no demand for such legislation; the appointment of such a commission means the recognition of the principle of protection as a necessity in this country; this legislation is introduced at the request of the manufacturers who are interested in maintaining protection, and the result will be to foist on the people of Canada a higher protective tariff.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon).: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to introduce any new information into a debate which has commanded the attention of the House so long as this has done. But I rise, with your permission to speak on the Bill, and to give it my support. I believe that the -principle of the Bill is proper and that the methods by which that principle is to be applied are workable. To my mind, there is no question more important that can engage the attention of parliament than one of this kind, one relating to the tariff which regulates the trade and commerce of our country. The tariff might well be compared to a tree. Trunk, branches, leaves, blossoms and fruit are in Ottawa, but its roots ramify to every part of this great Canada of ours. I think that an unprejudiced survey of the history of Canada since confederation, will convince any unprejudiced inquirer that the people of Canada believe in a protectionist policy. And no hon. member has yet risen in his place who has seen fit to deny that proposition. The hon. member from Regina (Mr. Martin) came near to denying that he was a protectionist, but he himself admitted that he believed in protection for revenue only. The money which we require to carry on our public works, to build our railways, to operate our canals, to dredge our harbours, to light our coasts, to pay our steamship subsidies, to protect our fisheries, and for ali our public services, comes from this source- the tariff. Anything therefore which enters so completely into every phase of our national life is a matter which requires the most serious consideration of *hose whom the Canadian people elect to represent them in parliament.
The Finance Minister has substituted a Bill to create a tariff commission and to define the powers of that commission. Some hon. members have said that behind the clauses of the Bill there lie hidden in the deep recesses of the minds of the Finance Minister and his colleagues a desire to endow that commission with 87i
powers superior to the powers of parliament. Sir, in a democratic country like Canada, that would be impossible. The parliament of Canada could not and would not create a body superior to parliament itself; the creature is always inferior to the creator. And, as I read the Bill, there is no delegation wathever of the powers of parliament. Nor is there any -conflict of power, if I read the Bill correctly, -and I think I do. I anticipate -that the men who are to be appointed on this commission will be, in time at least, specialists in that particular line. Some hon. members who have spoken in opposition to this measure, seem to believe that this commission will have legislative powers. The two gentlemen who spoke first in opposition to this measure, had that in -mind, judging from the tenor of their remarks. This commission can have no legislative powers; at the very most, it can only be an advisory body. Canada is a democratic country, and the men who come here to legislate for Canada and the people of Canada themselves, would not stand for any abrogation of the powers given to parliament.
Parliament is the one body that legislates for the people of Canada, and if the government were to attempt to pass over to a commission that power which parliament possesses, parliament would be exceeding its functions. Now as I construe the meaning of this Bill, this commission is to be purely an advisory body, a body of specialists who shall gather information to submit to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, upon which they may frame a tariff, should they at any time deem it advisable to do so. The government may accept the advice of this commission, the Bill does not say that they shall accept it; they may not. But that body will be in a position to furnish the Cabinet a large amount of information with respect to the various commodities covered by our tariff, information which they cannot get under the present system. It has been said that the Tariff Commission will not present opinions, but facts. Now if there is anything that the government require in framing a tariff it is facts relating to the cost of production of the various commodities that enter into our complex commercial life. Some one has said that this will result in an irrational tariff. I do not think any argument has been advanced which -supports that -contention. In fact, if I view the Bill aright it will have a tendency to keep a balance a-s between -the manufacturer and the producer in Canada. Now, how is this to be done? It is going to be done by examining the cost of production at home and abroad. The commissioners will have power to investigate conditions, to learn how much it costs to produce the commodities we use in onr everyday life.

It will also have power to take expert advice from specialists in any particular line. It seems to me that information of that kind would be of great use to the Cabinet. The commissioners will be able to find out the cost of the raw material. It has been well said that the raw material of one manufacturer is the finished product of another. I take it that the tariffs of all, countries are more or less approximate to a scientific tariff. I believe it is impossible to frame a real scientific tariff. A tariff can only approximate the actual cost of any commodity. But if this commission submits to our government information that is only approximate as to the cost of an article, it will supply information that no Cabinet of Canada since confederation has ever had. Then they will inquire as to the cost of assembling these raw materials in the final manufacture, and that will include the cost of producing the raw material, and the .transportation to the point of assemblage. After that, it will inquire into the cost of manufacture, and the factors which enter into that are the cost of labour, the cost of the plant and interest thereon, the insurance on the plant, and so forth. Further, they will inquire into the cost of selling that commodity. This is information which has never been given, either to the government or the people of Canada. With this information at hand they will be able to compare the cost of producing these articles in Canada and abroad. Then they will Ibe prepared to advise the government as to what measure of protection is .required upon any one of these commodities.
Mr. Speaker, I am a protectionist, I subscribe to the doctrine of protection. The protection I advocate is the difference between the cost of producing an article by our foreign competitors and the cost of producing that article at home, plus a reasonable profit to our Canadian manufacturer. That is the protection I believe in, and that is the protection which I believe the people of Canada in general endorse. But this profit must not be too large, nor must it be too small. If it is too large, it will create the combines and mergers which some hon. gentlemen opposite referred to. I think this commission, if it lives up to the expectations which we have of it, will prevent absolutely the existence of combines and mergers, that is one of the things which commends it to my mind. The commissioners will have information as to the cost of production which will make it possible for our government to frame a tariff under which combines and mergers cannot profitably exist. I take it that is a field where this commission will find .its most useful work; it will maintain that balance between interests that is so esential for the permanent progress of Canada. Up to Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).
the present time we have had in Canada nothing but a hit and miss policy with regard to tariffs, absolutely without any sound reason at all. One section of the community interested in a particular commodity will come to the government and submit their arguments, wnile the people who are opposed to them will not have an opportunity of doing so; consequently the government will frame a tariff, not after investigation into both sides of the question, but upon the recommendations of one side alone. This Bill is going to eliminate that injustice, because this commission is going to investigate sources, to find out what it costs to produce .an article that enters into consumption.
In the negotiations which preceded the reciprocity pact between Canada and the United States, we w'ere shown the striking difference between the manner we frame our tariffs and the manner they frame them in the United States. I was much impressed with the fact, during these negotiations, that the men who came to Ottawa on behalf of the United States government were possessed of knowledge which our government did not possess. They had detailed information with reference to various branches of industry in the United States which our people did not have with regard to the industries of Canada. I am in the judgment of this House if that is not the fact. It was marvellous to my mind how the men who conducted the negotiations on the part of the President of the United States, and who came to Ottawa, were seized of all the conditions which surround the various products of this country as well as of their own country. They gave me information about the products of Canada and the cost of production in this country which I do not think our own government possessed, information which our own commissioners did not have, because they did not have a body of trained experts to procure the information for them. Now the commission provided for by this Bill will fill that gap.	.
Mr. Speaker, any man who studies political economy, even in the most superficial way, will admit that the home market is the best. It is cur desire to preserve this home market. In an agricultural country like this we must have manufacturing communities to consume the products of the soil, the products of the farm, the products of the sea and the products of the mine. That is the policy which we are aiming at, we want to build up a home market which shall consume the products we produce within the borders of our own country. Now the more you reduce the cost of transportation between the producer and the consumer the cheaper will the article be to the consumer. Consequently the home market is the best.

It is, therefore, to build up a home market that the Conservative party has always directed its energies, and I hope always will.
Some one has been good enough to send to the members quotations on the question of trade. I have here a little card sent out by the Canadian Home Market Association. This contains a quotation by one of the greatest presidents the United States ever had, President Lincoln, who said :
I do not know much about the tariff but I know this much:	When we buy goods
abroad we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy goods at home we get both the goods and the money.
That epitomizes far better than any words of mine could do, the situation which confronts Canada to-day with regard to our home market; when we sell at home we gelt both the goods and the money. It is said by some philosophers and people who study political economy that there are three stages in the life of every nation. The first stage is that of free trade in which the nation trades with other nations further advanced in the arts of commerce. The second stage is that in which the nation promotes manufacturing and transportation and adapts commercial regulations and the third stage is that in which that nation gradually reverts to free trade, to lower duties and the removal of the restrictions on trade. If that is true, Canada is in the second stage, we are trying to protect our manufactures, to build up a home market and our history will show that we have mortgaged our future to advance the transportation of our country. Some one has said that this is an innovation. It is no innovation, some of the most advanced nations of the earth are adopting the policy which we are asking the parliament of this country to adopt. My hon. friend opposite yesterday said that this was a cheap Yankee device brought forth from the fertile mind of the Minister of Finance. Are we governed in Canada by the laws of the Medes and Persians that change not? Political economy is a progressive science and Canada, being a progressive country, requires a progressive political economy. We are the heirs of all the ages, we are the people who observe what other nations are doing and adopt anything that commends itself to us. Then why should we not adofpt this method, why should we not -aidoipt something originating in another country? Reference has been made to the fact that the United States has a tariff board. Is that a reason why we should not have one? What are the functions of that board. First to select an article and examine into its sources of supply; (2) to find out the adtual cost of production as near as that may (be, and (3) to
get accurate information of prices at home and abroad, and Investigate local and general conditions with regard to foreign competition. That is exactly what we want to do.
Some hon. gentlemen have referred to Germany, Gentlemen within the sound of my voice to-night know the history of Germany, how that country from a few scattered states has become not only one of the greatest martial nations, hut one of the greatest commercial, nations in the world. Why? Because she adopted the Zollverin and .following the system of protection and so welded those states together with free trade between them and protection against the world until we (have the Germany of -to-day. How is that done? How does Germany make (her tariff? Germany is competing in the markets of the world with the most economic nations. How does she make her tariff? Her tariff is revised annually by a commission of experts and further than that (the German Emperor who has such a close interest in anything affecting the German Empire, a few years' ago created what i.s called a Commissioner-atz or Commercial Council and I have this from a gentleman who has travelled in the German Empire and has observed for himself the conditions there. This is what he says:
The present German Emperor some years ago adopted the plan of calling this Commercial Council the leading commercial men of the empire, taking representatives from the most important branches of trade and commerce. This council has no political complexion whatever, but i6 simply an advisory board, who advise the Emperor and the government in regard to all commercial matters, such well known men as Herr Krapp, Count Hinkle Donnismarke, and Herr Tissen, representative' ironmasters, were, or are, members of this council; at least this I know that Herr Krupp and Count Donnismarke were members, and I fancy Herr Tissen also now is; other men such as Director Stahl of the Vulcan Iron Works, representing the shipbuilding industry; Herr Balin, the general manager of the Hamburg-Amerioan Line, Representing the shipping industry; other men recognized as being leaders in the textile trades; the coal and other mining trades; and the leading industries of the country, are also members. The qualification is that they must be eminent in their profession or business and in good commercial repute. Their duties are to advise the Emperor and the government on honour and to the best of their ability in regard to any question on which the Emperor may desire advice, or information, particularly when changes are contemplated in the German tariff, or when any foreign country contemplates or actually makes changes in its tariff which affect the export of the fatherland. The members of the council receive no remuneration whatever. They are given the title of ' Commis-sioneraitz/ and the fact that a man has been


Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats).: Mr. Speaker, had I spoken earlier in this debate I might have spoken at greater length than 1 intend to-night, but other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, especially my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) have dealt so exhaustively with the subject and have so ably placed the views of the people I represent before the House that little remains for me to add. However, 1 do not wish to give a silent vote on this important matter and I shall briefly state my views. Last summer the Prime Minister made a trip to the west and he was met at almost every point by delegations of farmers who asked him many questions in connection with the tariff and the reply of the right hon. gentleman always was that he intended if elected to appoint a tariff commission for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. That term ' ascertaining the facts' was a favourite expression of his, and the legislation we have before us to-day is evidently an attempt to carry out that promise on his part. Now, with regard to ascertaining facts I say that we have already ascertained many facts which it does not need the services of a commission to investigate. We have ascertained the fact that agricultural implements are very much dearer than they should be and that the tariff is to a large extent responsible for that. We have also ascertained the fact that the manufacturers of Canada are well able to do without the protection they have been getting. We know that they are able to compete successfully with their rivals in other countries, not only in Great Britain, but in South Africa, Australia, The Argentine, I understand too that even in the United States some Canadian agricultural implements have been sent over there, the duty paid, and actually sold at a less price than the articles manufactured in that country. These facts are known to us and I do not see why there is any necessity for an expensive tariff commission to make inquiry into them. Now, when a western man is speaking about the tariff the question of the duty on agricultural implements generally comes up. Every farmer is anxious to develop his land and he cannot do so unless he has the proper implements which are numerous and expensive, especially in the west. I might mention some of these implements that the farmer requires; he needs a breaking plough, a gang plough, a harrow, a drill, a disc harrow, a reaper, a wagon, etc., and the purchase price of these is a very heavy expense to him. It is not to
the interests of eastern Canada that the farmer should be restricted in his operations and he certainly cannot farm to the same advantage unless he can get the necessary implements at a reasonable price.
I think the very first thing the Tariff Commission should arrange for is that there should be a material reduction on the duties on agricultural implements, but I do not know that we can look for that from any Tariff Commission that will be appointed by a Conservative government.
We heard to-night some of the old protectionist theories that we have been hearing of for many years. We have heard about the benefit of the home market, a market which the people would build up with their own money. After all, we in the west do not find the home market to be a great benefit to us. Take the article of wheat. The quantity of wheat we can consume in Canada is not more than 50,000,000 bushels, and if the production of wheat in Canada were restricted to that quantity, a good many of the manufacturers might close up their businesses; there would not be much smoke coming out of tall chimneys, and there would not be many men employed, to create this home market. The prices of most of the products of the west are based, not upon the prices originating in the home market, but on the export prices. This is true of wheat, cattle and other staple articles. I am not going to belittle the benefit of a home market, but at the same time we may pay too dearly for it, and that is what I think the people are doing. I do not think we can entertain any hope that this Tariff Commission will bring about very much change in that regard.
Now, Sir, I do not say that we should not have a tariff at all. A revenue must be raised, and the farmers like everybody else have to pay their share. It is a question, however, whether or not the implements of industry should not be as nearly free as possible. If the people are encouraged to greater production in that way, the revenue will not suffer. They will have more money with which to buy other duty-paying articles such as luxuries, which I think should bear the greater part of the cost of governing the country. That principle is observed in the tariff with respect to some of the professions, because I find that surgical and dental instruments are on the free list. I am not gioing to object to that. It probably enables surgeons and dentists to procure the most modern instruments, which should of course be encouraged, though 1 do not know that this will have the effect of reducing the fees. I find that there is I no duty on surgical and dental instruments

of metal, surgical needles, X-ray apparatus and parts thereof, surgical operating tables for use in hospitals, and microscopes valued at not less than $50 retail.; also professional and scientific books for the library of any incorporated medical, law, iiterary, scientific or art association or society. These are really the tools of certain professional men. I do not see wily the implements of the farming class should not be dealt with very much on the same line.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be much exercised over the manufacturers; they are evidently wedded to their idols. The Tariff Commission is expected to take evidence as to the cost of production, so that the manufacturers can be protected in order that they may make large profits. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not appear to regard it as important to consider the cost of production of what the farmers produce. The cost of agricultural implements enters very_ largely into that, and the farmer is not in the position of the manufacturer in having a fixed price for his product. He has to have more than that-something that he has not now in the west-transportation to the markets. He has to take what he can get and pay the freight charged upon his product. I do not say that these matters can all be controlled, but some things could be controlled. The cost of the implements he has to use could to a certain extent be controlled, and I think the Tariff Commission-which no doubt will be appointed, though we on this side of .the House are qpposed to it-should take that into consideration. In order that there may be some chance of the Tariff Commission doing so, I would suggest that at least one western farmer, or at all events some capable person acquainted with the conditions in the west, be appointed upon it. Then we would have some hope of getting fair-play from this commission. Its usefulness will depend largely upon the personnel ,of its members. In conclusion, I will merely say that I am in favour of the amendment, believing that the government, instead of appointing this commission, should of their own accord bring in a Tariff Bill to reduce the duties very materially, especially on agricultural implements.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Guthrie).
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Boyer, [DOT] Brouillard, Buchanan,


Thomas MacNutt: MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
Marcile (Bagot),
i %'*
Carroll,
Carvell,
Caeh,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness) Cruise,
Delisle,
Devlin,
Eortier,
Gauthier (St.
Hyacinthe),
Gauvreau,
Guthrie,
Kay,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,
Lemieux,
Lovell,
Martin (Montreal,
St. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Michaud,
, Molloy,
, Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
I'upineau,
Paeaud,
Power,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Robb,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tobin,
Verville,
, W arnoek,
White (Victoria,
Alta.) and Wilson (Laval).-52.
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Achim,
Aikins,
Alguire,
Ames,
Aimstrong (York, 0.) Arthurs,
Ball,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elliott,
Llson,
Fisher,
Poster (Toronto, N.), Gauthier (Gaspe), Girard,
Goodeve,
Guilihault,	.
Hartt,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, O.), Jameson,
Lavallee,
Lennox,
Lesperance,
Lewie,
, Macdonell,
McLean (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Morphy,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,
Reid (Grenville), Rohidoux,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Staples,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton); Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Walker,
Wallace,
W ebster,
Weichel,

Kemp,
Kidd,
lalor,
LamaTche,
Lancaster,
White (Leeds), White (Renfrew), Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-104.
PAIRS : Messieurs
Ministerial.
Hazen,
Barnard,
Stanfield,
Fowler,
McCurdy,
Rhodes,
Bristol,
Haggart,
Wilcox,
Foster (Kings),
Baker,
Barker,
Cookshutt,
Armstrong (Lambton), Rainville,
Barnard,
McKay,
Mondou,
Barrette,
Tremain,
Currie,
Porter,
Opposition.
Emmerson,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Pugsley,
McLean,
Macdonald,
Charlton,
Gordon,
Clarke (Essex), Turgeon,
McLean (Sunbury), Bickerdike,
Douglas,
Loggie,
Marcil (Eonaventure),' Oliver,
Turriff,
Lapoint (Kamouraska) Seguin,
McC nancy,
Laipointe (Montreal), Clarke (Red Deer).
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Progress reported.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House.
Wilfrid Laurier: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Mr. BORDEN.: The Grain Bill, and then Public Works estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11,10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 9, 1912.